Resources
by
Prasad Krishna
—
last modified
Jan 26, 2012 11:13 PM
Internet governance, freedom of expression, and privacy-related resources: cases, statutes, etc.
- Karthikeyan R v Union of India — by Prasad Krishna — last modified Jan 18, 2012 07:51 PM
- The court refused to direct the government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis to be constitutionally valid under Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).
- Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India — by Prasad Krishna — last modified Jan 18, 2012 07:57 PM
- The petition sought a blanket ban on pornographic websites. The NGO had argued that websites displaying sexually explicit content had an adverse influence, leading youth on a delinquent path.
- Section 79 of the Information Technology Act — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Jan 26, 2012 11:23 PM
- Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Jan 27, 2012 01:33 AM
- The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, as notified on April 11, 2011. All errors are in the original notification.
- Section 200 Complaint in Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Feb 21, 2012 12:22 AM
- This is the complaint filed by Vinay Rai against Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, "Exboii" (sic), Shyni Blog, Topix, and others, under sections 200 and 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., read with sections 153A, 153B, 292, 293, 295A, 298, 109, 500, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
- Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011) — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Feb 21, 2012 02:02 AM
- This is the order passed on December 20, 2011 by Addl. Civil Judge Mukesh Kumar of the Rohini Courts, New Delhi. All errors of spelling, syntax, logic, and law are present in the original.
- Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. | Summons Order — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Mar 15, 2012 03:53 PM
- This is Judge Sudesh Kumar's summons order (dated December 23, 2011) by which he notes there is enough prima facie evidence to proceed with trial against the intermediaries named and their senior officials. In the order he notes that, "It seems that instead of regulating the undesirable and offensive content they have promoted the same for increasing the profits and promoting their business. They have closed their eyes and promoted obscene derogatory defamatory and inflammatory material continuously on their network. It appears from a bare perusal of the documents that prima facie the accused in connivance with each other and other unknown persons are selling, publicly exhibiting and have put into circulation obscene, lascivious content which also appeals to the prurient interests and tends to deprave and corrupt the persons who are likely to read, see or hear the same."
- Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Apr 09, 2012 06:53 AM
- Section 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
- Internet Censorship Officials' Contact Details — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Apr 17, 2012 06:00 PM
- Contact details of officials from the Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
- Comparative Analysis of Comments Submitted on Draft IT Rules — by Pranesh Prakash — last modified Apr 23, 2012 01:47 PM
- An RTI was filed asking the DIT to provide all the feedback received on its call for comments on the Draft Information Technology Rules. The feedback on the Due Diligence Rules / Intermediary Guidelines Rules have been compiled in this comparative table.