-
Mufti Aijaz Arshad Qasmi v. Facebook and Ors (Order dated December 20, 2011)
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Feb 20, 2012
—
last modified
Feb 20, 2012 06:02 PM
—
filed under:
IT Act,
Google,
Court Case,
Obscenity,
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Facebook,
Censorship,
Resources
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.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Resources
-
Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Dec 15, 2014
—
last modified
Dec 19, 2014 09:01 AM
—
filed under:
IT Act,
Court Case,
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Intermediary Liability,
Constitutional Law,
Censorship,
Section 66A,
Article 19(1)(a),
Blocking
There are currently ten cases before the Supreme Court challenging various provisions of the Information Technology Act, the rules made under that, and other laws, that are being heard jointly. Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan who's arguing Anoop M.K. v. Union of India has put together this chart that helps you track what's being challenged in each case.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
-
Update on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India
-
by
Anubha Sinha
—
published
Apr 28, 2021
—
filed under:
Limitations & Exceptions,
Copyright,
Access to Knowledge,
Court Case
Anubha Sinha provides a summary of the progress of the copyright infringement suit against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India. This article was first published in InfoJustice on March 8, 2021.
Located in
Access to Knowledge
/
Blogs
-
Vinay Rai v. Facebook India and Ors. | Summons Order
-
by
Pranesh Prakash
—
published
Mar 15, 2012
—
last modified
Mar 15, 2012 07:53 AM
—
filed under:
Freedom of Speech and Expression,
Court Case
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."
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Resources
