Centre for Internet & Society

4 items matching your search terms.
Filter the results.
Item type



















New items since



Sort by relevance · date (newest first) · alphabetically
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: , , , , , , ,
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
Blog Entry 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: , , , , , , , ,
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
Blog Entry Update on Publisher’s Copyright Infringement Suit Against Sci-Hub and LibGen in India
by Anubha Sinha published Apr 28, 2021 — filed under: , , ,
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: ,
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