Centre for Internet and Society

Indian Court Strikes Down Section of Law Punishing Offensive Posts

praskrishna — 2015-03-26T15:40:06Z

The Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a section of a law that allowed the authorities to jail people for offensive online posts, in a judgment that was regarded as a landmark ruling on free speech in India.

The blog post by Nida Najar and Suhasini Raj was published on the website of NDTV on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The law stipulated that a person could be jailed for up to three years for any communication online that was, among other things, "grossly offensive," "menacing" or "false," and for the purpose of causing "annoyance," "inconvenience" or "injury." The provisions, which led to highly publicized arrests in recent years, had been roundly criticised by legal experts who called them vague and argued that they had been used in some cases to stifle dissent.

Calling the wording so vague that "virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it," the court said "if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total."

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Center for Internet & Society, which is based in Bangalore, called the decision "amazing."
"It is in continuation of a great tradition in India: that of apex courts consistently, over the years, protecting the citizens of India from violations of human rights," he said.

India is considered by some to be one of the world's most freewheeling democracies, but the law reflected the ambivalence with which Indian officials have sometimes treated freedom of expression, occasionally citing the Constitution's allowance of "reasonable restrictions" on free speech in order to ban books, movies and other material about subjects like sex, politics and religion.

The government recently blocked the screening in India of the BBC documentary "India's Daughter," about the Delhi gang rape in 2012 that made international news.

The law, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, was passed by parliament shortly after the three-day terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008. It granted the authorities more expansive powers to monitor electronic communications for reasons of national security. That section was not a part of the court case.

In the past, critics have been particularly worried that the section of the law that was struck down was ripe for misuse at the hands of police officials often beholden to political parties.

Last week, a young man in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh became one of the latest people to be arrested under the law when the police said he incorrectly attributed a polarizing statement to the lawmaker Azam Khan on Facebook.

Other highly publicized cases include the arrest in 2012 of a professor accused of sharing cartoons mocking the chief minister of West Bengal state on Facebook and the arrest of two young women after one shared a Facebook post criticizing the virtual shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a revered right-wing political leader there. The professor is still contesting his case in court, while the case against the two young women was dropped in 2013, according to the Press Trust of India.

In a separate part of the Supreme Court judgment, the justices made it harder to force websites to take down content, although a legal expert said it remained to be seen how much of an impediment the ruling would be to blocking content.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-nida-najar-and-suhasini-raj-march-25-2015-indian-court-strikes-down-section-of-law-punishing-offensive-posts

What the experts said on live chat

praskrishna — 2015-03-26T02:35:49Z

Three eminent panellists shared their views and answered questions from readers on the Supreme Court verdict striking down Section 66 A of the IT Act that allowed the arrest of people posting “offensive content” on the Internet, in a live chat hosted by The Hindu.

The article was published in the Hindu on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan was one of the panelists.

Does this now mean anything goes on the Internet, asked one reader.

“No, the standard penal laws — against defamation, hate speech (S. 153A), religious incitement (S. 295A) — continue to apply,” said Gautam Bhatia, a practicing lawyer and author of forthcoming book “Offend, shock or disturb: Free Speech under the Constitution.” The argument that the Internet needed separate rules when it came to the content of speech was what was rejected by the Court, he said.

What was the rationale for the Court upholding Section 69 A, allowing the blocking of websites, asked another.

“One wishes that the court had paid as much attention to the blocking orders as they did to 66A,” said Lawrence Liang, lawyer and researcher at Alternative Law Forum working on free speech.

Geetha Hariharan, a Programme Officer at Centre for Internet and Society, focusing on Internet governance and freedom of expression, was the third expert on the panel.

Click here to read the full transcript of the chat

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-25-2015-what-the-experts-said-on-live-chat

Historic day for freedom of speech and expression in India

vidushi — 2015-03-26T02:19:17Z

In a petition that finds its origin in a simple status message on Facebook, Shreya Singhal vs Union of India marks a historic reinforcement of the freedom of speech and expression in India.

The article by Vidushi Marda was published in Bangalore Mirror on March 25, 2015.

Hearing a batch of writ petitions, the bench comprising Justices Rohinton F Nariman and J Chelameswar considered the constitutionality of three provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provisions under consideration were Section 66A, dealing with punishment of sending offensive messages through communication services, Section 69A which discusses website blocking and Section 79, dealing with intermediary liability.

The intent behind Section 66A was originally to regulate spam and cyber stalking, but in the last seven years not a single spammer has been imprisoned.

Instead, innocent academics have been arrested for circulating caricatures. The Court struck down the section in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional.

It held that the language of the section was "nebulous" and "imprecise" and did not satisfy reasonable restrictions under A. 19(2) of the Constitution of India.

Section 79 was meant to result in the blossoming of free speech since it stated that intermediaries will not be held liable for content created by their users unless they refused to act on take-down notices. Unfortunately, intermediaries were unable to decide whether content was legal or illegal, and when the Centre for Internet and Society in 2011 sent flawed take-down notices to seven prominent national and international intermediaries, they erred on the side of caution and over-complied, often deleting legitimate content. By insisting on a court order, the Supreme Court has eliminated the chilling effect of this Section.

Block orders issued by the Indian government to telecom operators and ISPs were shrouded in opacity.

The process through which such orders were developed and implemented was not within public scrutiny. When a film is banned, it becomes part of public discourse, but website blocking does not enjoy the same level of transparency. The person whose speech has been censored is not notified or given an opportunity to be heard as part of the executive process. Unfortunately, in dealing with Section 69A, the Court chose to leave it intact, stating that it is a "narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards."

On balance, this is a truly a landmark judgment as it is the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court has struck down any law in its entirety for a violation of free speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-vidushi-marda-march-25-2015-historic-day-for-freedom-of-speech-and-expression-in-india

Internet censorship will continue in opaque fashion

sunil — 2015-03-26T02:07:28Z

A division bench of the Supreme Court has ruled on three sections of the Information Technology Act 2000 - Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. The draconian Section 66A was originally meant to tackle spam and cyber-stalking but was used by the powerful elite to crack down on online dissent and criticism.

The article by Sunil Abraham was published in the Times of India on March 25, 2015.

Section 79 was meant to give immunity to internet intermediaries for liability emerging from third-party speech, but it had a chilling effect on free speech because intermediaries erred on the side of caution when it came to deciding whether the content was legal or illegal.

And Section 69A was the web blocking or internet censorship provision, but the procedure prescribed did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and transparency. For instance, when books are banned by courts, the public is informed of such bans but when websites are banned in India, there's no clear message from the Internet Service Provider.

The Supreme Court upheld 69A, so web blocking and internet censorship in India will continue to happen in an opaque fashion which is worrying. But on 66A and 79, the landmark judgment protects the right to free speech and expression. It struck down 66A in entirety, saying the vague and imprecise language made the provision unconstitutional and it interfered with "the right of the people to know - the market place of ideas - which the internet provides to persons of all kinds". However, it only read down Section 79 saying "unlawful acts beyond what is laid down" as reasonable restrictions to the right to free speech in the Constitution "obviously cannot form any part" of the section. In short, the court has eliminated any additional restrictions for speech online even though it admitted that the internet is "intelligibly different" from traditional media and might require additional laws to be passed by the Indian Parliament."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-times-of-india-march-25-2015-sunil-abraham-internet-censorship-will-continue-in-opaque-fashion

India’s Supreme Court strikes down law that led to arrests over Facebook posts

praskrishna — 2015-03-26T01:49:54Z

Judge rules that section of the information technology law was unconstitutional, had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a ‘chilling’ effect on free speech.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in 'The Star.com' on March 25, 2015. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Supreme Court in India struck down a section of its country’s information technology act Tuesday that had made it illegal to spread “offensive messages” on electronic devices and resulted in arrests over posts on Facebook and other social media.

Supreme Court Judge Rohinton Fali Nariman wrote in the ruling that the section of the law, known as 66A, was unconstitutional, saying the vaguely worded legislation had wrongly swept up innocent people and had a “chilling” effect on free speech in the world’s most populous democracy.

“Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it,” the judge wrote. “If it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total.”

India had first passed its Information Technology Act in 2000, but stricter provisions were added in 2008 and ratified in 2009 that gave police sweeping authority to arrest citizens for their personal posts on social media, a crime punishable for up to three years in jail and a fine.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, said the section was originally intended to protect citizens from electronic spam, but it did not turn out that way.

“Politicians who didn’t like what people were saying about them used it to crack down on online criticism,” he said.

In the end, there were more than 20 high-profile arrests, including a professor who posted an unflattering cartoon of a state political leader and another artist who drew a set of cartoons lampooning the government and Parliament.

The most well-known was the case of two young women arrested in the western town of Palghar after one of them posted a comment on Facebook that argued the city of Mumbai should not have been shut down for the funeral of a famous conservative leader. A friend, who merely “liked” the post, was also arrested. After much outcry, the two were released on bail and the charges eventually dropped.

The case of the “Palghar Girls” inspired a young law student, Shreya Singhal, to take on the government’s law. Singhal became the chief petitioner for the case, along with other free speech advocates and an Indian information technology firm.

“It’s a big victory,” Singhal said after the ruling. “The Internet is so far-reaching and so many people use it now, it’s very important for us to protect this right.”

Singhal and other petitioners had also argued that another section of India’s technology act that allowed the government to block websites containing questionable material were also unconstitutional, but the court disagreed, saying there was a sufficient review process in place to avoid misuse.

Free speech in India is enshrined in the country’s constitution but has its limits. Books and movies are often banned or censored out of consideration for religious and minority groups.

In 2014, a conservative Hindu group persuaded Penguin India to withdraw a book about Hinduism by Wendy Doniger, a professor of religion at the University of Chicago, from the Indian market. And more recently, the government of India blocked a planned television debut of a documentary film on a 2012 gang rape case, India’s Daughter.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-star-march-25-2015-annie-gowen-indias-supreme-court-strikes-down-law-that-led-to-arrests-over-facebook-posts

India High Court: No Takedown Requests On Social Sites Without Court, Gov't Order

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T06:18:52Z

Indian police will no longer be able to threaten Internet users and online intermediaries with jail merely on the basis of a complaint that they have posted “offensive” posts online.

The blog post by Madhur Singh was published in Bloomberg BNA on March 25, 2015. Geetha Hariharan gave her inputs.

Following a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India March 24, law enforcement agencies will be able to take action in such cases only after an order has been obtained from a court or the government (Singhal v.Union of India, India Sup. Ct., 3/24/15).

The court struck down in its entirety Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which authorized criminal penalties for sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication services. Opponents of the measure said the section defined “offensive” very vaguely and broadly, and that cases of arrest under the section frequently made headlines.

Freedom of speech activists and Internet-based businesses welcomed the judgment as a boost for civil liberties, freedom of speech and a conducive business environment for an entire gamut of online businesses.

The judgment is good news for intermediaries such as Facebook Inc. and the India-based review site MouthShut.com, both of which have been repeatedly inundated with takedown notices based on complaints against “offensive” posts.

Offensive Posts Were Actionable Under Section 66A

Section 66A, added to the Information Technology Act of 2000 through an amendment in February 2009, prescribed imprisonment of up to three years and a fine for anyone who sends via a computer resource or communication device:

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages.

A supporting Section 79(3)(b) stated that “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act,” the intermediary would have to “expeditiously remove or disable access to that material or that resource.”

Together, these sections put ordinary Internet users at risk for arrest for simply posting online and obligated intermediaries such as Twitter Inc., Facebook, MouthShut.com and others to take down content simply pursuant to a complaint.

Earlier this month, Facebook revealed statistics indicating that India is second on its global list of governments demanding takedowns.

Court Removes Intermediaries' Discretion

Shwetasree Majumder, partner at Fidus Law Chambers, told Bloomberg BNA March 25 that after this decision, any blocking of content can now only take place via a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards, including a hearing to the originator and intermediary either by the designated
officer or pursuant to an order passed by a competent court.

“So intermediaries like Google, Facebook etc. are no longer required to judge as to whether the take down notices received by them contain legitimate requests or not,” she wrote in an e-mail. “As an acknowledgement that a true intermediary should not concern itself with the merits of the content posted by third parties, the court takes away the intermediary's discretion as to what content must remain and what must go.”

Geetha Hariharan, program officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, told Bloomberg BNA that after “reading down” Section 79, the Supreme Court “has relieved the intermediary of its responsibility to judge the lawfulness of content. Now, the intermediary will lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b) (and be liable
to prosecution or penalty) only if it does not take content down after receiving ‘actual knowledge of a court order or government notification' requiring takedown of content.”

Prior to the judgment, an intermediary was required to judge whether a takedown notice concerned unlawful content on its website, which would constitute “actual knowledge” under the section. If the intermediary made an affirmative determination, it was required to take the content down or lose immunity under Section 79(3)(b).

Supreme Court Strikes Down 66A

Momentum against Section 66A built up over the last three years, particularly after law student Shreya Singhal filed a challenge in the Supreme Court after two Mumbai women were arrested and put in jail for 10 days in 2012 for Facebook posts against a shutdown of Mumbai city following a politician's death.

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman heard ten such cases together, and ruled March 24 that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it directly affected the right of the public to know. Holding that Section 66A was “open ended, undefined, and vague” so that “virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net,” the court struck it down in its entirety.

The court said that Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries (Guidelines) Rules, 2011, which pertains to an intermediary disabling access to material that is “known” to be violative of Rule 3(2), needed to be read down in the same manner as Section 79(3)(b).

The court, however, upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which gives the government the power to block web content if doing so is in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity or security of India.

Impact on Intermediary Liability

Overall, Majumder said that intermediary liability now stands significantly watered down. One particular case this might impact is the currently pending Super Cassettes India Ltd. v MySpace Inc. case before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which is considering the validity of the high threshold of intermediary liability prescribed by a single judge in copyright infringement cases.

Hariharan wrote in an e-mail that while intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) or content hosts may “choose” to take down content when they receive a private takedown notice, they don't “need” to do so to remain immune under Section 79(3)(b) or Rule 3(4) of the Intermediaries Guidelines.

“This reduces uncertainty in intermediary liability in India. It will also hopefully keep intermediaries from taking down content in an overbroad manner to escape liability,” Hariharan said, adding that the government nevertheless continues to have the ability to criminalize online acts. For instance, Sections 66B
to 67B of the IT Act define and criminalize different online conduct. Additionally, sections of the Indian Penal Code that criminalize speech acts (e.g., Sections 295A and 153A for incitement; Section 292 for obscenity) have also been applied to online acts in the past.

The Internet & Mobile Association of India said in a statement on its website March 24 that the judgment will mark a new phase for the growth and evolution of the Internet in India. While Internet users will no longer fear illegal censorship or harassment, it said that “online businesses, ranging from established international companies to small Indian startups, will be able to take advantage of a more conducive business environment.”

The IAMAI added that the judgment will be especially helpful to smaller companies such as Mouthshut.com that will “now not be harassed by the frivolous and mal-intentioned notices of take down.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-bna-march-25-2015-madhur-singh-india-high-court-no-takedown-requests-on-social-sites-without-court-govt-order

Department of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS (2014-12-17, plaintext version)

pranesh — 2014-12-31T15:21:21Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.txt

Department of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS (2014-12-17, compressed version)

pranesh — 2014-12-31T14:48:24Z

On December 17, 2014, the Dept. of Telecommunications blocked 32 URLs (as it was ordered to do so by the by Dept. of Electronics & IT — specifically the Designated Officer under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009), those being: 01) https://justpaste.it/ 02) http://hastebin.com 03) http://codepad.org 04) http://pastie.org 05) https://pasteeorg 06) http://paste2.org 07) http://slexy.org 08) http://paste4btc.com/ 09) http://0bin.net 10) http://www.heypasteit.com 11) http://sourceforge.net/projects/phorkie 12) http://atnsoft.com/textpaster 13) https://archive.org 14) http://www.hpage.com 15) http://www.ipage.com/ 16) http://www.webs.com/ 17) http://www.weebly.com/ 18) http://www.000webhost.com/ 19) https://www.freehosting.com 20) https://vimeo.com/ 21) http://www.dailymotion.com/ 22) http://pastebin.com 23) https://gist.github.com 24) http://www.ipaste.eu 25) https://thesnippetapp.com 26) https://snipt.net 27) http://tny.ct (Tinypaste) 28) https://github.com (gist-it) 29) http://snipplr.com/ 30) http://termbin.com 31) http://www.snippetsource.net 32) https://cryptbin.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order_compressed.pdf

Department of Telecommunications Order u/s. 69A IT Act Blocking 32 URLS

pranesh — 2014-12-31T14:36:01Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.pdf

Overview of the Constitutional Challenges to the IT Act

pranesh — 2014-12-19T09:01:50Z

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.

PENDING MATTERS	CASE NUMBER	PROVISIONS CHALLENGED
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 167/2012	66A
Common Cause & Anr. v. Union of India	W.P.(C) NO. 21/2013	66A, 69A & 80
Rajeev Chandrasekhar v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(C) NO. 23/2013	66A & Rules 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) & 3(7) of the Intermediaries Rules 2011
Dilip Kumar Tulsidas Shah v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(C) NO. 97/2013	66A
Peoples Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 199/2013	66A, 69A, Intermediaries Rules 2011 (s.79(2) Rules) & Blocking of Access of Information by Public Rules 2009 (s.69A Rules)
Mouthshut.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.	W.P.(C) NO. 217/2013	66A & Intermediaries Rules 2011
Taslima Nasrin v. State of U.P & Ors.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 222/2013	66A
Manoj Oswal v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 225/2013	66A & 499/500 Indian Penal Code
Internet and Mobile Ass'n of India & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.	W.P.(C) NO. 758/2014	79(3) & Intermediaries Rules 2011
Anoop M.K. v. Union of India & Ors.	W.P.(CRL.) NO. 196/2014	66A, 69A, 80 & S.118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/overview-constitutional-challenges-on-itact

Is India’s website-blocking law constitutional? – I. Law & procedure

geetha — 2014-12-11T11:02:01Z

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with its corresponding Rules, set out the procedure for blocking of websites in India. Over two posts, Geetha Hariharan examines the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the Blocking Rules.

Introduction:

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) is no stranger to litigation or controversy. Since its enactment in 2000, the IT Act has come under stringent criticism, both for the alleged Constitutional infirmities of its provisions and Rules, as well as for the way it is implemented. In recent years, Sections 66A (re: criminal liability for offensive, annoying or inconveniencing online communications), 67A (re: obscene 69A (re: website-blocking) and 79 (re: intermediary liability) have all come under attack for these reasons.

Today, these Sections and several others have been challenged before the Supreme Court. A total of ten cases, challenging various Sections of the IT Act, are being heard together by the Supreme Court. This is a welcome occasion, for the IT Act desperately needs judicial review. Nikhil Pahwa over at Medianama provides an update and the list of cases.

Among the challenged provisions are Section 66A, Section 79 and Section 69A. Section 66A was and continues to be used wantonly by the State and police. A student was recently arrested for a Twitter comment regarding Cyclone Hudhud, while anti-Modi comments led to several arrests earlier in the year (see here, here and here). At CIS, we have previously subjected Section 66A to constitutional analyses. Pranesh Prakash traced the genealogy of the Section and its import in targeting offensive, annoying and inconveniencing communications and spam, while Gautam Bhatia examined the Section’s overbreadth and vagueness. The casual wording and potential for misuse of Section 79 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 led Ujwala Uppaluri to offer strong arguments regarding their violation of Part III of the Constitution.

Similar infirmities also handicap Section 69A and its Rules. This provision empowers the Central government and officers authorised by it to order the blocking of websites or webpages. Website-blocking is permissible for reasons enumerated in Section 69A, and in accordance with the process laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public (sic)) Rules, 2009 (“Blocking Rules”). In our view, Section 69A and the Blocking Rules are also unconstitutional, and liable to be declared as such by the Supreme Court. We provide our analysis in this post and the next.

Section 69A, IT Act:

Section 69A and the Blocking Rules provide for website-blocking in accordance with enumerated reasons and process. The Section reads as follows:

69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.-

(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

As you will notice, the Central government may block any information that is “generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted” in any computer. This will extend, clearly, to any webpage available and/or hosted in India. The Government can order website-blocks if it is satisfied of the necessity or expedience for this on the basis of (any of) six reasons. These reasons are:

Sovereignty and integrity of India,
Defense of India,
Security of the State,
Friendly relations with foreign states,
Public order,
Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

If the Central government is convinced it has a valid reason, then it must follow the blocking procedure set out in the Blocking Rules, which were notified on 27 October 2009. Before entering into an analysis of the Blocking Rules, let us understand the blocking procedure.

The Blocking Procedure:

I will explain the blocking procedure in 4 steps: (1) Relevant designations and committees; (2) Procedure to make and examine a blocking request, and issue blocking direction; (3) Blocking in special circumstances; and (4) Review of blocking directions.

(1) Relevant designations and committees:

Designated Officer (“DO”): The Central government notifies an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary as the Designated Officer, who will issue the blocking direction ot the relevant intermediary or agency [Rule 3]. By a notification dated 20 January 2010, the DO is the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division, Department of Information Technology (DIT). Unfortunately, I was unable to locate the Group Coordinator, Cyberlaw Division on the website of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY, the name to which DIT was renamed in 2012). I am also unable to find a notification updating the designation of the DO. Presumably, Dr. Gulshan Rai, Director General (Cyberlaws & E-security), DeitY, continues to be the DO.

Nodal Officer (“NO”): Every organization designates one of its officers as a Nodal Officer, who will receive blocking requests and forward them to the DO [Rule 4]. ‘Organisation’ is defined in Rule 2(g) as Ministries or Departments of the Government of India, State governments and Union Territories, and any Agency of the Central government notified in the Official Gazette. I am unable to find on the DeitY website a notification explaining which government Agencies are ‘organisations’ under Rule 2(g).

Intermediary Contact: Every intermediary also designates one person to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO [Rule 13].

Committee for Examination of Request (“CER”): The 5-membered CER comprises the DO as Chairman, along with officers not below the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministries of Law & Justice, Home Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and CERT-In [Rule 7]. The CER examines each blocking request, before issuing recommendations to the DO to block or not to block. Regrettably, I am unable to identify the current membership of the CER, as no document is available that gives this information. However, the CER’s composition in 2010 may be gleaned (see Annexure III).

Review Committee (“RC”): Rule 2(i) defines the RC as the body set up under Rule 419A, Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. As per Rule 419A(16), the Central RC is constituted by the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom).

(2) Blocking procedure:

The Blocking Rules stipulate that the entire blocking procedure, from examining a blocking request to issuing a blocking direction, must be carried out within 7 days from the date on which the DO receives the blocking request from the NO [Rule 11].

(a) Making a blocking request: Any person may send a request for a website-block to an NO of any ‘organisation’ (“outside request”). Alternatively, the NO may himself raise a blocking request. The organization has to examine each outside request and be satisfied that it meets the requirements of Section 69A(1), IT Act. Once it is satisfied, the NO forwards the blocking request to the DO. Outside requests must be approved by the Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory, before they are sent to the DO. [See Rule 6 for this procedure]

(b) Examining a blocking request: Once the DO receives a blocking request, he/she places it before the CER. The DO tries to identify the person/intermediary hosting the troubling information, and if identified, issues a notice seeking their representation before the CER. Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed over fax/email. The person/intermediary has 48 hours from the date of receiving the DO’s notice to make its representation.

After this, the CER will examine the blocking request. It will “consider whether the request is covered within the scope of Section 69A(1)”, and whether it is justifiable to block [Rule 8(4)].

(c) Blocking direction: The DO then places the CER’s recommendation to block or not to block before the Secretary (DeitY) for his/her approval. If and once approval is granted, the DO directs the relevant Agency or intermediary to block the website/page.

(3) Blocking in special circumstances:

(a) Emergencies [Rule 9]: In an emergency “when no delay is acceptable”, the DO passes over the blocking procedure described above. With written recommendations, the DO directly approaches the Secretary (DeitY) for approval of blocking request. If satisfied, the Secretary (DeitY) issues the blocking direction as an interim measure. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the blocking request before the CER at the earliest opportunity (in any case, not later than 48 hours after blocking direction).

(b) Court orders [Rule 10]: If a court has ordered a website-block, the DO follows a procedure similar to an Emergency situation. He/she submits the certified copy of order to the Secretary (DeitY), and then initiates action as ordered by the court.

(4) Review of blocking directions:

The RC is to meet once in 2 months to evaluate whether blocking directions issued under the Blocking Rules are in compliance with Section 69A(1) [Rule 14]. No other review or appeal mechanism is provided under the Blocking Rules. Nor are aggrieved parties afforded any further opportunities to be heard. Also note that Rule 16 mandates that all requests and complaints received under the Blocking Rules are to the kept strictly confidential.

In the next post, I will subject Section 69A and the Blocking Rules to a constitutional analysis.

Blocking procedure poster:

CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (download PDF, 2.037MB).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure

SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T04:45:51Z

Section 66A of the IT Act punishes sending offensive messages through communication services, including posts on social media websites like Facebook.

The article by Shreeja Sen was published in Livemint on August 30, 2014. Leslie D’Monte contributed to this story. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The Supreme Court on Friday asked for the central government’s response in a writ petition filed by Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) challenging the arbitrary powers that the Information Technology (IT) Act confers on the government to remove user-generated content.

This is not the first time that the amended provisions of the IT Act 2000 and the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have been challenged. The rules were released by the government in April 2011, and laid down detailed procedures for regulation of intermediaries and online content.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, while issuing notice to the central government, tagged the cases with others of a similar nature, including ones by MouthShut.com, a consumer review website, and Shreya Singhal, a public interest litigant who challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A in support of Shaheen Dhada, who was arrested for criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray in 2012. Section 66A of the IT Act punishes sending offensive messages through communication services, including posts on social media websites like Facebook.

“We’re very happy at MouthShut that IAMAI decided to take a stand regarding this,” said Faisal Farooqui, chief executive officer of MouthShut.com.

The petition, which runs into 1,100 pages according to those familiar with the case, seeks to challenge Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. The section holds an Internet service provider (ISP) responsible for content which may be unlawful, published by third parties (not the ISPs) when they’ve been intimated by the government. It takes away the safe harbour rule, which protects ISPs from being sued because of third party actions.

According to a statement by IAMAI, the industry lobby approached the apex court for “objective interpretation of the laws”. Referring to the court agreeing to hear the petition, the statement said, “This admission today allows the industry an opportunity to argue for a clear Safe Harbour Provision for the intermediaries, which is an essential pre-condition of a thriving digital content business.”

“In my view, the court may be sympathetic to this particular situation because there is a body of research and evidence that demonstrates that the private censorship regime instituted by Section 79A that places unconstitutional limits of freedom of speech and expression,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, a non-profit organization involved with research in freedom of expression, privacy and open access to literature.

On 27 April 2012, CIS-India had released a paper which, among other things, listed why the IT Rules 2011 could have a “chilling” effect on intermediaries. No much has changed since. The paper argued that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources (or the willingness to devote such legal resources) to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution. It also pointed out that the qualifications and due diligence requirements of different classes of intermediaries have not been clearly defined in the Rules resulting in uncertainty in the steps to be followed by the intermediary. It noted that depending on the nature of a service, it may be technically unfeasible for an intermediary to comply with the takedown within 36 hours.

“The chilling effect can primarily be attributed to the requirement for private intermediaries to perform subjective judicial determination in the course of administering the takedown. From the responses to the takedown notices, it is apparent that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression, as a result of which, such intermediaries have a tendency to err on the side of caution and chill legitimate expressions in order to limit their liability,” the paper said.

Another privacy lobby body, SFLC.in, had submitted feedback to the government when the draft IT Rules were put up for consultation but said that “when the final Rules were notified we found that most of our concerns were not addressed and that the Rules exceeded the scope of the parent act”.

In a July paper, SFLC.in reiterated that “Words and phrases like grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, disparaging and “harm minors in any way” are not defined in these Rules or in the Act or in any other legislation. These ambiguous words make the Rules susceptible to misuse…(and have a) chilling effect on free speech rights of users by making them too cautious about the content they post and byforcing them to self-censor…As technology evolves at a fast pace, the law should not be found wanting. The law should be an enabling factor that ensures that citizens enjoy their right to freedom of speech and expression without any hindrance. India, being the largest democracy in the world should lead the world in ensuring that the citizens enjoy the right to express themselves freely online.”

SFLC.in is a donor-supported legal services organization that brings together lawyers, policy analysts, technologists, and students.

According to a March study commissioned by the Global Network Initiative, a multistakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics and conducted by Copenhagen Economics, an economic consultancy, the GDP contribution of online intermediaries may increase to more than 1.3 % ($ 241 billion) by 2015, provided the current liability regime is improved.

In another development, hearing a petition asking to take down pornographic website, the court deemed it fit to send it to an advisory committee that has been set up under Section 88 of the Information Technology Act. The petition, filed by lawyer Kamlesh Vaswani in 2013, asked for a direction to the central government to block pornography websites, platforms, links or downloading. Speaking to reporters, Vaswani’s lawyer Vijay Panjwani said, “as on date, there are 4 crore pornographic websites. For 18 months, the government has not blocked them.”

The central government informed the committee was considering several options to address the issue of including methods used in the US and UK. This case was being heard by a three-judge bench headed by the chief justice of India R.M. Lodha, who said that to address these technological issues, a “synthesis of law, technology and governance is required.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-august-30-2014-shreeja-sen-sc-seeks-govt-reply-on-pil-challenging-powers-of-it-act

We the goondas

praskrishna — 2014-08-04T15:06:18Z

You can now be arrested in Karnataka even before you commit an offence under the IT Act. You could be in jail under the Goonda Act even if not guilty under the Indian Copyright Act. If govt thinks you are planning to send a 'lascivious' photo to a WhatsApp group, or forwarding a copyrighted song, you can be arrested.

The article by Shyam Prasad was published in the Bangalore Mirror on August 4, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Have a smartphone? Run for cover. Bizarre as this might sound, the cops are going to come after you if you so much as forward a song to a friend. Forget actually doing it, any plans to do so could land you in serious trouble too. You could be labelled a 'goonda' in the eyes of the State and find yourself behind bars.

In a completely unfathomable move, Karnataka has brought most offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Indian Copyright Act, 1957, under the ambit of the Goonda Act. Until now, people with a history of offences like bootlegging, drug offences and immoral trafficking could be taken into preventive custody. But the government, in its enthusiasm, while adding acid attackers and sexual predators to the law, has also added 'digital offenders'. While it was thought to be against audio and video pirates, Bangalore Mirror has found it could be directed at all those who frequent FB, Twitter and the online world, posting casual comments and reactions to events unfolding around them.

So if you are planning a digital 'offence' — which could be an innocuous opinion like the young girls' in Mumbai after the bandh declared on Bal Thackeray's death — that could attract the provisions of the Information Technology Act. You can even be taken into preventive custody like a 'goonda'. Even those given exceptions under the Indian Copyright Act can find themselves in jail for a year without being presented before a magistrate. Technically, if you are even planning to forward 'lascivious' memes and images to a WhatsApp group or forwarding a song or 'copyrighted' PDF book, you can be punished under the Goondas Act.

The law-makers clearly did not dwell much on the implications while bringing the majority of the populace within the ambit of this law. On July 28, the Karnataka Legislature passed (it took barely a minute from tabling to voice vote), 'The Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates, (Amendment) Bill, 2014'. The amendment adds, "Acid attackers, Depradator of Environment, Digital Offenders, Money Launderers and Sexual Predators", to the title. In common parlance, this law is known as the 'Goonda Act'.

The move has come as a shock to the legal community which has slammed it, terming it an attempt by the state to usurp central powers. The government had earlier included 'piracy' under the Goonda Act. But it was applicable only to those pirating film DVDs. Now, this will include books, film songs, music, software or anything big corporates and multinationals claim they have copyright on.

Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, is left in no doubt that the new law is "a terrible thing". "It is a sad development. It is not just bringing the provisions of the IT Act, but also the Copyright Act, that will hurt the common man," he said.

'Digital Offenders' means "any person who knowingly or deliberately violates, for commercial purposes, any copyright law in relation to any book, music, film, software, artistic or scientific work and also includes any person who illegally enters through the identity of another user and illegally uses any computer or digital network for pecuniary gain for himself or any other person or commits any of the offences specified under sections 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75 of the Information Technology Act, 2000."

Section 67 of the IT Act will be the most dangerous for the common man with a smartphone in hand now. The section, "Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form," includes "any material which is lascivious or appeal to the prurient interest." This could have a very broad interpretation.

Advocate Nagendra Naik says, "The Goonda Act provides for preventive arrest. In the Information Technology Act and The Copyright Act, you have to commit the offence to be arrested. But here, you can be taken into preventive custody even before you commit the said offences. In normal arrests, you can straightaway apply for bail. But under the Goonda Act, you cannot. There is a long process of review and you will be in custody at least till then. The third impact is, you can have a history sheet started against you by the police. Technically, your slips on WhatsApp will attract the Goonda Act against you."

Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay said the Goonda Act is a draconian piece of legislation and it necessarily mocks at the institution of courts and lawyers. "After the passage of the various amendments to the Goonda Act, Karnataka now looks like a mini North Korea where police mood swings will decide whether the ordinary citizen has any right at all," he said.

Advocate Shyam Sundar, says, "What if your smartphone has a list of repeated material sent out over days or weeks. Most people do not even know if their phones are affected by viruses which could be sending out such material. Another example is of Facebook. There are so many FB pages with pornographic content. If someone who has subscribed to such a page sends you a friend request and you accept it, that content will surface on your page. It will have a history of repetition. The amendment clearly opens up huge problems for the common people. There is no doubt of the law being grossly misused and the amendment to include provisions of the IT Act has been done without application of mind. What is lascivious appeal in the first place? A porn star has been made a film star in India. Is this not lust? Are there enough filters in place to secure your smartphone from online abuse?"

The new law will in all probability create more corruption than anything else, say experts. Dhananjay says, "Until last week, police postings in Bangalore and other bigger cities were selling for tens of lakhs. Thanks to these amendments, some postings that enforce the Goonda Act will now sell for a couple of crores. The public will not feel safe due to this draconian legislation. Those who enforce the Goonda Act, however, will become richer through corruption, thanks to the fear created by these new amendments."

One year in jail for the innocent too

Sunil Abraham gives two examples by which the amended Goonda Act will become a ruthless piece of legislation. "If I publish an image of a naked body as part of a scientific article about the human body, is it obscene or not? It will not be obscene and, if I am arrested under the IT Act, I will be produced before the magistrate within 24 hours and can explain it to him. But now, I will be arrested under the Goonda Act and need not be produced before a magistrate for 90 days. It can be extended to one year. So for one year, I will be in jail even if I have not committed any wrong. Another example pertains to bringing offences under the Copyright Act under the Goonda Act. In the Copyright Act, there is an exception for reporting, research, educational and people with disability. A visually impaired person, for example, can, without paying royalty, convert a book into another format like Braille or audio and share it with another visually impaired person on a non-profit basis. But if he is arrested under Goonda Act, he will be in jail for one year, even before he does it."

HAVE THEY READ STATUTE?
Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay says, "The definition of a 'digital offender' is simply laughable. I do not think that whoever asked the state government to include 'digital offence' under the Goonda Act has carefully read the Constitution of India. Under the Constitution, both copyright and telecommunications are exclusive central subjects. This means that states simply cannot make any law on these subjects." Dhananjay gives the example of payment of income tax. "You know already that only the central government can demand and collect your income taxes. Can any state government say that it will create a new law to punish its resident who defaults in payment of income tax? You would simply laugh at any such law. This new definition of 'digital offender' is no less amusing. Offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000, are exclusively punishable by the central government only. State governments have no power to say that an Act shall become an offence when it does not even have the power to regulate such an Act."

CRIMINAL LAW EXPERTS SAY
Senior designate advocate, MT Nanaiah: "This law will be too harsh. There are MLAs who do not know the meaning of cyber crime. We (advocates) will be kept busy at the cost of innocent people because of this step. It provides for arresting anyone who would allegedly be planning to do something. Finding him guilty or otherwise comes later. What happens if your phone is lost or somebody sends something from your phone without your knowledge? For the first few years, innocents will go to jail. Then the courts will probably intervene and call for modifying what is at best a bad law. A similar situation arose with Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It was misused to such an extent that courts had to step in." Senior designate advocate and former State Public Prosecutor HS Chandramouli : "Even social legislations have been misused. And, in this case, most people are illiterate about what cyber crime is. It is mostly teenagers and college students who will feel the heat. These are the people who mostly forward material considered obscene. It is necessary to educate people through discussions, workshops in the bar associations, law college and with experts. The amendment has been passed in the Legislature without discussion, which is a tragedy. At least now, before it is gazetted, people should be warned about what is being brought into the Goonda Act. I do not know how fair adding 'digital offenders' in the Goonda Act will be to the public, but the chances of misuse are more. There are no riders or prosecution for misuse. And how many policemen know about cyber crimes? During the infamous 'kidney' case (where people were cheated and their kidneys removed) many policemen did not know the difference between kidneys and testicles."

ONE YEAR IN JAIL WITHOUT CHANCE OF BAIL FOR..

Forwarding a song from your phone
Forwarding an e-book from your email
A nude photo which the govt thinks is obscene
Any software that a company says it owns
A movie which a company says it has copyright on

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/bangalore-mirror-shyam-prasad-august-4-2014-we-the-goondas

A Review of the Functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal and Adjudicatory Officers under the IT Act

divij — 2014-07-03T05:43:23Z

Tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies are a regular feature of the Indian judicial system, as they provide for easier and less onerous methods for dispute resolution, especially disputes which relate to technical areas and often require technical knowledge and familiarity with specialised factual scenarios.

Further, quasi-judicial bodies do not have the same procedural restrictions as proper courts, which makes the adjudication of disputes easier. The Information Technology Act of India, which regulates several important aspects of electronic information, including the regulation of private electronic transactions as well as detailing civil and criminal offences relating to computers and electronic information, contemplates a specialised dispute resolution mechanism for disputes relating to the offences detailed under the Act. The Act provides for the establishment of quasi-judicial bodies, namely adjudicating officers under S.46, to hear disputes arising out of Chapter IX of the Act, namely, offences of a civil nature under S.43, 43A, 44 and 45 of the Act, as well as criminal offences described under Chapter XI of the Act. The adjudicating officer has the power to both award compensation as damages in a civil remedy, as well as impose penalties for the contravention of the Act,[1] and therefore has powers of both civil and criminal courts. The first appellate body provided in the Act, i.e. the authority that any party not satisfied by the decision of the adjudicating officer can appeal to, is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, consisting of a Chairperson and any other members so prescribed by the Central Government.[2] The second appeal, if a party is aggrieved by the decision of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, may be filed before the High Court having jurisdiction, within 60 days from the date of communication of the order.[3]

Functioning of the Offices of the State Adjudicating Officers and the Cyber Appellate Tribunal

The office of the adjudicating officer is established under S.46 of the IT Act, which provides that the person appointed to such a post must be a government officer of a rank not below that of a Director or an equivalent rank, and must have experience both in the field of Information Technology as well as legal or judicial experience.[4] In most cases, the appointed adjudicating officer is the Principle Secretary to the Department of Information Technology in the state.[5] The decisions of these adjudicating officers determine the scope and meaning of several provisions of the IT Act, and are instrumental in the development of the law in this field and filling a lacuna regarding the interpretation of these important provisions, particularly in areas such as data protection and privacy.[6] However, despite the large number of cyber-crime cases being registered across the country,[7] there is a lack of available judgements on the adjudication of disputes under Sections 43, 43A, 44 and 45 of the Act. Of all the states, only the websites of the Departments of Information Technology in Maharashtra,[8], Tamil Nadu[9], New Delhi[10], and Haryana[11] have reported judgements or orders of the Adjudicating Officers. The adjudicating officer in Maharasthra, Rajesh Aggarwal, has done a particularly commendable job, having disposed of 51 cases under the IT Act, with 20 cases still pending.

The first Cyber Appellate Tribunal set up by the Central Government is located at New Delhi. Although a second branch of the Tribunal was to be set up in Bangalore, no efforts seem to have been made in this regard.[12] Further, the position of the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal, has been left vacant since 2011, after the appointed Chairperson attained the age of superannuation and retired. Although judicial and technical members have been appointed at various points, the tribunal cannot hold hearings without a chairperson. A total of 17 judgements have been passed by the Cyber Appellate Tribunal prior to the retirement of the chairperson, while the backlog of cases is continuously growing.[13] Despite a writ petition being filed before the Karnataka High Court and the secretary of the Department of IT coming on record to state that the Chairperson would be appointed within 6 months (of September 2013), no action seems to have been taken in this regard, and the lacunae in the judicial mechanism under the IT Act continues. The proper functioning of adjudicating officers and the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is particularly necessary for the functioning of a just judicial system in light of the provisions of the Act (namely, Section 61) which bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in claims below the amount of Rs. 5 Crores, where the adjudicating officer or the CAT is empowered.[14]

Analysis of Cases Filed under Section 43A

Section 43A of the Information Technology Act was inserted by the 2008 Amendment, and is the principle provision governing protection of information held by intermediaries under the Act. Section 43A provides that “body corporates” handling “sensitive personal data” must implement reasonable security practices for the protection of this information. If it is negligent in providing or maintaining such reasonable security practices, the body corporate is to be held liable and must pay compensation for the loss occurred.[15] Rule 3 of the Draft Reasonable Security Practices Rules, defines sensitive personal data as including – passwords, user details as provided at the time of registration or thereafter, information related to financial information such as Bank account/ credit card /debit card /other payment instrument details of the users, physiological and mental health conditions, medical records and history, biometric information, information received by body corporate for processing, stored or processed under lawful contract or otherwise and call data records.[16]

All the decisions of appointed adjudicators are available for an analysis of Section 43A are from the adjudicating officer in Maharashtra, Mr. Rajesh Tandon, who despite having no judicial experience, has very cogent analysis and knowledge of legal issues involved in the cases, which is commendable for a quasi-judicial officer.

One class of cases, constituting a major chunk of the claims, is where the complainant is claiming against a bank for the fraudulent transfer of funds from the claimants account to another account. In most of these cases, the adjudicating officer examined the compliance of the bank with “Know Your Customer” norms and guidelines framed by the Reserve Bank of India for prevention of banking fraud and, where such compliance was found to be lacking and information which allowed the bank accounts of the complainant was allowed to be accessed by fraudsters, the presumption is that the bank was negligent in the handling of “sensitive personal information”,[17] by failing to provide for reasonable security practices and consequently was liable for compensation under S.43A, notwithstanding that the complainant also contributed to compromising certain personal information by responding to phishing mails,[18] or divulging information to other third parties.[19] These instances clearly fall within the scope of Section 43A, which protects “information related to financial information such as Bank account/ credit card /debit card /other payment instrument details of the users” as sensitive personal data from negligent handling by body corporates. The decisions of the adjudicating officer must be applauded for placing a higher duty of care on banks to protect informational privacy of its customers, given that they are in a position where they ought to be well equipped to deal with intimate financial information and holding them accountable for lack of proper mechanisms to counter bank fraud using stolen information, which reflects in the compensation which the banks have been liable to pay, not only as indemnification for losses, but also punitive damages.[20]

In Nirmalkumar Bhagerwal v IDBI Bank and Meenal Bhagerwal, the sensitive financial information of the complainant, namely, the bank statement, had been accessed by the complainants wife. In holding the bank to be liable for divulging the same, and that access to personal information by a spouse is also covered under S.43A, the officer seems to have imputed the loss of privacy on account of such negligence as ‘wrongful loss’ which deserves compensation. One anomalous decision of the officer was where the operator of an ATM was held liable for fraudulent credit card transactions in that Machine, due to “reasonable security practices” such as security personnel or CCTV footage, and therefore causing the loss of “sensitive personal data”. However, it is difficult to see how ATM operators can be held liable for failing to protect sensitive information from being divulged, when the case is simply of a person fraudulently using a credit card.

Another class of cases, generally linked with the above cases, is complaints against cell phone providers for divulging information through falsely procured Sim Cards. In such instances, the officer has held that by negligently allowing the issuance of duplicate sim cards, the phone company has led to the access of sensitive personal data and thus caused wrongful loss to the complainant. This interpretation of Section 43A is somewhat confusing. The officer seems to have interpreted the provisions of Section 43A to include carriers of the information which was originally sent through the computer resource of the banking companies. In this way, they are imputed the status of “handlers” of sensitive personal information, and their communications infrastructure through which the information is sent is the “computer resource” which it operates for the purpose of the Act. Therefore, through their negligence, they are abetting the offence under 43A.[21]

For example, in the case of Sanjay Govind Dhandhe v ICICI and Vodafone, the officer remarked that –“A SIM card is a veritable key to person’s sensitive financial and personal information. Realizing this, there are clear guidelines issued by the DOT regarding the issuance of SIM cards. The IT Act also intends to ensure that electronic personal and sensitive data is kept secured and reasonable measures are used to maintain its confidentiality and integrity. It is extremely crucial that Telecom companies actively follow strict security procedures while issuing SIM cards, especially in wake of the fact that mobiles are being increasingly used to undertake financial transactions. In many a case brought before me, financial frauds have been committed by fraudsters using the registered mobile numbers of the banks’ account holders.” Therefore, intermediaries such as telecom companies, which peripherally handle the data, are also liable under the same standards for ensuring its privacy. The adjudicating officer has also held telephone companies liable for itemized phone bills as Call Data Records negligently divulged by them, which again clearly falls under the scope of the Reasonable Security Practices Rules.[22]

Note:

"Credentek v Insolutions (http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_Credentek_Vs_Insolutions-28012014.pdf) . This case holds that banks and the National Payments Corporation of India were liable under S. 43A for divulging information relating to transactions by their customers to a software company which provides services to these banks using the data, without first making them sign non-disclosure agreements. The NCPI was fined a nominal amount of Rs. 10,000."

[1]. Section 46, Information Technology Act, 2000.

[2]. Section 48 and 49 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Amended as of 2008).

[3]. Section 62, IT Act. However, The High Court may extend this period if there was sufficient cause for the delay.

[4]. S. 46(3), Information Technology Act, “No person shall be appointed as an adjudicating officer unless he possesses such experience in the field of Information Technology and Legal or Judicial experience as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

[5]. From whatever data is available, the adjudicating officers in the states of Maharashtra, New Delhi, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka are all secretaries to the respective state departments relating to IT.

[6]. See http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-cases-filed-under-sec-48-it-act-for-adjudication-maharashtra; Also see the decision of the Karnataka adjudicating officer which held that body corporates are not persons under S.43 of the IT Act, and thus cannot be liable for compensation or even criminal action for offences under that Section, available at http://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial_13/adjudication_gpl_mnv.pdf.

[7]. Maharashtra Leads in War Against Cyber Crime, The Times of India, available at http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Maharashtra-leads-in-war-against-cyber-crime/articleshow/30579310.cms. (18^th February, 2014).

[8]. https://it.maharashtra.gov.in/1089/IT-Act-Judgements

[9]. http://www.tn.gov.in/documents/atoz/J

[10]. http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/DoIT_IT/doit_it/it+home/orders+of+adjudicating+officer

[11]. http://haryanait.gov.in/cyber.htm

[12]. Bangalore Likely to host southern chapter of Cyber Appellate Tribunal, The Hinduk http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/bangalore-is-likely-to-host-southern-chapter-of-cyber-appellate-tribunal/article3381091.ece (2^nd May, 2013).

[13]. http://catindia.gov.in/Judgement.aspx

[14]. Section 61 of the IT Act – ‘No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an adjudicating officer appointed under this Act or the Cyber Appellate Tribunal constituted under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. Provided that the court may exercise jurisdiction in cases where the claim for injury or damage suffered by any person exceeds the maximum amount which can be awarded under this Chapter.’

[15]. Section 43A, Information Technology Act, 2000 – ‘Compensation for failure to protect data (Inserted vide ITAA 2006) Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation, to the person so affected. (Change vide ITAA 2008)

Explanation: For the purposes of this section (i) "body corporate" means any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities (ii) "reasonable security practices and procedures" means security practices and procedures designed to protect such information from unauthorized access, damage, use, modification, disclosure or impairment, as may be specified in an agreement between the parties or as may be specified in any law for the time being in force and in the absence of such agreement or any law, such reasonable security practices and procedures, as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit. (iii) "sensitive personal data or information" means such personal information as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit.

[16]. Draft Reasonable Security Practices Rules under Section 43A of the IT Act, available at http://www.huntonfiles.com/files/webupload/PrivacyLaw_Reasonable_Security_Practices_Sensitive_Personal_Information.pdf.

[17]. Ravindra Gunale v Bank of Maharashtra, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RavindraGunale_Vs_BoM&Vodafone_20022013.PDF. Ram Techno Pack v State Bank of India, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RamTechno_Vs_SBI-22022013.pdf.

Srinivas Signs v IDBI, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_SreenivasSigns_Vs_IDBI-18022014.PDF.

Raju Dada Raut v ICICI Bank, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RajuDadaRaut_Vs_ICICIBank-13022013.pdf

Pravin Parkhi v SBI Cards, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_PravinParkhi_Vs_SBICardsPayment-30122013.PDF.

[18]. Sourabh Jain v ICICI, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_SourabhJain_Vs_ICICI&Idea-22022013.PDF.

[19]. Poona Automobiles v Punjab National Bank, https://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_PoonaAuto_Vs_PNB-22022013.PDF

[20]. Amit Patwardhan v Bank of Baroda, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudicaton_AmitPatwardhan_Vs_BankOfBaroda-30122013.PDF.

[21]. Ravindra Gunale v Bank of Maharashtra, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RavindraGunale_Vs_BoM&Vodafone_20022013; Raju Dada Raut v ICICI Bank, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RajuDadaRaut_Vs_ICICIBank-13022013.pdf.

[22]. Rohit Maheshwari v Vodafone, http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RohitMaheshwari_Vs_Vodafone&ors-04022014.PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/review-of-functioning-of-cyber-appellate-tribunal-and-adjudicatory-officers-under-it-act

FOEX Live: June 1-7, 2014

geetha — 2014-06-07T13:33:45Z

A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world).

Delhi NCR:

Following a legal notice from Dina Nath Batra, publisher Orient BlackSwan “set aside… for the present” Communalism and Sexual Violence: Ahmedabad Since 1969 by Dr. Megha Kumar, citing the need for a “comprehensive assessment”. Dr. Kumar’s book is part of the ‘Critical Thinking on South Asia’ series, and studies communal and sexual violence in the 1969, 1985 and 2002 riots of Ahmedabad. Orient BlackSwan insists this is a pre-release assessment, while Dr. Kumar contests that her book went to print in March 2014 after extensive editing and peer review. Dina Nath Batra’s civil suit led Penguin India to withdraw Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History earlier this year.

The Delhi Police’s Facebook page aimed at reaching out to Delhi residents hailing from the North East proved to be popular.

Goa:

Shipbuilding engineer Devu Chodankar’s ordeal continued. Chodankar, in a statement to the cyber crime cell of the Goa police, clarified that his allegedly inflammatory statements were directed against the induction of the Sri Ram Sene’s Pramod Muthalik into the BJP. Chodankar’s laptop, hard-disk and mobile Internet dongle were seized.

Jammu & Kashmir:

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah announced the withdrawal of a four-year-old SMS ban in the state. The ban was instituted in 2010 following widespread protests, and while it was lifted for post-paid subscribers six months later, pre-paid connections were banned from SMSes until now.

Maharashtra:

In a move to contain public protests over ‘objectionable posts’ about Chhatrapati Shivaji, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and the late Bal Thackeray (comments upon whose death led to the arrests of Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan under Section 66A), Maharashtra police will take action against even those who “like” such posts. ‘Likers’ may be charged under the Information Technology Act and the Criminal Procedure Code, say Nanded police.

A young Muslim man was murdered in Pune, apparently connected to the online publication of ‘derogatory’ pictures of Chhatrapati Shivaji and Bal Thackarey. Members of Hindu extremists groups celebrated his murder, it seems. Pune’s BJP MP, Anil Shirole, said, “some repercussions are natural”. Members of the Hindu Rashtra Sena were held for the murder, but it seems that the photographs were uploaded from foreign IP addresses. Across Maharashtra, 187 riotingcases have been registered against a total of 710 persons, allegedly in connection with the offensive Facebook posts.

On a lighter note, Bollywood hopes for a positive relationship with the new government on matters such as film censorship, tax breaks and piracy.

News & Opinion:

Shocking the world, Vodafone reported the existence of secret, direct-access wires that enable government surveillance on citizens. India is among 29 governments that sought access to its networks, says Vodafone.

I&B Minister Prakash Javadekar expressed his satisfaction with media industry self-regulation, and stated that while cross-media ownership is a matter for debate, it is the legality of transactions such as the Reliance-Network18 acquisition that is important.

Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama wrote of a ‘right to be forgotten’ request they received from a user in light of the recent European Court of Justice ruling. The right raises a legal dilemma in India, LiveMint reports. Medianama also comments on Maharashtra police’s decision to take action against Facebook ‘likes’, noting that at the very least, a like and a comment do not amount to the same thing.

The Hindu was scorching in its editorial on the Pune murder, warning that the new BJP government stands to lose public confidence if it does not clearly demonstrate its opposition to religious violence. The Times of India agrees.

Sanjay Hegde wrote of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) as a medium-focused criminalization of speech. dnaEdit also published its criticism of Section 66A.

Ajit Ranade of the Mumbai Mirror comments on India as a ‘republic of hurt sentiments’, criminalizing exercises of free speech from defamation, hate speech, sedition and Section 66A. But in this hurt and screaming republic, dissent is crucial and must stay alive.

A cyber security expert is of the opinion that the police find it difficult to block webpages with derogatory content, as servers are located outside India. But data localization will not help India, writes Jayshree Bajoria.

Dharma Adhikari tries to analyze the combined impact of converging media ownership, corporate patronage of politicians and elections, and recent practices of forced and self-censorship and criminalization of speech.

Elsewhere in the world:

In Pakistan, Facebook has been criticized for blocking pages of a Pakistani rock band and several political groups, primarily left-wing. Across the continent in Europe, Google is suffering from a popularity dip.

The National Council for Peace and Order, the military government in Thailand, has taken over not only the government,but also controls the media. The military cancelled its meetings with Google and Facebook. Thai protesters staged a quiet dissent. The Asian Human Rights Commission condemned the coup. For an excellent take on the coup and its dangers, please redirect here. For a round-up of editorials and op-eds on the coup, redirect here.

China has cracked down on Google, affecting Gmail, Translate and Calendar. It is speculated that the move is connected to the 25^th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests and government reprisal. At the same time, a Tibetan filmmaker who was jailed for six years for his film, Leaving Fear Behind, has been released by Chinese authorities. Leaving Fear Behind features a series of interviews with Tibetans of the Qinghai province in the run-up to the controversial Beijing Olympics in 2008.

Japan looks set to criminalize possession of child pornography. According to reports, the proposed law does not extend to comics or animations or digital simulations.

Egypt’s police is looking to build a social media monitoring system to track expressions of dissent, including “profanity, immorality, insults and calls for strikes and protests”.

Human rights activists asked Facebook to deny its services to the election campaign of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, ahead of elections on June 3.

Call for inputs:

The Law Commission of India seeks comments from stakeholders and citizens on media law. The consultation paper may be found here. The final date for submission is June 19, 2014.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For feedback and comments, Geetha Hariharan is available by email at geetha@cis-india.org or on Twitter, where her handle is @covertlight.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-1-7-2014