Centre for Internet and Society

Arbitrary Arrests for Comment on Bal Thackeray's Death

pranesh — 2013-01-02T03:42:37Z

Two girls have been arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested for making comments about the late Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray's death. Pranesh Prakash explores the legal angles to the arrests.

Facts of the case

This morning, there was a short report in the Mumbai Mirror about two girls having been arrested for comments one of them made, and the other 'liked', on Facebook about Bal Thackeray:

Police on Sunday arrested a 21-year-old girl for questioning the total shutdown in the city for Bal Thackeray’s funeral on her Facebook account. Another girl who ‘liked’ the comment was also arrested.

The duo were booked under Section 295 (a) of the IPC (for hurting religious sentiments) and Section 64 (a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Though the girl withdrew her comment and apologised, a mob of some 2,000 Shiv Sena workers attacked and ransacked her uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar.

“Her comment said people like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that,” said PI Uttam Sonawane.

What provisions of law were used?

There's a small mistake in Mumbai Mirror's reportage as there is no section "64(a)"¹ in the Information Technology (IT) Act, nor a section "295(a)" in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They must have meant section 295A of the IPC ("outraging religious feelings of any class") and section 66A of the IT Act ("sending offensive messages through communication service, etc."). (Update: The Wall Street Journal's Shreya Shah has confirmed that the second provision was section 66A of the IT Act.)

Section 295A of the IPC is cognizable and non-bailable, and hence the police have the powers to arrest a person accused of this without a warrant.² Section 66A of the IT Act is cognizable and bailable.

Update: Some news sources claim that section 505(2) of the IPC ("Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes") has also been invoked.

Was the law misapplied?

This is clearly a case of misapplication of s.295A of the IPC.³ This provision has been frivolously used numerous times in Maharashtra. Even the banning of James Laine's book Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India happened under s.295A, and the ban was subsequently held to have been unlawful by both the Bombay High Court as well as the Supreme Court. Indeed, s.295A has not been applied in cases where it is more apparent, making this seem like a parody news report.

Interestingly, the question arises of the law under which the friend who 'liked' the Facebook status update was arrested. It would take a highly clever lawyer and a highly credulous judge to make 'liking' of a Facebook status update an act capable of being charged with electronically "sending ... any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character" or "causing annoyance or inconvenience", or under any other provision of the IT Act (or, for that matter, the IPC).⁴ That 'liking' is protected speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not under question in India (unlike in the USA where that issue had to be adjudicated by a court), since unlike the wording present in the American Constitution, the Indian Constitution clearly protects the 'freedom of speech and expression', so even non-verbal expression is protection.

Role of bad law and the police

In this case the blame has to be shared between bad law (s.66A of the IT Act) and an abuse of powers by police. The police were derelict in their duty, as they failed to provide protection to the Dhada Orthopaedic Hospital, run by the uncle of the girl who made the Facebook posting. Then they added insult to injury by arresting Shaheen Dhada and the friend who 'liked' her post. This should not be written off as a harmless case of the police goofing up. Justice Katju is absolutely correct in demanding that such police officers should be punished.

Rule of law

Rule of law demands that laws are not applied in an arbitrary manner. When tens of thousands were making similar comments in print (Justice Katju's article in the Hindu, for instance), over the Internet (countless comments on Facebook, Rediff, Orkut, Twitter, etc.), and in person, how did the police single out Shaheen Dhada and her friend for arrest?⁵

This should not be seen merely as "social media regulation", but as a restriction on freedom of speech and expression by both the law and the police. Section 66A makes certain kinds of speech-activities ("causing annoyance") illegal if communicated online, but legal if that same speech-activity is published in a newspaper. Finally, this is similar to the Aseem Trivedi case where the police wrongly decided to press charges and to arrest.

This distinction is important as it being a Facebook status update should not grant Shaheen Dhada any special immunity; the fact of that particular update not being punishable under s.295 or s.66A (or any other law) should.

Section 64 of the IT Act is about "recovery of penalty" and the ability to suspend one's digital signature if one doesn't pay up a penalty that's been imposed.↩
The police generally cannot, without a warrant, arrest a person accused of a bailable offence unless it is a cognizable offence. A non-bailable offence is one for which a judicial magistrate needs to grant bail, and it isn't an automatic right to be enjoyed by paying a bond-surety amount set by the police.↩
Section 295A of the IPC has been held not to be unconstitutional. The first case to challenge the constitutionality of section 66A of the IT Act was filed recently in front of the Madurai bench the Madras High Court.)↩
One can imagine an exceptional case where such an act could potentially be defamatory, but that is clearly exceptional.↩
This is entirely apart from the question of how the Shiv Sena singled in on Shaheen Dhada's Facebook comment.↩

This blog entry has been re-posted in the following places

Outlook (November 19, 2012).
KAFILA (November 19, 2012).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bal-thackeray-comment-arbitrary-arrest-295A-66A

Women Arrested in Mumbai for Complaining on Facebook

praskrishna — 2012-11-21T11:32:04Z

For over 30 hours following the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray on Saturday, stores throughout Mumbai closed their shutters and taxis and autorickshaws stayed off the streets.

This article by Neha Thirani and Hari Kumar was published in New York Times on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

While analysts throughout Mumbai debated whether the citywide shutdown following the death of Mr. Thackeray was inspired by fear or respect, one 21-year-old woman and her friend were arrested for raising a similar question.

On Sunday, the police in Palghar, in Thane district, on the outskirts of Mumbai, arrested Shaheen Dhadha after she posted a status update on Facebook that questioned the shutdown, also known as a bandh. A local daily, the Mumbai Mirror, reported that Ms. Dhadha, 21, had written, "People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that." The police also arrested her friend who "liked" the post, whom NDTV identified by her first name, Renu.

The women were arrested under Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code for “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill will between classes.” Srikant Pingle, station house in charge of the Palghar police, told India Ink that the local Shiv Sena chief, whom he identified as “Mr. Bhushan,” filed the complaint against Ms. Dhadha because her comment on Facebook hurt Shiv Sena’s sentiments. Mr. Pingle declined to comment further on the details of the arrests.

Sudhir Gupta, the defense counsel for the two women, told NDTV, “Their posts don’t incite violence. It can’t be said they have made any derogatory remarks. They don’t belong to any political ideology.”

In a phone conversation with India Ink, a police officer of the Palghar station, who identified himself only as Gavali, said that the arrest took place on Sunday night and that the pair had been taken to court on Monday.

The two women, who were sentenced to 14 days in jail by the court, received bail after a bond of 15,000 rupees ($270) was paid, reported NDTV.

The Times of India reported that a mob of 2,000 Shiv Sena workers vandalized her uncle’s orthopedic clinic in Palghar. Repeated calls made to the Dhada orthopedic hospital in Thane went unanswered, while Harshal Pradhan, a Shiv Sena spokesman, said that he was unaware of the incident.

A police officer at the Palghar Police Station, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that no one has been arrested in the attack on the clinic.

Pranesh Prakash, program manager with the Center for Internet and Society, said the arrests of the two women were a violation of free speech and the misapplication of the law. “There were thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter and in person who were saying the exact same kinds of things that this girl is alleged to have said,” said Mr. Prakash. “And the fact that only she and one other person who liked that comment have been arrested shows a clear arbitrariness in the application of the law.”

In an open letter addressed to the chief minister of Maharashtra, the former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju defended the two women, saying, “To my mind it is absurd to say that protesting against a bandh hurts religious sentiments.” He further said that the arrest appears to be a criminal act as it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime.

On social networking sites, people came out in support of Ms. Dhadha and her friend. The Facebook group “Ban Shiv Sena” had about 36,400 "likes" as of Monday afternoon, while the party’s official Facebook page had just under 2,700. On Twitter, several commenters expressed solidarity with the two women, including Milind Deora, the government minister of state, communications and information technology, who said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire."

In Maharashtra, Shiv Sena has a history of banning books, movies and other popular culture that are critical of the political party. In 2010, Rohinton Mistry’s book, "Such a Long Journey," was withdrawn from the syllabus of Mumbai University after Shiv Sena officials complained that the book insulted Bal Thackeray. Ironically, in a January 2007 interview with Shekhar Gupta, the editor in chief of The Indian Express, Mr. Thackeray said that what differentiated him from the mafia is that journalists and others were free to disagree with him and criticize him.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-nov-19-2012-neha-thirani-hari-kumar-women-arrested-in-mumbai-for-complaining-on-facebook

Girls arrested for Facebook post on Thackeray get bail

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T05:18:30Z

Two girls who were arrested for making a Facebook comment protesting the closure of shops in the wake of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray‘s death, have been released on bail bonds of Rs 15,000 each.

This article was published in the FirstPost on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The duo, one of whom had reportedly updated her Facebook status to read “People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that” and the other one who ‘liked’ it, were initially booked under section 295A (hurting the religious sentiment of others) and were reportedly remanded to judicial custody for 14 days, NDTV reported.

The two girls were arrested after a complaint made to the Palghar police station in neighbouring Thane district by a local Sena leader.

A group of Shiv Sainiks attacked and ransacked the girl’s uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar, even though she withdrew her comment and apologised.

In comments to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, said that the arrest was a gross misapplication of the Indian Penal Code, and said that this particular provision had been misused on multiple occasions by the state of Maharashtra.

“What makes this seem ironic, and almost a parodic news report, is the fact that Bal Thackeray probably violated this provision more times than most other politicians, but was only charged under it once or twice”, he said.

The arrest has predictably elicited outrage from across the spectrum. Many took to social media to express their disgust, while NDTV reported that Maharashtra police HQ in Mumbai was very upset with the action taken by the Palghar police.

Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju had also called for the immediate release of the girls and wrote to Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan asking him to ensure it.

Pointing out that people were not living under a fascist dictatorship, he said that the act of arrest appeared to be a criminal act since it was a violation under sections of the Indian Penal Code to wrongfully arrest or confine anyone.

The PCI chief said that legal consequences would follow if the Chief Minister failed to take action.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-nov-19-2012-girls-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-thackeray-get-bail

India's Shame: World Reacts to FB Post Arrest

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T05:51:10Z

The arrest of 21 year old Shaheen Dhada for posting anti-Bal Thackeray comments has not only outraged Indians. The story has been picked up and reported across international media as well. Though they may not be aware of the complexities of Indian politics, the fact that young girls were arrested for an FB post has got them questioning the dwindling tolerance for the freedom of speech in India.

This was posted by Sonal Bhadoria in IndiaTimes on November 21, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Wall Street Journal warns ,'You better think twice before 'Liking' your friends' comments on Facebook. It may land you in jail.' The article quotes Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society saying “Bal Thackeray had violated the same provisions in his lifetime,” with reference to Mr. Thackeray’s inflammatory speeches against the South Indians and Muslims.

The BBC put a question mark on India's commitment to freedom of speech by citing recent examples of the arrest of a cartoonist like Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old businessman in the southern Indian city of Pondicherry, who was arrested for a tweet criticising Karti Chidambaram, son of Indian Finance Minister P Chidambaram.

UK's Daily Mail, says 'So much for freedom of speech' and questions the IT act which led to the arrest.

In a New York Times article, Pranesh Prakash questioned the arbitrariness in the application of the law saying 'There were thousands of people on Facebook, Twitter and in person who were saying the exact same kinds of things that this girl is alleged to have said'. The article also stated that Shiv Sena has a history of banning books, movies and other popular culture that are critical of the political party.

Mashable noted that several dissenters had taken to Twitter to speak out about the arrest including Milind Deora, the government minister of state, communications and information technology, who showed support for Dhadha and Renu with this tweet:

Milind Deora
@milinddeora

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize ~ Voltaire
It also asked 'Do you think Facebook is a good place to voice political opinions?'

The Christian Science Monitor calls the incident 'the latest in a string of crackdowns on Internet speech in the world's largest democracy'. It says, 'The other cases have included arrest of a resident of Chandigarh who complained on the Facebook page of Chandigarh police that they were not doing enough to find her stolen car; a cartoonist who posted work online protesting corruption scandals by the central government; and a professor in Kolkata who merely forwarded an email with a cartoon that was critical of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee.' The article also mentions Shaheen Dhada’s uncle, Dr. Abdullah Ghaffar Dhada stating that he had incurred losses of two million Rupees due to the ransacking of his clinic by angry Shiv Sainiks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indiatimes-sonal-bhadoria-nov-21-2012-indias-shame-world-reacts-to-fb-post-arrest

Thousands go online against 66A

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T06:40:38Z

An online petition aimed at amending section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act and re-examining internet laws has garnered 3,000 signatures since it began on Tuesday — two days before Kapil Sibal, telecom and IT minister, chairs a meeting with the cyber regulation advisory committee.

This article by Apoorva Dutt was published in DNA on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The petition, anchored on Change.org, a platform for social initiatives, was started by Bangalore-based advocate Gautam John after two girls were arrested for their Facebook post on imposing a bandh in the city on the day Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray was cremated. Following their arrests, Shaheen Dhada has deleted her Facebook account while her friend Rini Srinivasan who merely liked the post has opened a new account on the social networking site. However, she has vowed to refrain from making political statements.

John is blunt about the legislative effect an online petition can have. l Turn to p8.

“Honestly, I don’t believe that a petition can change laws, but it gives concerned citizens a platform for documenting their concern in such troubling scenarios. To some extent, this sort of petition can represent a civil society’s point of view. No more can a government authority say ‘only NGOs care about an issue’. Now they know – thousands of ordinary people care,” John said.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre For Internet and Society in Bangalore, points out the flaws in section 66A that have been exploited in cases like the Palghar incident. “Section 66A is very broadly-worded and the punishment (three years imprisonment) is excessive,” he said. “The law was borrowed – that too badly – from a British law. There are many a things greatly flawed in this unconstitutional provision, from the disproportionality of the punishment to the non-existence of the crime. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was one of eight laws passed in 15 minutes without any debate in the winter session of Parliament.”

The petition also aims to organise a meeting of the civil society stakeholders to look into these concerns. A similar meeting was scheduled to be held in August, but it did not take place.

Sudarshan Balachandran of Change.org is the lead campaigner and organiser of the petition. He hopes to hand over a copy of the petition to Sibal during the meeting on Thursday. “Sibal has gone on record to say that they will examine the law, and if they feel it doesn’t work, it will be junked. So I am hopeful,” said Balachandran.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dnaindia-nov-29-2012-apoorva-dutt-thousands-go-online-against-66a

ICANN 65 De-briefing Meeting

Admin — 2019-07-21T15:02:03Z

The Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) organized an ICANN65 de-briefing meeting on July 16, 2019. Akriti Bopanna remotely presented on the Human Rights related developments that took place at the Marrakech meeting, over the course of the 4 days.

Akriti's updates related to Workstream 2 Recommendations on Accountability, the Government Advisory Council's options in incorporating HR in their communication to the Board, their interest in our Human Rights Impact Assessment work and having a high interest session on the same at ICANN66. She also spoke about her contributions to the ICANN Board on their Anti-Harassment Policy along with details on the working group established to discussing the policy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/icann-65-de-briefing-meeting

FOEX Live: June 8-15, 2014

geetha — 2014-06-16T10:22:31Z

A weekly selection of news on online freedom of expression and digital technology from across India (and some parts of the world). Please email relevant news/cases/incidents to geetha[at]cis-india.org.

Karnataka:

A Hindu rightwing group demanded the arrest of a prominent activist, who during a speech on the much-debated Anti-superstition Bill, made comments that are allegedly blasphemous.

Kerala:

On June 10, the principal and six students of Government Polytechnic at Kunnamkulam, Thrissur, were arrested for publishing a photograph of Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside photographs of Hitler, Osana bin Laden and Ajmal Kasab, under the rubric ‘negative faces’. An FIR was registered against them for various offences under the Indian Penal Code including defamation (Section 500), printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory (Section 501), intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace (Section 504), and concealing design to commit offence (Section 120) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention). The principal was later released on bail.

In a similarly unsettling incident, on June 14, 2014, a case was registered against the principal and 11 students of Sree Krishna College, Guruvayur, for using “objectionable and unsavoury” language in a crossword in relation to PM Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi, Shashi Tharoor, etc. Those arrested were later released on bail.

Maharashtra:

Facebook posts involving objectionable images of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar led to arson and vandalism in Pune. Police have sought details of the originating IP address from Facebook.

A Pune-based entrepreneur has set up a Facebook group to block ‘offensive’ posts against religious leaders. The Social Peace Force will use Facebook’s ‘Report Spam’ option to take-down of ‘offensive’ material.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar suggested a ban on social media in India, and retracted his statement post-haste.

Punjab:

A bailable warrant was issued against singer Kailash Kher for failing to appear in court in relation to a case. The singer is alleged to have hurt religious sentiments of the Hindu community in a song, and a case registered under Sections 295A and 298, Indian Penal Code.

Uttar Pradesh:

The presence of a photograph on Facebook, in which an accused in a murder case is found posing with an illegal firearm, resulted in a case being registered against him under the IT Act.

News & Opinion:

Authors, civil society activists and other concerned citizens issued a joint statement questioning Prime Minister Modi’s silence over arrests and attacks on exercise of free speech and dissent. Signatories include Aruna Roy, Romila Thapar, Baba Adhav, Vivan Sundaram, Mrinal Pande, Jean Dreze, Jayati Ghosh, Anand Pathwardhan and Mallika Sarabhai.

In response to Mumbai police’s decision to take action against those who ‘like’ objectionable or offensive content on Facebook, experts say the freedom to ‘like’ or ‘share’ posts or tweets is fundamental to freedom of expression. India’s defamation laws for print and the Internet need harmonization, moreover.

While supporting freedom of expression, Minister for Information and Broadcasting Prakash Javadekar cautioned the press and all users of social media that the press and social media should be used responsibly for unity and peace. The Minister has also spoken out in favour of free publication, in light of recent legal action against academic work and other books.

Infosys, India’s leading IT company, served defamation notices on the Economic Times, the Times of India and the Financial Express, for “loss and reputation and goodwill due to circulation of defamatory articles”. Removal of articles and an unconditional apology were sought, and Infosys claimed damages amounting to Rs. 2000 crore. On a related note, Dr. Ashok Prasad argues that criminal defamation is a violation of freedom of speech.

Drawing on examples from the last 3 years, Ritika Katyal analyses India’s increasing violence and legal action against dissent and hurt sentiment, and concludes that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has both the responsibility and ability to “rein in Hindu hardliners”.

Discretionary powers resting with the police under the vaguely and broadly drafted Section 66A, Information Technology Act, are dangerous and unconstitutional, say experts.

Providing an alternative view, the Hindustan Times comments that the police ought to “pull up their socks” and understand the social media in order to effectively police objectionable and offensive content on the Internet.

Keeping Track:

Indconlawphil’s Free Speech Watch keeps track of violations of freedom of expression in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/foex-live-june-8-15-2014

Free Speech and Source Protection for Journalists

Gautam Bhatia — 2014-06-19T20:10:28Z

Gautam Bhatia explores journalistic source protection from the perspective of the right to freedom of speech & expression. In this post, he articulates clearly the centrality of source protection to press freedoms, and surveys the differing legal standards in the US, Europe and India.

In the previous post, we discussed Vincent Blasi’s pathological perspective on free speech. The argument forms part of a broader conception that Blasi calls the “checking value of the First Amendment”. Blasi argues that the most important role of free speech is to “check” government abuses and reveal to the public information that government wants to keep secret from them. Naturally, in this model – which is a specific application of the democracy-centred theory of free speech – the press and the media become the most important organs of a system of free expression.

In addition to the checking value of free speech, there is another consideration that is now acknowledged by Courts in most jurisdictions, including our Supreme Court. When we speak about the “right” to free speech, we do not just mean – as might seem at first glance – the right of speakers to speak unhindered. We also mean the rights of listeners and hearers to receive information. A classic example is the Indian Supreme Court’s opinion in LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah, which used Article 19(1)(a) to vest a right-of-reply in a person who had been criticised in a newspaper editorial, on the ground of providing a balanced account to readers. Furthermore, instruments like the ICCPR and the ECHR make this clear in the text of the free speech right as well. For instance, Article 19 of the ICCPR states that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds.”

In addition to the individual right to receive information and ideas, free speech need not be understood exclusively in the language of a right at all. Free speech also serves as a public good – that is to say, a society with a thriving system of free expression is, all things considered, better off than a society without it. The unique value that free speech serves, as a public good, is in creating an atmosphere of accountability and openness that goes to the heart of the constitutive ideals of modern liberal democracies. As Justice Hugo Black noted, a good system of free speech “rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.” Unsurprisingly, he went on to add immediately after, that “a free press is a condition of a free society.”

If free speech is about the right to receive information, and about the public good of a society in which information circulates freely and widely, then the vehicles of information occupy a central position in any theory or doctrine about the scope of the constitutional right. In our societies, the press is perhaps the most important of those vehicles.

Establishing the crucial role of the free press in free speech theory is important to understand a crucial issue that has largely gone unaddressed in Indian constitutional and statutory law: that of source-protection laws for journalists. A source-protection law exempts journalists from having to compulsorily reveal their sources when ordered to do so by government or by courts. Such exemptions form part of ordinary Indian statutory law: under the Indian Evidence Act, for example, communications between spouses are “privileged” – that is, inadmissible as evidence in Court.

The question came up before the US Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes. In a 5-4 split, the majority ruled against an unqualified reporters’ privilege, that could be invoked in all circumstances. However, all the justices understood the importance of the issue. Justice White, writing for the majority, held that government must “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.” Justice Powell’s concurring opinion emphasised that the balance must be struck on a case-to-case basis. Since Branzburg, there has been no federal legislation dealing with source protection. A number of states have, however, passed “shield laws”, albeit with broad national security exceptions.

Perhaps the reason for the American Supreme Court’s reticence lies in its reluctance – notwithstanding Justice Black’s ringing oratory – to place journalists on any kind of special pedestal above the rest of the public. The European Court of Human Rights, however, has felt no such compunctions. In Goodwin v. UK, the ECHR made it clear that the press serves a crucial function as a “public watchdog” (a consistent theme in the ECHR’s jurisprudence). Compelled disclosure of sources would definitely have a chilling effect on the functioning of the press, since sources would be hesitant to speak – and journalists would be reluctant to jeopardise their sources – if it was easy to get a court order requiring disclosure. Consequently, the ECHR – which is normally hesitant to intervene in domestic matters, and accords a wide margin of appreciation to states, found the UK to be in violation of the Convention. Journalists could only be compelled to reveal their sources if there was an “overriding requirement in the public interest.”

Where both the United States and Europe have recognised the importance of source-protection, and the simple fact that some degree of source protection is essential if the press is to perform its checking – or watchdog – function effectively, Indian jurisprudence on the issue is negligible. The Law Commission has twice proposed some manner of a shield law, but no concrete action has been taken upon its recommendations.

In the absence of any law, Article 19(1)(a) could play a direct role in the matter. As argued at the beginning of this post, the Supreme Court has accepted the democracy-based justification for free speech, as well as the individual right to receive information. Both these arguments necessarily make the role of the press crucial, and the role of the press is dependant on maintaining the confidentiality of sources. Thus, there ought to be an Article 19(1)(a) right that journalists can invoke against compelled disclosure. If this is so, then any disclosure can only be required through law; and the law, in turn, must be a reasonable restriction in the interests of public order, which – in turn, has normally been given a narrow interpretation by the Supreme Court in cases such as Ram Manohar Lohia.

It is unclear, however, whether the Courts will be sympathetic. As this article points out, while the Supreme Court has yet to rule on this issue, various High Courts have ordered disclosure, seemingly without much concern for the free speech implications. One thing is evident though: either a strong shield law, or a definitive Supreme Court ruling, is required to fill the current vacuum that exists.

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and has just received an LLM from the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he blogs on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

Document Actions

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-source-protection-for-journalists

Free Speech and Surveillance

Gautam Bhatia — 2014-07-07T04:59:59Z

Gautam Bhatia examines the constitutionality of surveillance by the Indian state.

The Indian surveillance regime has been the subject of discussion for quite some time now. Its nature and scope is controversial. The Central Monitoring System, through which the government can obtain direct access to call records, appears to have the potential to be used for bulk surveillance, although official claims emphasise that it will only be implemented in a targeted manner. The Netra system, on the other hand, is certainly about dragnet collection, since it detects the communication, via electronic media, of certain “keywords” (such as “attack”, “bomb”, “blast” and “kill”), no matter what context they are used in, and no matter who is using them.

Surveillance is quintessentially thought to raise concerns about privacy. Over a series of decisions, the Indian Supreme Court has read in the right to privacy into Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty. Under the Supreme Court’s (somewhat cloudy) precedents, privacy may only be infringed if there is a compelling State interest, and if the restrictive law is narrowly tailored – that is, it does not infringe upon rights to an extent greater than it needs to, in order to fulfill its goal. It is questionable whether bulk surveillance meets these standards.

Surveillance, however, does not only involve privacy rights. It also implicated Article 19 – in particular, the Article 19(1)(a) guarantee of the freedom of expression, and the 19(1)(c) guarantee of the freedom of association.

Previously on this blog, we have discussed the “chilling effect” in relation to free speech. The chilling effect evolved in the context of defamation cases, where a combination of exacting standards of proof, and prohibitive damages, contributed to create a culture of self-censorship, where people would refrain from voicing even legitimate criticism for fear of ruinous defamation lawsuits. The chilling effect, however, is not restricted merely to defamation, but arises in free speech cases more generally, where vague and over-broad statutes often leave the border of the permitted and the prohibited unclear.

Indeed, a few years before it decided New York Times v. Sullivan, which brought in the chilling effect doctrine into defamation and free speech law, the American Supreme Court applies a very similar principle in a surveillance case. In NAACP v. Alabama, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), which was heavily engaged in the civil rights movement in the American deep South, was ordered by the State of Alabama to disclose its membership list. NAACP challenged this, and the Court held in its favour. It specifically connected freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the impact of surveillance upon both:

“Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny… it is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute [an] effective a restraint on freedom of association… this Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”

In other words, if persons are not assured of privacy in their association with each other, they will tend to self-censor both who they associate with, and what they say to each other, especially when unpopular groups, who have been historically subject to governmental or social persecution, are involved. Indeed, this was precisely the argument that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made in its constitutional challenge to PRISM, the American bulk surveillance program. In addition to advancing a Fourth Amendment argument from privacy, the ACLU also made a First Amendment freedom of speech and association claim, arguing that the knowledge of bulk surveillance had made – or at least, was likely to have made – politically unpopular groups wary of contacting it for professional purposes (the difficulty, of course, is that any chilling effect argument effectively requires proving a negative).

If this argument holds, then it is clear that Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) are prima facie infringed in cases of bulk – or even other forms of – surveillance. Two conclusions follow: first, that any surveillance regime needs statutory backing. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions upon fundamental rights can only be imposed by law, and not be executive fiat (the same argument applies to Article 21 as well).

Assuming that a statutory framework is brought into force, the crucial issue then becomes whether the restriction is a reasonable one, in service of one of the stated 19(2) interests. The relevant part of Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of… the security of the State [and] public order.” The Constitution does not, however, provide a test for determining when a restriction can be legitimately justified as being “in the interests of” the security of the State, and of public order. There is not much relevant precedent with respect to the first sub-clause, but there happens to be an extensive – although conflicted – jurisprudence dealing with the public order exception.

One line of cases – characterised by Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP and Virendra v. State of Punjab – has held that the phrase “for the interests of” is of very wide ambit, and that the government has virtually limitless scope to make laws ostensibly for securing public order (this extends to prior restraint as well, something that Blackstone, writing in the 18^th century, found to be illegal!). The other line of cases, such as Superintendent v. Ram Manohar Lohia and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, have required the government to satisfy a stringent burden of proof. In Lohia, for instance, Ram Manohar Lohia’s conviction for encouraging people to break a tax law was reversed, the Court holding that the relationship between restricting free speech and a public order justification must be “proximate”. In Rangarajan, the Court used the euphemistic image of a “spark in a powder keg”, to characterise the degree of proximity required. It is evident that under the broad test of Ramji Lal Modi, a bulk surveillance system is likely to be upheld, whereas under the narrow test of Lohia, it is almost certain not to be.

Thus, if the constitutionality of surveillance comes to Court, three issues will need to be decided: first, whether Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) have been violated. Secondly – and if so – whether the “security of the State” exception is subject to the same standards as the “public order” exception (there is no reason why it should not be). And thirdly, which of the two lines of precedent represent the correct understanding of Article 19(2)?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-surveillance

Reply to RTI Application on Blocking of website and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951

praskrishna — 2013-03-21T07:58:12Z

The Department of Telecommunications sent its reply to an RTI application from the Centre for Internet and Society. The application was sent on December 27, 2012 with reference to blocking of websites and Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.

To
Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II), Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Télécommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

Dear Sir,
Subject: Information on Website Blocking Requested under the Right to Information Act, 2005

1. Full Name of the Applicant: Centre for Internet & Society

2. Address of the Applicant

Mailing Address: Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2־C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore 560071

3. Details of the information required

It has come to our attention that Airtel Broadband Services ("Airtel") and Mahanagar Téléphoné Nigam Limited ("MTNL") have recently blocked access to a number of domain sites for all their users across the country. Airtel has blocked Fabulous Domains (http://www.fabulous.com/), BuyDomains (http://www.buvdomains.com/) and Sedo (http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/). MTNL has blocked Sedo (http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcQme/). Subscribers trying to access this website receive a message noting "This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Télécommunications". In this regard, we request information on the following queries under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:

Does the Department have powers to require an Internet Service Provider to block a website? If so, please provide a citation of the statute under which power is granted to the Department, as well as the safeguards prescribed to be in accordance with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Did the Department order Airtel or MTNL to block any or all of the above mentioned websites? If so, please provide a copy of such order or orders. If not, what action, if at all, has been taken by the Department against Airtel and MTNL for blocking of websites?
Has the Department ever ordered the blocking of any website? If so, please provide a list of addresses of all the websites that have been ordered to be blocked.
Please provide use the present composition of the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, and copies of all their recommendations.

4. Years to which the above requests pertain: 2012

5. Designation and address of the PIO from whom the information is required

Shri Subodh Saxena
Central Public Information Officer (RTI)
Director (DS-II), Room No 1006, Sanchar Bhawan
Department of Télécommunications (DoT)
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi — 110001

To the best of my belief, the détails sought for fall within your authority. Further, as provided under section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act ("RTI Act"), in case this application does not fall within your authority, I request you to transfer the same in the designated time (5 days) to the concerned authority and inform me of the same immediately.

To the best of my knowledge the information sought does not fall within the restrictions contained in section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, and any provision protecting such information in any other law for the time being in force is inapplicable due to section 22 of the RTI Act.

Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the e-mail address provided above. This to certify that I, Smitha Krishna Prasad, am a citizen of India.

A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of "Pay and Accounts Officer (HQ), Department of Telecom" payable at New Delhi.

Date. Monday November 26,2012
Place: Bengaluru, Karnataka

Below is the reply received from the Department of Telecommunications for the above RTI application

Government of India
Department of Télécommunications
Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road. New Delhi -110 001
(DS-CelI)

No. DIR(DS-II)/RTI/2009																		Dated:ll/01/2013

To,
Centre for Internet and Society,
No. 194, 2-C Cross,
Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore - 560 071

This has reference to RTI application dated 27/12/2012 with reference to Blocking of website and Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951

In this regard it is submitted that Internet Service licensees are to follow the provisions of Information Technology Act 2000 as amended from time to time. Under Information Technology Act 2000, "Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009" were notified on 27/10/2009.(Annexure) Aforesaid notified rules describes the "Designated Officer" for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under subsection (2) of Section 69(A) of the ACT. Wide Gazette Notification dated 20/01/2010 Group Coordinator , Cyber Law division, Department of Information Technology has been authorized and designated as "Designated Officer".

As per the directions of Group Coordinator, Cyber Law division, under Information Technology Act 2000, instructions for blocking/ unblocking of websites/URLs are issued to Internet Service Licensees.

As per the available information no instruction to Internet Service Providers has been issued for Blocking of http://www.fabulous.com/, http://www.buydomains.com/, http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/ and http://sedo.co.uk/uk/home/welcome/ as mentioned in your RTI application.

Copies of Blocking order for which blocking instructions issued by DoT are not being provided are not provided as per Clause 16 of "Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009" which says "Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof."
With reference to information (Para 4 & 5 of RTI Aplication ) on Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rule, 1951 , the RTI is being forwarded to Dir (AS-III) & CPIO, DoT for providing the information.
The appeal, it any, may be made before Shri Nitin Jain, DDG(DS) & Appellate Authority, Department of Télécommunications, Room No. 1201, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, Nevy Delhi-110 001 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter.

Encl: As above
																							(Subodh Saxena) DIR (DS-II) 011-2303 6860 011-2335 9454

Copy to:

(I) Shri Rajiv Kumar, CPIO & Director (AS-III), DoT, New Delhi

NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 27th October, 2009

G.S.R. 781 (E). — In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (z) of sub-section (2) of section 87, read with sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2000 (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:

Short title and commencement — (1) These rules may be called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access and Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.
Definitions. — In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires. —
(a) "Act" means the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000);
(b) "computer resource" means computer resource as defined in clause (k) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(c) "Designated Officer" means an officer designated as Designated Officer under rule 3;
(d) "Form" means a form appended to these rules;
(e) "intermediary" means an intermediary as defined in clause (w) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Act;
(f) "nodal officer" means the nodal officer designated as such under rule 4;
(g) "organisation" means
(i) Ministries or Departments of the Government of India;
(ii) State Governments and Union Territories;
(iii) Any agency of the Central Government, as may be notified in the Official Gazette, by the Central Government
(h) "request" means the request for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource;
(i) "Review Committee" means the Review Committee constituted under rule 419A of Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Designated Officer — The Central Government shall designate by notification in Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of a Joint Secretary, as the "Designated Officer", for the purpose of issuing direction for blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted. received,, stored or hosted in any computer resource under sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act.
Nodal officer or organisation.— Every organisation for the purpose of these rules, shall designate one of its officer as the Nodal Officer and shall intimate the same to the Central Government in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technotogy, Government of India and also publish the name of the said Nodal Officer on their website.
Direction by Designated Officer. — The Designated Officer may, on receipt of any request from the Nodal Officer of an organisation or a competent court, by order direct any Agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource for any of the reasons specified in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act.
Forwarding of requests by organisation. — (1) Any person may send their complaint to the Nodal Officer of the concerned organisation for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource:
Provided that any request other than the one from the Nodal Officer of the organisation shall be sent with the approval of the Chief Secretary of the concerned State or Union territory to the Designated Officer.
Provided further that in case a Union territory has no Chief Secretary, then, such request may be approved by the Adviser to the Administrator of that Union territory.
(2) The organisation shall examine the complaint received under sub-rule (1) to satisfy themselves about the need for taking of action in relation to the reasons enumerated in sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and after being satisfied, it shall send the request through its Nodal Officer to the Designated Officer in the format specified in the Form appended to these rules.
(3) The Designated Officer shall not entertain any complaint or request for blocking of information directly from any person.
(4) The request shall be in writing on the letter head of the respective organisation, complete in all respects and may be sent either by mail or by fax or by e-mail signed with electronic signature of the Nodal Officer.
Provided that in case the request is sent by fax or by e-mail which is not signed with electronic signature, the Nodal Officer shall provide a signed copy of the request so as to reach the Designated Officer within a period of three days of receipt of the request by such fax or e-mail.
(5) On receipt, each request shall be assigned a number along with the date and time of its receipt by the Designated Officer and he shall acknowledge the receipt thereof to the Nodal Officer within a period of twenty four hours of its receipt.
Committee for examinatlon of request.— The request along with the printed sample content of the alleged offending information or part thereof shall be examined by a committee consisting of the Designated Officer as its chairperson and representatives, not below the rank of Joint Secretary in Ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs. Information and Broadcasting and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team appointed under sub-section (1) of section 70B of the Act.
Examination of request.— (1) On receipt of request under rule 6, the Designated Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary who has hosted the information or part thereof as well as the computer resource on which such information or part thereof is being hosted and where he is able to identify such person or intermediary and the computer resource hosting the informalion or part thereof which have been requested to be blocked for public access, he shall issue a notice by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such person or intermediary in control of such computer resource to appear and submit their reply and clarifications, if any, before the committee referred to in rule 7, at a specified date and time, which shall not be less than forty-eight hours from the time of receipt of such notice by such person or intermediary.
(2) In case of non-appearance of such person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (I), before the committee on such specified date and time, the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(3) In case, such a person or intermediary, who has been served with the notice under sub-rule (1), is a foreign entity or body corporate as identified by the Designated Officer, notice shall be sent by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such foreign entity or body corporate and any such foreign entity or body corporate shall respond to such a notice within the time specified therein, failing which the committee shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer, based on the information available with the committee.
(4) The committee referred to in rule 7 shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is covered within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and that it is justifiable to block such information or part thereof and shall give specific recommendation in writing with respect to the request received from the Nodal Officer.
(5) The designated Officer shall submit the recommendation of the committee, in respect of the request for blocking of information along with the details sent by the Nodal Officer to the Secretary in the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Secretary, Department of Information Technology").
(6) The Designated Officer, on approval of the request by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall direct any agency of the Government or the intermediary to block the offending information generaled, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in their computer resource for public access within time limit specified in the direction:
Provided that in case the request of the Nodal Officer is not approved by the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, the Designated Officer shall convey the same to such Nodal Officer.
Blocking of Information in cases of emergency.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 7 and 8, the Designated Officer, in any case of emergency nature, for which no delay is acceptable, shall examine the request and printed sample information and consider whether the request is within the scope of sub-section (1) of section 69A of the Act and it is necessary or expedient and justifiable to block such information or part thereof and submit the request with specific recommendations in writing to Secretary, Department of Information Technology.
(2) In a case of emergency nature, tne Secretary. Department of Information Technology may, if he is satisfied that it is necessary or expedent and justifiable for blocking for public access of any information or part thereof through any computer resource and after recording reasons in writing as an interim measure issue such directions as he may consider necessary to such identified or identifiable persons or intermediary in control of such computer resource hosting such information or part thereof without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
(3) The Designated Officer, at ihe earliest but not later than forty-eight hours of issue of direction under sub-rule 2, shall bring the request before the committee referred to in rule 7 for its consideration and recommendation.
(4) On receipt of recommendations of committee, Secretary, Department of Information Technology, shall pass the final order as regard to approval of such request and in case the request for blocking is not approved by the Secretary. Department of Information Technology in his final order, the interim direction issued under sub-rule (2) shall be revoked and the person or intermediary in control of such information shall be accordingly directed to unblock the information for public access.
Process of order of court for blocking of Information — In case of an order from a competent court in India for blocking of any information or part thereof generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource, the Designated Officer shall, immediately on receipt of certified copy of the court order, submit it to the Secretary, Department of Information Technology and initiate action as directed by the court.
Expeditious disposal of request - The request received from the Nodal Officer shall be decided expeditiously which in no case shall be more than seven working days from the date of receipt of the request.
Action for non-compliance of direction by Intermediary — In case the intermediary fails to comply with the direction issued to him under rule 9, the Designated Officer shall, with the prior approval of the Secretary, Department of Information Technology, initiate appropriate action as may be required to comply with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 69A of the Act.
Intermediary to designate one person to receive and handle directions — (1) Every intermediary shall designate at least one person to receive and handle the directions for blocking of access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource under these rules.
(2) The designated person of the intermediary shall acknowledge receipt of the directions to the Designated Officer within two hours on receipt of the direction through acknowledgement letter or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signature.
Meeting of Review Commlttee — The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under these rules are in accordance with the provisions of sub-seclion (1) of section 69A of the Act and if is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred above, it may set aside the directions and issue order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.
Maintenance of records by Designated Officer — The Designated Officer shall maintain complete record of the request received and action taken thereof, in electronic database and also in register of the cases of blocking for public access of the information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource.
Requests and complaints to be confidential — Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof.

FORM
(See rule 6(2))

A. Complaint

Name of the complainant: --_________________________________________________________________
(Person who has sent the complaint to the Ministry/Department/State Govt./Nodal Officer)
Address: ________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
City: ______________________________ Pin Code: __________________
Telephone: ________________________ (prefix STD code)
Fax (if any): _______________________
Mobile (if any): ______________________
Email (if any): __________________________________

B. Details of website/computer resource/intermediary/offending information hosted on the website
(Please give details wherever known)
URL / web address: ____________________________________
IP Address: _______________________________________
Hyperlink: ________________________________________
Server/Proxy Server address: ________________________________________
Name of the Intermediary: _________________________________________
URL of the Intermediary: __________________________________________
(Please attach screenshot/printout of the offending information)
Address or location of intermediary in case the intermediary is telecom service provider, network service provider, internet service provider, web-hosting service provider and cyber cafe or other form of intermediary for which information under points (7), (8), (9), (10), (11) and (12) are not available.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
C. Details of Request for blocking
Recommendations/Comments of the Ministry/State Govt: ________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
The level at which the comments/recommendation have been approved
(Please specify designation) ________________________________________________
Have the complaint been examined in Ministry / State Government: Y/N
If yes, under which of the following reasons it falls (please tick):
(i) Interest of sovereignty or integrity of India
(ii) Defence of India
(iii) Security of the State
(iv) Friendly relations with foreign states
(v) Public order
(vi) For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above
D. Details of the Nodal Officer, forwarding the complaint along with recommendation of the Ministry/State Govt. and related enclosures
Name of the Nodal Officer: ___________________________________________
Designation: ______________________________________________________
Organisation: _____________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________ _________

__________________________________________________________

City: __________________________ Pin Code: _________________
Telephone: ___________________________ (prefix STD code)
Fax (if any) _____________________
Mobile (if any) ______________________
Email (if any): ___________________________
E: Any other information:
F: Enclosures:

1.

2.

3.

Date Place Signature

[No. 9(16)J2004-EC]
N. RAVI SHANKER, Jt. Secy

3855GI/09-5

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/reply-to-rti-application-on-blocking-of-website-and-rule-419a-of-indian-telegraph-rules-1951

Cyber Dialogue Conference 2014

praskrishna — 2014-04-08T05:09:54Z

The Cyber Dialogue conference, presented by the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, will convene an influential mix of global leaders from government, civil society, academia and private enterprise to participate in a series of facilitated public plenary conversations and working groups around cyberspace security and governance.

Malavika Jayaram is participating in this event being held on March 30 and 31, 2014. Full event details here.

After Snowden, Whither Internet Freedom?

A recent stream of documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden has shed light on an otherwise highly secretive world of cyber surveillance. Among the revelations — which include details on mass domestic intercepts and covert efforts to shape and weaken global encryption standards — perhaps the most important for the future of global cyberspace are those concerning the way the U.S. government compelled the secret cooperation of American telecommunications, Internet, and social media companies with signals intelligence programs.

For American citizens, the NSA story has touched off soul-searching discussions about the legality of mass surveillance programs, whether they violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and whether proper oversight and accountability exist to protect American citizens' rights. But for the rest of the world, they lay bare an enormous “homefield advantage” enjoyed by the United States — a function of the fact that AT&T, Verizon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo!, and many other brand name giants are headquartered in the United States.

Prior to the Snowden revelations, global governance of cyberspace was already at a breaking point. The vast majority of Internet users — now and into the future — are coming from the world’s global South, from regions like Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Of the six billion mobile phones on the planet, four billion of them are already located in the developing world. Notably, many of the fastest rates of connectivity to cyberspace are among the world’s most fragile states and/or autocratic regimes, or in countries where religion plays a major role in public life. Meanwhile, countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, India, and others have been pushing for greater sovereign controls in cyberspace. While a US-led alliance of countries, known as the Freedom Online Coalition, was able to resist these pressures at the Dubai ITU summit and other forums like it, the Snowden revelations will certainly call into question the sincerity of this coalition. Already some world leaders, such as Brazil’s President Rousseff, have argued for a reordering of governance of global cyberspace away from U.S. controls.

For the fourth annual Cyber Dialogue, we are inviting a selected group of participants to address the question, “After Snowden, Whither Internet Freedom?” What are the likely reactions to the Snowden revelations going to be among countries of the global South? How will the Freedom Online Coalition respond? What is the future of the “multi-stakeholder” model of Internet governance? Does the “Internet Freedom” agenda still carry any legitimacy? What do we know about “other NSA’s” out there? What are the likely implications for rights, security, and openness in cyberspace of post-Snowden nationalization efforts, like those of Brazil’s?

As in previous Cyber Dialogues, participants will be drawn from a cross-section of government (including law enforcement, defence, and intelligence), the private sector, and civil society. In order to canvass worldwide reaction to the Snowden revelations, this year’s Cyber Dialogue will include an emphasis on thought leaders from the global South, including Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cyber-dialogue-conference-2014

Net Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution - II

gautam — 2014-04-29T07:42:40Z

In this 3 part series, Gautam Bhatia explores the concept of net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.

To sum up the previous post: under Article 12 of the Constitution, fundamental rights can be enforced only against the State, or State-like entities that are under the functional, financial and administrative control of the State. In the context of net neutrality, it is clear that privately-owned ISPs do not meet the exacting standards of Article 12. Nonetheless, we also found that the Indian Supreme Court has held private entities, which do not fall within the contours of Article 12, to an effectively similar standard of obligations under Part III as State organizations in certain cases. Most prominent among these is the case of education: private educational institutions have been required to adhere to standards of equal treatment which are identical in content to Article 14, even though their source lies elsewhere. If, therefore, we are to impose obligations of net neutrality upon private ISPs, a similar argument must be found.

I will suggest that the best hope is by invoking the free speech guarantee of Article 19(1)(a). To understand how an obligation of free speech might operate in this case, let us turn to the case of Marsh v. Alabama, an American Supreme Court case from 1946.

Marsh v. Alabama involved a “company town”. The “town” of Chickasaw was owned by a private company, the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. In its structure it resembled a regular township: it had building, streets, a sewage system, and a “business block”, where stores and business places had been rented out to merchants and other service providers. The residents of the “town” used the business block as their shopping center, to get to which they used the company-owned pavement and street. Highway traffic regularly came in through the town, and its facilities were used by wayfarers. As the Court noted:

“In short the town and its shopping district are accessible to and freely used by the public in general and there is nothing to distinguish them from any other town and shopping center except the fact that the title to the property belongs to a private corporation.”

Marsh, who was a Jehovah’s Witness, arrived in Chickasaw with the intention of distributing religious literature on the streets. She was asked to leave the sidewalk, and on declining, she was arrested by the police, and charged under an anti-trespassing statute. She argued that if the statute was applied to her, it would violate her free speech and freedom of religion rights under the American First Amendment. The lower Courts rejected her argument, holding that since the street was owned by a private corporation, she had no constitutional free speech rights, and the situation was analogous to being invited into a person’s private house. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the lower Courts, and found for Marsh.

Four (connected) strands of reasoning run through the Supreme Court’s (brief) opinion. First, it found that streets, sidewalks and public places have historically been critically important sites for dissemination and reception of news, information and opinions, whether it is through distribution of literature, street-corner oratory, or whatever else. Secondly, it found that private ownership did not carry with it a right to exclusive dominion. Rather, “the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation.” Thirdly, it noted that a large number of Americans throughout the United States lived in company towns, and acted just as other American citizens did, in their duties as residents of a community. It would therefore be perverse to deny them rights enjoyed by those who lived in State-municipality run towns. And fourthly, on balance, it held that the private rights of property-owners was subordinate to the right of the people to “enjoy freedom of press and religion.”

No one factor, then, but a combination of factors underlie the Court’s decision to impose constitutional obligations upon a private party. It mattered that, historically, there have been a number of spaces traditionally dedicated to public speech: parks, squares and streets – whose public character remained unchanged despite the nature of ownership. It mattered that individuals had no feasible exit option – that is, no other place they could go to in order to exercise their free speech rights. And it mattered that free speech occupied a significant enough place in the Constitutional scheme so as to override the exclusionary rights that normally tend to go with private property.

The case of the privately-owned street in the privately-owned town presents a striking analogy when we start thinking seriously about net neutrality. First of all, in the digital age, the traditional sites of public discourse – parks, town squares, streets – have been replaced by their digital equivalents. The lonely orator standing on the soap-box in the street corner now tweets his opinions and instagrams his photographs. The street-pamphleteer of yesteryear now updates his Facebook status to reflect his political opinions. Specialty and general-interest blogs constitute a multiplicity of town-squares where a speaker makes his point, and his hearers gather in the comments section to discuss and debate the issue. While these examples may seem frivolous at first blush, the basic point is a serious one: the role of opinion formation and transmission that once served by open, publicly accessible physical infrastructure, held – in a manner of speaking – in public trust by the government, is now served in the digital world, under the control of private gatekeepers. To that extent, it is a public function, undertaken in public interest, as the Court held in Marsh v. Alabama.

The absence of an exit option is equally important. The internet has become not only a space of exchanging information, but it has become a primary – non-replaceable source – of the same. Like the citizens of Chickasaw lacked a feasible alternative space to exercise their public free speech rights (and we operate on the assumption that it would be unreasonably expensive and disruptive for them to move to a different town), there is now no feasible alternative space to the internet, as it exists today, where the main online spaces are owned by private parties, and access to those spaces is determined by gatekeepers – which are the ISPs.

The analogy is not perfect, of course, but there is a case to be made that in acting as the gatekeepers of the internet, privately-owned ISPs are in a position quite similar to the corporate owners of they public streets Company Town.

In the last post, we saw how it is possible – constitutionally – to impose public obligations upon private parties, although the Court has never made its jurisprudential foundation clear. Here, then, is a thought: public obligations ought to be imposed when the private entity is providing a public function and/or when the private entity is in effectively exclusive control of a public good. There is an argument that ISPs satisfy both conditions. Of course, we need to examine in detail how precisely the rights of free expression are implicated in the ISP context. That is the subject for the next post.

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-2

Haphazard censorship? Leaked list of blocked websites in India

praskrishna — 2012-08-23T06:18:45Z

An analysis of a leaked list of the websites blocked by Indian Internet Service Providers (ISPs) on directions from the Department of Telecom bring to light the inconsistencies in India's online censorship efforts.

Published in IBNLive on August 23, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), analysed the 309 specific items that were asked to be censored from August 18, till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government following the recent incidents of communal violence and the mass exodus of North East Indians from Bangalore.

"It is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care," Prakash writes in a post on the CIS website that reveals several egregious errors in the censorship process.

While the government put on its censor gear to apparently stop rumours from spreading, Prakash discovered that "people and posts debunking rumours have been blocked." Also there are some items on the list that do not even exist online.

The 309 items that were ordered to be blocked include URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a few websites.

Prakash, a graduate of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, also raises the questions on the legal standing of the government's actions. "The blocking of many of the items on that list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a some of the items ought, in my estimation, to be removed," he says.

Indian ISPs are also known to go overboard in their efforts to comply with any government order. There have been numerous incidents in the past when ISPs were asked to block a specific URL and they ended up blocking entire domains. The latest round of censorship is also no different. There have been reports of Airtel blocking the entire YouTube short URL youtu.be in some cities.

CIS hasn't published the complete list of the blocked items given "the sensitivity of the issue" but has posted a list of domains from which specific items have been asked to be blocked. The list follows:

ABC.net.au
AlJazeera.com
AllVoices.com
WN.com
AtjehCyber.net
BDCBurma.org
Bhaskar.com
Blogspot.com
Blogspot.in
Catholic.org
CentreRight.in
ColumnPK.com
Defence.pk
EthioMuslimsMedia.com
Facebook.com
Farazahmed.com
Firstpost.com
HaindavaKerelam.com
HiddenHarmonies.org
HinduJagruti.org
Hotklix.com
HumanRights-Iran.ir
Intichat.com
Irrawady.org
IslamabadTimesOnline.com
Issuu.com
JafriaNews.com
JihadWatch.org
KavkazCenter
MwmJawan.com
My.Opera.com
Njuice.com
OnIslam.net
PakAlertPress.com
Plus.Google.com
Reddit.com
Rina.in
SandeepWeb.com
SEAYouthSaySo.com
Sheikyermami.com
StormFront.org
Telegraph.co.uk
TheDailyNewsEgypt.com
TheFaultLines.com
ThePetitionSite.com
TheUnity.org
TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com
TimesOfUmmah.com
Tribune.com.pk
Twitter.com
TwoCircles.net
Typepad.com
Vidiov.info
Wikipedia.org
Wordpress.com
YouTube.com
YouTu.be

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-ibnlive-in-com-haphazard-censorship-leaked-list-of-blocked-sites

World Library and Information Congress 2018

Admin — 2018-08-31T02:23:29Z

Swaraj Paul Barooah was a speaker at two panels during the World Library and Information Congress 2018 (WLIC2018), organised by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) in Kuala Lumpur on August 26 and 27, 2018.

Swaraj's first panel, titled "Intellectual Freedom in a Polarised World" was selected as one of 9 sessions to be live-streamed and recorded, out of 249 sessions in total. The recording can be accessed on YouTube.

Session 123 Intellectual Freedom in a Polarised World - Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee (SI)

Chair: Martyn Wade, United Kingdom

In many national contexts, citizens are seen to be either “with the government or against it,” leaving little opportunity to freely and safely express more nuanced views of current social, political or economic issues. While notable authoritarian regimes quite transparently monitor and limit societal discussion, others, ostensibly democratic, may work in practice to blunt potentially unfavourable social commentary on the pretence of defending political stability or public morality. IFLA’s Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) Advisory Committee explores this phenomenon--and the potential role of civil society and information professionals in advancing freedom of expression--through the experience and insights of an NGO leader, an academic public intellectual, and an officer of UNESCO.

Presentations

Internet and the freedom of expression in Indonesia: opportunity and challenges - Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum, University of New South Wales; former Executive Director of the ELSAM human rights organization (Indonesia), Australia
Freedom of Expression in Malaysia - Azmi Bin Sharom, Faculty of Law, University of Malaysia, Malaysia
What's up with WhatsApp - polarisation and lynchings in India - Swaraj Paul Barooah, The Centre for Internet and Society, India
How to align national laws with international standards on freedom of expression? - Ming-Kuok Lim, Programme Specialist for Communication and Information, UNESCO, Indonesia

Session 140 To Have and not to Hold: The End of Ownership - CLM and FAIFE

The shift from buying physical library media to licensing digital content has profound impacts on the way libraries acquire and give access to content. From e-books that can disappear at the whim (or the mistake) of the owners of a server far away, to the limits on sharing and archiving imposed by some contracts. From the potential monitoring of reader behaviour, to the criminalisation of those who simply want to improve user experience. The dominance of digital media in information provision has both broadened the field of information to which we have access, but potentially made it shallower in terms of the use that libraries, and their users, can make of it. The joint CLM-FAIFE session will look at the question of the end of ownership from a legal and an ethical point of view, drawing on the experience and knowledge of the two communities.

Tomas A. Lipinski, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA – The Limits of Licensing.
Ann Okerson, Centre for Research Libraries, Chicago, USA – The Possibilities of Licensing.
Swaraj Paul Barooah, Centre for Internet and Society – The Balance among Licenses and Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright.
Brent Roe - Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada – Privacy Concerns and Other Side Effects of Licensing.
Jonathan Hernandez-Perez, Researcher, Instituto de Investigaciones Bibilotecologicas, UNAM, Mexico City, Mexico (Invited) – Special Issues in the Developing World; Open Access as a Recapturing of Ownership.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/world-library-and-information-congress-2018

हेट स्पीच

Yash Mittal — 2018-09-07T06:25:37Z

रोहित शर्मा द्वारा संपादित

समाजीकरण और मनोरंजन से गृह-कार्य तक, आज के युग में इंटरनेट युवाओं के लिए जीवन का एक अनिवार्य हिस्सा बन चुका है। यह लोगों को एक दूसरे से जोड़ने और उनसे सीखने के लिए बड़े अवसर प्रदान करता है। परंतु, इसकेबावजूद इंटरनेट में समाज में कई नकारात्मक प्रभाव बनाने की क्षमता है ।इंटरनेट घृणित व हिंसक प्रचार करने के लिए चरमपंथियों को शक्तिशाली उपकरण भी प्रदान करता है, जो वैश्विक स्तर पर कट्टरपंथी समुदायों के सृजन एवं कट्टरपंथीकरण को बढ़ावा देता है।

हेट स्पीच अभिव्यक्ति तथा व्यक्तिगत, समूह और अल्पसंख्यकों के अधिकारों की आज़ादी के साथ एक जटिल गठबंधन में निहित है। इसके साथ साथ हेट स्पीच गरिमा, स्वतंत्रता और समानता की अवधारणाओं का भी समावेश है । इसकी परिभाषा अक्सर विवादास्पद रही है। राष्ट्रीय और अंतरराष्ट्रीय कानून में, घृणास्पद भाषण उन अभिव्यक्तियों को संदर्भित करता है जो उत्तेजना से नुकसान पहुंचाने के (विशेष रूप से, भेदभाव, शत्रुता या हिंसा) हिमायती रहे है। इस बदलाव का प्रयोजन एक निश्चित सामाजिक या जनसांख्यिकीय समूह के साथ पहचाना जा रहा है। वह भाषण इसमें शामिल हो सकते हैं, जो हिंसक कृत्यों की वकालत करते हैं, धमकाते हैं, या प्रोत्साहित करते हैं। कुछ समूहों के लिए, हालांकि, इसकी संकल्पना उन अभिव्यक्तियों तक भी फैली हुई है जो पक्षपात और असहिष्णुता के माहौल को बढ़ावा देती है और भेदभाव, शत्रुता और हिंसक हमलों को बढ़ावा दे सकता है।

आम तौर पर, हेट स्पीच की परिभाषा विस्तृत है, कभी-कभी उन शब्दों को शामिल करके इसकी परिभाषा का विस्तार किया जाता है, जो अधिकतर उच्च पदों पर बैठे व्यक्तियों के लिए अपमान-जनक सिद्ध होते हैं। , घृणास्पद भाषण की संकल्पना के साथ छेड़छाड़ की संभावना विशेष रूप से महत्वपूर्ण समय पर, जैसे कि चुनाव के दौरान होती है। यहाँ तक की आरोप यह भी लगता है कि हेट स्पीच का उपयोग राजनैतिक विरोधी व सत्ता में बैठे लोगों द्वारा एक दूसरे के प्रति असीमित अंसतोष व आलोचना को जन्म देने के लिए भी किया जाता है।

ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच का प्रसार एक नूतन और तेज़ी से विकसित घटना है और इसकी महत्वता,

प्रभाव और परिणामों को समझने के लिए सामूहिक प्रयासों की आवश्यकता है।

हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार में सोशल मीडिया की भूमिका:

गौरतलब है पिछले कुछ समय में हेट स्पीच के प्रचार प्रसार में [WU1] सोशल मीडिया मुख्यतः एक नए औज़ार के रूप में उभरा हैI यह भयप्रद औजार प्रमुखता से धर्म के आधार पर नफरत फैलाने का काम कर रहा है। इसका उपयोग उपद्रवी तत्वों द्वारा प्रचार-प्रसार के घिनौनें तरकीबों से समाज की एकता और शांति में विघ्न उत्पन्न करने के लिए होता है।समाज की शांति को भंग कुछ इस प्रकार किया जाता है, जिससे इसके स्रोत व उपयोगकर्ता की जानकारी सुनिश्चित करना नामुमकिन सा साबित होता है।

इंटरनेट पर वार्तालाप, विशेषतःसोशल मीडिया पर, अक्सर उन बातचीत की प्रतिबिंब होती है जो बातें ऑफ़-लाइन होती है। हालांकि, ऑनलाइन बातचीत का एक लाभ यह होता है की यह आपके आस-पास मौजूद लोगों के एक छोटे समूह तक सीमित नहीं होती। भूगोल और समय की बाधाएं ऑनलाइन बातचीत में मौजूद नहीं हैं, क्योंकि कोई भी व्यक्ति, किसी भी समय ऑनलाइन बातचीत में शामिल हो सकता है और इस चर्चा में अपने विचारों का योगदान कर सकता है ।

वर्ल्ड बैंक रिपोर्ट 2016 के अनुसार ,भारत में हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार में सोशल मीडिया का बहुत ही अहम योगदान है, जिसका कारण भारत की दुनिया की इंटरनेट सेवा की उपयोगिता में 30% हिस्सेदारी है। ) द नेक्स्ट वेब रिपोर्ट 2017 के अनुसार विश्व की अग्रणी सोशल नेटवर्किंग वेबसाइट, फेसबुक का उपभोक्ता आधार भारत में 24 करोड़ के आंकड़े को पार कर चुका है। )।

इसके अतिरिक्त यरल रिपोर्ट 2016 के अनुसार, 13.6 करोड़ भारतीय सोशल मीडिया प्लैटफ़ार्म पर अपनी सक्रियता दर्ज करवा रहे हैI

अगर सोशल मीडिया प्लेटफार्म की बात की जाए, तो व्हाट्सअप के महत्व को कम आंकना मुनासिब नहीं होगा I इसका मतलब यह है की वर्त्तमान में युवाओं की कार्यशैली में व्हाट्सएप के उपयोगिता को अन-देखा नहीं कर सकते हैं, जो मैशबल संस्था, 2017 के अनुसार भारत में 20 करोड़ से अधिक उपयोगकर्ताओं तक पहुंच गया है। इसका मतलब है कि भारत में 20 करोड़ उपभोक्ता व्हाट्सएप में दैनिक आधार पर संदेशों का आदान-प्रदान कर रहे हैं। इस प्रकार, संचार के सबसे लोकप्रिय चैनलों के रूप में से एक, सोशल मीडिया हेट स्पीच से लड़ने के साथ साथ बढावा देने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभा रहा है। वास्तव में, यह एक शक्तिशाली उपकरण है जो टेलीविजन के रूप में अपने ऑडियो-विजुअल के फायदों के साथ निहित है।

वर्ष 2015 में पिउ रिसर्च सेंटर की रिपोर्ट के अनुसार भारत सामाजिक शत्रुता सूचकांक में चौथे स्थान पर आता है(10 में से 8.7 सूचकांक मूल्य)I इस मूल्यांकन के अनुसार भारत से ख़राब मात्र 3 देश क्रमशः सीरिया, नाइजीरिया और इराक़ हैं । यह भारत में धर्म उन्मुख मुद्दों पर चिन्तनीय स्थिति को दर्शाता है । ।

हालांकि यह प्रवृत्ति भारत तक सीमित नहीं है। यह धार्मिक कट्टरपंथवाद विश्व के कई अन्य देशों में भी दिखाई देता है। पाकिस्तान और बांग्लादेश जैसे दक्षिण एशियाई देशों ने भी, न सिर्फ राज्य बल्कि कट्टरवादी समूहों द्वारा अभिव्यक्ति की आज़ादी को अन-देखा किया है, जो देश, धर्म या समुदायों की रक्षा करने का दावा करते हैं।

भारत में पत्रकारों को उनकी रिपोर्टिंग पर अक्सर मौत की धमकी मिलना व उनके खिलाफ एक नफरत भरा अभियान चला कर उन्हें प्रताड़ित करने की क्रियाएँ आम है, जिसका सीधा साधा प्रतिफल भारत को प्रेस स्वतंत्रता सूचकांक2018 में 180 देशों में 138 वा स्थान मिलना है । लोकतंत्र का चौथा स्तम्भ प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता की बात करता है, जो प्रदर्शित करता है कि प्रेस की स्वतंत्रता के साथ कोई समझौता नहीं होना चाहिए I अगर प्रेस पर सरकारों का नियंत्रण होगा तो वह जनता तक वही समाचार और ख़बरें पहुंचाएगी जो सरकार के हितों की वकालत करते हैं या सरकार को मसीहा के रूप में प्रदर्शित करते हैं। प्रेस से छेड़खानी अप्रत्‍यक्ष रूप से जनता के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन है क्यूंकि स्वतंत्र पत्रकारिता का काम है जनता तक बिना किसी डर या दबाव के सही व सटीक समाचार पहुंचाना जो एक लोकतांत्रिक देश के मूल्यों को दर्शाता है।

हाल ही में हेट स्पीच का तुलनात्मक रूप से उदाहरण लिया जाए तो प्रसिद्ध फ्रीलैनसर पत्रकार राणा अय्युब को 2002 के गुजरात-दंगे पर लिखी किताब ‘गुजरात फाइल्स’ को प्रकाशित करने के बाद से हेट स्पीच का सामना करना पड़ा जिसमें उनके खिलाफ एक स्पष्ट रूप से संघटित सोशल मीडिया अभियान द्वारा उन्हें टारगेट किया गयाI इस अभियान के तहत उनके खिलाफ आरोप लगाया की वह चाइल्ड रेपिस्ट को समर्थन करती हैI

इस के अलावा उनके खिलाफ अस्वीकृत व्यव्हार एवं फूहड़ भाषा का प्रयोग करके उनके साथ बलात्कार करने तक की धमकी दी गयी। राणा अय्युब के अनुसार यह अभियान सीधे सीधे उनके विगतकाल में किये गए स्टिंग ऑपरेशन का प्रभाव है। उन्होंने गुप्त रूप से दर्ज साक्षात्कारों का इस्तेमाल किया था, जो 2002 के गुजरात दंगों को बढ़ाने में नौकरशाहों और राजनेताओं के मेल-जोल के बारे में बताते थेI

इस श्रृंखला में दूसरा उदाहरण एनडीटीवी के वरिष्ठ पत्रकार रवीश कुमार का है, जो अपने बेबाक विश्लेषण के लिए जाने जाते हैंI वह भी पिछले कुछ दिनों से ऑनलाइन ट्रोलिंग का शिकार हो रहे हैं जिसमें उन्हें एक वीडियो मैसेज द्वारा जान से मारने तक की धमकी तक दी गयी जिसे रवीश बताते है कि “यह सब अच्छी तरह से संगठित प्रयास है जिसे राजनीतिक मंजूरी प्रदान है”। हेट स्पीच का उल्लेख ख़ाली पत्रकारों के खिलाफ ही नहीं अपितु बॉलीवुड कलाकारों के खिलाफ भी है I हाल ही में कई दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण प्रदर्शनों मेंदीपिका पादुकोण, रणवीर सिंह और संजय लीला भंसाली को फिल्म पद्मावती पर अत्यधिक नफरत और धमकी भरे संदेश प्राप्त हुए हैं क्योंकि लोगों के एक समूह ने बिना फिल्म देखे यह आंकलन कर लिया कि यह फिल्म उनकी भावनाओं को चोट पहुंचाती है।

ये घटनाएँ पुष्टि करती हैं कि सोशल मीडिया हेट स्पीच बनाने और फैलाने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता हैI और इसका इस्तेमाल हिंसा को उकसानें के स्पष्ट एजेंडे के साथ- साथ सांप्रदायिक और धार्मिक हेट स्पीच को बढ़ावा देने के लिए किया गया है।

ऑनलाइन घृणास्पद भाषण की घटनाओं को वास्तव में रोकने के लिए, एक बड़े अभियान की आवश्यकता है जो लोगों को संवेदनशील बनाकर उनमें बोलने की आज़ादी और नफरत भरे भाषणों के बीच अंतर स्पष्ट करने में मददगार साबित हो सके। इस अभियान के प्रति भागीदारी आपकी और मेरी ही नहीं अपितु प्रत्येक व्यक्ति की ज़िम्मेदारी है कि इंटरनेट पर उपलब्ध सामग्री का उत्पादन व उपभोग आँखों पर पट्टी बाँधकर एक मंद-उपभोक्ता की तरह नहीं अपितु समझदारी एवं बुद्धिमत्ता के साथ करना चाहिए।

ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच से निपटने के लिए प्रभावी कानून की आवश्यकता:

ऊपर दिए गए दृष्टांत एवं तर्क इस और इशारा करती हैं कि बोलने और अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के लिए हेट स्पीच एक जटिल चुनौती है। भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय ने भी इस बात को तब महसूस किया जब उन्होंने विधि आयोग की राय-मशविरा मांगी कि किन क़ानूनों से चुनाव आयोग को हेट स्पीच से प्रभावी ढंग से निपटने के लिए सशक्त किया जाए।

ऑनलाइन "हेट स्पीच" के लिए एक अलग कानून तैयार करने की दिशा में गृह मंत्रालय ने विधि आयोग को एक कानूनी मसौदा तैयार करने के लिए लिखा है। इसमें निर्धारित प्रावधान, सोशल मीडिया और ऑनलाइन मैसेजिंग अनु-प्रयोगों के माध्यम से भेजे गए संवेदनशील व भड़काऊ संदेशों से निपटने में उपयोगी होंगे जो सामाजिक विकार को नियंत्रित करेगा।

यह निर्णय तब लिया गया जब पूर्व लोकसभा महासचिव टी के विश्वनाथन की अध्यक्षता में घटित समिति ने ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार को नियंत्रण में रखने के लिए कड़े कानूनों की सिफ़ारिश की। यह पैनल सूचना प्रोद्योगिकी अधिनियम, 2000 की धारा 66ए के सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा वर्ष 2015 में निरस्त होने के बाद गठन किया गया था ।

मार्च 2017, में विधि आयोग द्वारा सुप्रीम कोर्ट के पूर्व जस्टिस बी एस चौहान की अध्यक्षता में दो नए प्रावधानों को आईपीसी में सम्मालित होने की सिफ़ारिश की गयी जो की प्रवासी भलाई संगठन बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया 2014 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा दिए गए आदेश पर कार्य कर रहा था। इसमे कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट रूप से कहा की हेट स्पीच को समानता के अधिकार के शीशे से देखा जाना चाइए, और बताया की हेट स्पीच को केवल एक व्यक्ति के खिलाफ अपमानजनक स्पीच के रूप में नहीं देखा जाना चाहिए बल्कि यह कुछ समूहों के भीतर शामिल व्यक्तियों को भी भेदभाव या हिंसा के लिए उत्तेजित करता है जो उस समूह की प्रतिष्ठा पर सवालिया निशान खड़ा करता है।

आयोग द्वारा सुझाए गए आपराधिक कानून (संशोधन) विधेयक, 2017 के अनुसार आईपीसी में धारा 153 सी और धारा 505 ए को सम्मलित करने और आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता में आवश्यक परिवर्तन करने का प्रस्ताव है।

प्रस्तावित धारा 153 सी (बी) आईपीसी- नफरत को प्रोत्साहित करने पर 'सिफ़ारिश करती है कि अपराध करने पर दो साल की कारावास और ₹ 5,000 जुर्माना या दोनों ही दंडनीय होंगे।

प्रस्तावित कानून कहता है, "जो भी धर्म, जाति, या समुदाय, लिंग, लिंग पहचान, यौन अभिविन्यास, जन्म स्थान, निवास, भाषा, विकलांगता या जनजाति के आधार पर संचार के किसी भी साधन का उपयोग करता है - (ए) गंभीर चोट या चेतावनी का डर पैदा करने के इरादे से किसी भी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह को धमकाने के लिए; या (बी) वकालत करता है किसी भी व्यक्ति या व्यक्तियों के समूह की ओर घृणा पैदा करने की या जो अपराध करने के लिए उत्तेजना का कारण बनता है।"

दूसरा जोड़ा जाने वाला प्रस्तावित प्रावधान धारा 505 आईपीसी कहता है, "जो कोई भी जानबूझकर सार्वजनिक रूप से उन शब्दों का उपयोग करता है, या किसी भी लेखन, चिन्ह, या अन्य दृश्य-मान को प्रदर्शित करता है जो गंभीर रूप से खतरनाक, या अपमान-जनक है; (i) किसी व्यक्ति की सुनवाई या दृष्टि के भीतर, भय या चेतावनी, या; (ii) गैर-कानूनी हिंसा के उपयोग को उत्तेजित करने के इरादे से, उस व्यक्ति या किसी अन्य के खिलाफ, उसके लिए एक वर्ष की कारावास या रु 5000 जुर्माना और दोनों लगाया जा सकता है।“

ऑनलाइन हेट स्पीच के प्रचार-प्रसार को रोकने के लिए अन्य कुछ कदम:

1) जर्मनी का कानून एक विनियनमक मॉडल के रूप में स्वीकार किया जा सकता है:

वर्ष 2017 में जर्मनी में नया कानून पारित किया गया जिसके अंतर्गत कंपनियों को 24 घंटो के भीतर हेट स्पीच से संबंधित सभी सामग्री हटाने का दायित्व है। इस कानून के जवाब में इसके मात्र सोशल नेटवर्किंग साइट फ़ेसबुक ने ही 1,200 लोगों की भर्तियाँ की ताकि जर्मन नागरिकों द्वारा इसके दुरुपयोग का प्रभावी ढंग से पता लगाया जा सके और इसे हटाया जा सके। अगर कंपनी अपने कार्य में असफल होती है, तो नियामक संस्था उस कंपनी पर $79 मिलियन(करीब 545 अरब) का जुर्माना लगा सकता है।

2) आर्टिफ़िश्यल इंटेलिजेंस का उपयोग:

एन्टीसेमिटिजम साइबर निगरानी प्रणाली एक ऐसा उपकरण है जो सोशल मीडिया पर एन्टीसेमिटिजम (यहूदी विरोधी भावना) की जांच करता है, यह इजरायली डायस्पोरा अफेयर्स मिनिस्टरी द्वारा निर्मित है और यह मार्च 2018 में सम्पन्न हुई ग्लोबल फोरम फॉर कोम्बाटिंग एन्टीसेमिटिजम की बैठक में प्रमोचित किया जा चुका है।

यह उपकरण मूल-पाठ के विश्लेषण के लिए उपयोग किया जाता है जो शब्दों, वाक्यांशों और प्रतीकों के लिए सोशल मीडिया साइटों को खोज कर काम करता है जिन्हें संभावित एंटीसेमेटिक सामग्री के संकेत के रूप में पहचाना गया है। उपकरण फिर सामग्री की समीक्षा करता है और इंटरेक्टिव ग्राफ़ उत्पन्न करता है।

निष्कर्ष:

ऑनलाइन दुष्प्रचार समाज की शांति व एकता को खंडित करने के लिए एक नए शत्रु के रूप में जन्मा है, पिछले 10 वर्षो में भारतीयों की इंटरनेट पर सक्रियता व सोशल मीडिया नेटवर्किंग साइट से जुड़ाव इस बात का संकेत है कि भविष्य में संपूर्ण विश्व में इंटरनेट क्रांति भारत से ही प्रज्ज्वलित होगी। यूं तो समाज में दुष्प्रचार व घृणा फैलाने के लिए तमाम तरकीब है, पर ऑनलाइन तकनीक का सहारा लेकर कुछ असामाजिक तत्व अपने कट्टरपंथी सिद्धांतों को न छोड़कर समाज को बांटने का काम करते हैंIयह आम तौर पर चुनावों के दौरान एक धर्म को दूसरे धर्म से लड़वाने का काम करते हैं जिससे चुनावों में वोटों का ध्रुवीकरण हो सके और इनकी मनचाही राजनैतिक पार्टी को इसका फायदा मिल सके। सबसे बड़े खेद की बात ये है कि इस हेट स्पीच में सभी राजनैतिक दल कहीं न कहीं लिप्त है। और अंत में इस पूरे प्रकरण में सबसे बड़ा नुकसान भारत की जनता वहन करती है।

दुनियाभर में एक दूसरे को संयोजित रखने में इंटरनेट अपनी बड़ी भूमिका अदा कर रहा है, पर समाज में शांति, स्थिरता व एकता को संजोये रखने में यह एक चुनौती भी खड़ी कर रहा है। इसका मुख्य कारण यह है इंटरनेट वह माध्यम है जो चंद पलों में अफ़वाहों के बाज़ार को गर्म कर सकता हैI और यही गर्मी आग का भयावह रूप लेकर समाज को भड़काने के लिए काफी होती है जिसके उपरांत समाज कई गुटों में टूटकर खोखला हो जाता है। यह भयावह स्थिति अधिकांश घटनाओं में मनुष्य के नियंत्रण के बाहर होती है। इसलिए हमे इंटरनेट का उपयोग समाज के उत्थान के लिए करना चाहिए ना कि उसके वित्थान के लिए।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/93994791f-93894d92a94091a