Explore

Summoned executives from Google, Facebook, Twitter and other companies to remove objectionable content from their website within the prescribed time period failing to which may result into blocking of the websites in India and the executives facing trial for criminal conspiracy. The case centred on a petition filed by a journalist named Vinay Rai, who referred to obscene depictions online of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Mohammed, and various Hindu deities. Charges against the intermediaries included "promoting enmity between groups" and "deliberate malicious acts intended to outrage."

(1) In response to public protests and agitations, the State of Gujarat, India blocked Internet access through mobile phones for a week pursuant to Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) Petitioner Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas brought the present public interest litigation before the High Court of Gujarat, seeking to declare that the state lacked authority to block Internet access under Section 144 and argued that such blockage violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. (3) The High Court of Gujarat held that the temporary ban on Internet through mobile phone services was permissible though the invocation of Section 144 as the state government had sufficient justification to prevent public disturbance and maintain public order. The Court further noted that a ban on Internet access may not be considered...

Peoples' Union for Civil Liberties has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India arguing that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 and the Information Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 are in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Mouthshut, India's leading online community for consumer reviews, filed a petition before the Supreme Court for quashing the Information Technology Rules (Intermediaries Guidelines), 2011 and declaring them violative of Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India See Mouthshout.com's press release here.

Common Cause, a NGO along with senior Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Law Minister of Delhi Somnath Bharti has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India arguing that Section 66A, Section 69A and Section 80 of the IT Act, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 are in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a member of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India has filed a petition in the Indian Supreme Court challenging Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(7) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.