Online Intermediaries in India - Network of Centers - Publixphere

10/1/2015
OnlineIntermediariesinIndiaNetworkofCentersPublixphere
Getanaccounttoparticipateinthediscussion.
Register
or
LOGIN
HOME SESSIONS PAPERS COMMUNITY
OnlineIntermediariesinIndia
ThiscasestudybytheNationalLawUniversity,DelhimapsandanalyzesonlineintermediaryliabilityinIndia
bydescribingthelandscape,highlightingintermediariesofspecialinterestsuchaplatformsusedtoarrange
marriages,mappingtheonlineintermediarygovernancemechanisms,andassessingtheimpactofthe
governanceframework.
OnlineIntermediariesinIndia
0Comments
0Comments
Authors:ChinmayiArunandSarvjeetSingh
NationalLawUniversity,Delhi
Abstract:ThiscasestudymapsandanalyzesonlineintermediaryliabilityinIndia.Itbeginswiththelandscape
ofonlineintermediariesinIndia,highlightingintermediariesofspecialinterest.Thisincludes,forinstance,
platformsusedtoarrangemarriages,whicharemuchmorepopularinIndiathandatingplatformsbecauseof
Indiansocialnorms.Thesecondsectionofthepaperattemptstomapindetailthegovernancemechanism
applicabletoonlineintermediariesinIndiathisincludesthelicensingsystemusedforinternetservice
providers,theInformationTechnologyAct,andtheCopyrightAct.Thelikelihoodofgenerallyapplicable
criminallawinIndia(suchastheIndianPenalCode)asapotentialsourceofintermediaryliabilityisalso
discussedbriefly.Thefinalpartofthepaperassessestheimpactofthegovernanceframework,tiestogether
itsdifferentthemesofcontentblocking,interceptionofdata,andnoticeandtakedownofcontent.Itanalyzes
thelawunderwhichtheseactivitiestakeplace,fromtheperspectiveofgoodgovernanceprinciplessuchas
transparencyandaccountability.Italsoconsiderswhetherthegovernanceframeworkforonlineintermediaries
treatsonlinespeechinamannerthatisconsistentwiththeIndianconstitution.Theseriousflawsinthe
systemsfollowedinIndiaareapparentthroughthisassessmentthelackoftransparencyandaccountability
suggestthatoverregulationofconstitutionallyprotectedspeechislikelytoresultinverylittleprotectionof
primaryspeakersrights.
TableofContents
0Comments
I.Introduction
A.TopWebsitesinIndia
1.SearchEngines
2.SocialMediaWebsites
B.IntermediariesofInterestinIndia
II.Governancemechanism&LegalFrameworkforIntermediaryLiabilityinIndia
A.LicensingSystemforInternetServiceProviders
B.TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000
https://publixphere.net/i/noc/page/OI_Case_Study_Online_Intermediaries_in_India
1/23
10/1/2015
1.SafeHarbor,DueDiligenceandEditorialControl
2.InformationTechnology(IntermediariesGuidelines)Rules,2011
3.BlockingOrdersUndertheITAct
4.InterceptionUndertheITAct
C.TheCopyrightAct,1957
III.ImpactAssessment
A.GovernmentOrderedBlockingofContent
B.NoticeandTakedown
C.InterceptionofInformationbyIntermediaries
IV.CasescurrentlybeforetheSupremeCourt
A.RajeevChandrasekhar
B.CommonCause
1.Section69AandtheInformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguardsforBlockingforAccessof
InformationbyPublic)Rules,2009
C.Moutshut.com
D.Peoples'UnionforCivilLiberties
1.InformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguardsforBlockingforAccessofInformationbyPublic)Rules,
2009
2.InformationTechnology(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011
E.InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia
F.KamleshVaswani
I.Introduction
0Comments
TheintermediaryecosysteminIndiaisstillevolving.Ataglance,itisapparentthatthemajoronline
intermediariesinIndiaarefamiliarglobalnames.Thisisnotsurprisinggiventhedemographicthatiscurrently
accessingtheInternetinIndia:digitalaccessisconcentratedinurbanareas,andamongliteratepeoplewho
arefamiliarwiththelanguagesusedbyinternationalonlineplatforms.
ThispaperbeginswithanattempttooutlinethesignificantonlineintermediariesoperatinginIndiaandthe
marketshareheldbyeach.Italsohighlightssomeinterestingonlineintermediaries,likeCGNetSwara,thatare
significantforreasonsotherthanmarketshare.CGNetSwaraisahybridplatformcateringtopartsofrural
India,allowingtribalpeopletocreatenewsreportsusingasimplevoicemobilephoneconnection.Indiansocial
normsalsogeneratetheirownversionsofglobalonlineplatforms.Whiledatingwebsitesareubiquitous
globally,theirIndiancounterpartsfocusonarrangingmarriagesusingcriterialikecaste,religionandskin
color,whicharesignificantfactorsinwhatisreferredtopopularlyasthemarriagemarket.
ThesecondpartofthepaperdiscussestheregulatoryframeworkthatgovernsintermediaryliabilityinIndia.It
outlinesverybrieflytheconstitutionalframeworkwithinwhichintermediariesoperate.Itthenproceedstooffer
anindicationofthecriminalandcivilliabilitythatmightapplytointermediarieswithoutsafeharborprotection.
ThissafeharborprotectioncomesfromtheInformationTechnologyAct,whichoffersconditionalimmunityto
intermediaries.Thisimmunityandtheconditionsattachedtoitincludingintermediariesobligationsinthe
contextofcontentblocking,interceptionofinformation,andnoticeandtakedownarediscussedinsome
detailinthispart.AlsodiscussedistheCopyrightActsdifferentsafeharborframeworkandtheexpartecourt
copyrightinfringementrelatedordersthatareincreasinglyprevalentinIndia.
Thethirdpartofthispaperbuildsonthefactssetoutinthesecondpartbyofferingananalysis,supportedwith
datawhereverpossible,oftheimpactthattheregulatoryframeworkhasononlineintermediariesandthe
contentthattheyarewillingtohost.Thispartofthepaperconsidersthetransparencyandaccessibilityofthe
legalrules,inordertoassesswhetherintermediariesareeasilyabletounderstandwhattheyneedtodoto
comply.Itexaminestheframeworksincentivestoseewhetherachillingeffectiscreated.Italsoconsidersthe
transparencyandaccountabilityofgovernmentorderedblockingandinterceptiontoevaluatewhetherthis
liabilityregimeoffersanysafeguardsfromcensorshiporsurveillancebyproxy.
ThenoticeandtakedownprocesssetupundertheInformationTechnologyAct(ITAct)andtheCopyrightAct
arecontroversialespeciallyintermsofthechillingeffectthattheyhaveonspeech.Alsoofconcernareseveral
petitionscurrentlybeforetheSupremeCourtofIndia.Whilesomeofthesepetitionsseektostrikedownthe
noticeandtakedownregimesetupbytheITActongroundsthatitviolatesconstitutionalrights,othersseekto
reinstateastrictliabilityregimeforobscenecontentonline.TheSupremeCourtsrulinginthesecaseswill
shapethefutureofintermediaryliabilitylawinIndia.Theyareintroducedattheendofthispiece.
Indiacurrentlyhastheworld'sthirdlargestInternetconsumerbaseafterChinaandtheUnitedStates[1],witha
totalof238.71millionsubscribersasofDecember2013[2]and205millionusersasofOctober2013[3].
However,thenumberofactiveInternetusers(i.e.usersaccessingtheInternetatleastonceamonth)wasa
muchlower149millionasofJune2013[4].Theusersengagementwiththeonlinespaceisalsolow,with
InternetusersinIndiaspendingonly20to25hoursonaverageonlinepermonth.[5]
[1]MoulishreeSrivastava,InternetbaseinIndiacrosses200millionmark,Mint(Nov.13,2013),
http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/9pWsphmYL2YjdisfO7bGLM/InternetbaseinIndiacrosses200million
2/23
10/1/2015
mark.html.s
[2]TelecomRegulatoryAuthorityofIndia,TheIndianTelecomServicesPerformanceIndicators:AprilJune,
2013,xii,27(Dec.2013),availableat
http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PIRReport/Documents/Indicator%20Reports%20%20Jun02122013.pdf.
[3]InternetUsersinIndiaCrosses200MillionMark,IAMAI(Nov.13,2013),
http://www.iamai.in/PRelease_detail.aspx?nid=3222&NMonth=11&NYear=2013.
[4]IAMAIInternetinIndia2013,InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia,2(2013).
[5]ChandraGnanasambandamandAnuMadgavkar,Onlineandupcoming:TheInternetsimpactonIndia,
McKinsey&Company(Dec.2012),availableat
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_Internet/indias_Internet_opportunity.
A.TopWebsitesinIndia
0Comments
ThetopwebsitesinIndia,accordingtocommercialwebtrafficdatacollectedbyAlexa,ananalyticalwebsite,
areasfollows:[6]
Figure1.TopWebsitesinIndia
ThisdataindicatesthatthirteenofthetopfifteenwebsitesarebasedoutsideIndia.Thetwoexceptionsare
flipkart.com(anonlineretailerthatreachesmarketssimilartothosetargetedbyAmazon)andindiatimes.com
(acontentportalownedbyIndianmediacompanyBennett,ColemanandCo.Ltd.).
[6]TopsitesinIndia,Alexa(July24,2014),availableathttp://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/IN.
1.SearchEngines
0Comments
Figure2.SearchEngines(DatafromStatCounter)
[7]Top5SearchEnginesinIndiafromJune2013toJune2014,availableathttp://gs.statcounter.com/#all
search_engineINmonthly201306201406.
2.SocialMediaWebsites
0Comments
3/23
10/1/2015
Figure3.SocialMediaWebsites(DatafromStatCounter)
FacebookhasthelargestuserbaseinIndiawith93millionusers,followedbyTwitterwithitsestimated33
millionaccounts,[10]andLinkedIn,whichhas24millionusers.[11]AccordingtotheComscoreIndiaDigital
FutureinFocusReport2013,FacebookisthemostpopularsocialmediasiteinIndia,capturingthemaximum
screentimewithaccessto86%oftheuserbaseinIndiaand59,642,000uniquevisitorsin20122013.[12]The
reportsuggeststhatFacebookisfollowedbyLinkedIn,whichisthenextmostpopular,with11,127,000
visitors,followedbyTwitter,whichhad3,884,000uniquevisitors.[13]AnIAMAIreportsuggeststhat96%of
thetotalnumberofsocialmediausersuseFacebook,while57%useGoogleplus,and49%useOrkut.[14]The
videosharingplatformYouTubehasover55millionuniqueusersamonthinIndia[15],andisusedby58%of
137millionInternetusersinthecountry.[16]
[8]ThedatacombinesMicroblogs,SocialmediaUsergeneratedcontentplatformstypesofintermediariesas
providedintheguidingquestionsdocument.
[9]Top7SocialMediasitesinIndiafromJune2013toJune2014,availableathttp://gs.statcounter.com/#all
social_mediaINmonthly201306201406.
[10]AtishPatel,India'ssocialmediaelectionbattle,BBCNewsIndia(Mar.31,2014),
http://www.bbc.com/news/worldasiaindia26762391.
[11]LinkedInIndiauserbasecrosses24million277millionmembersworldwide,NDTV(Feb.12,2014),
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/socialnetworking/news/linkedinindiauserbasecrosses24million277million
membersworldwide482512.
[12]IndiaDigitalFuturein2013,ComScore,24(Aug.222013),availableat
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_India_Digital_Future_in_Focus.
[13]IndiaDigitalFuturein2013,ComScore,24(Aug.222013),availableat
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_India_Digital_Future_in_Focus.
[14]SocialMediainIndia2013,InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia,6(Oct.2013).
[15]NMadhavanandVivekSinha,Wehave10,000fulllengthIndianmoviesonYouTube:GoogleIndiachief,
HindustanTimes(Sept.17,2013),http://www.hindustantimes.com/businessnews/wehave10000fulllength
indianmoviesonyoutubegoogleindiachief/article11123030.aspx.
[16]RohinDharmakumar,IsGoogleGobblingUptheIndianInternetSpace?,ForbesIndia(Jul.22,2013),
http://forbesindia.com/article/realissue/isgooglegobblinguptheindianInternet
space/35641/0#ixzz38Kf8IuNP.
B.IntermediariesofInterestinIndia
0Comments
TherearemanyintermediariesinIndiathatwerecreatedinresponsetoIndiansocialnormsandmarkets.
Theseincludeonlinematrimonialportals,whichresembleonlinedatingservicesinsomeways,buthaveother
designchoicesandactualfunctionsthatcatertoIndiansocialnorms.Thefirstofthesematrimonialportals
beganoperationin1996andwascalledsagaai.com(subsequentlyshaadi.com),[17]ownedbyPeopleGroup.
Theonlinematrimonymarketiscurrentlyvaluedataround$83,000,000[18]andisexpectedtotouch
$250,000,000by2017.[19]IndeferencetowidespreadIndianpracticesaboutmarryingwithinparticularsub
groups,theseportalsenableuserstosearchformatchesbasedonreligion,caste,mothertongue,horoscope,
skintone,vegetarianism,alcoholconsumption,andsmokinghabits.Theyenableparentstosetupprofilesfor
theiroffspring,allowingforthefactthatmanyfamiliesarrangemarriagesforyoungpeopleandseethechoice
ofpartnerasafamilydecisionratherthananindividualone.Theconsequenceofthiscanbeaviolationof
privacyandprofessionalembarrassmentforpeoplewhofindthataweddingprofilehasbeencreatedforthem
withouttheirconsent.However,itisdifficulttofindlawsuitsorcomplaintsabouttheseincidentssincethey
takeplacebetweenclosefamilymembersandareusuallyhandledinformally.Amoreseriousandfairly
commonprobleminthecontextofmatrimonialwebsitesisfraud.Newsreportssuggestthattherearemultiple
4/23
10/1/2015
casesofwomenandtheirfamiliesbeingdupedbymenwhousetheseplatformstoextortmoneyby
misrepresentationorblackmail.[20]TheGovernmenthasissuedapressreleaseremindingtheseintermediaries
oftheirobligationtodisableharmfulandunlawfulinformationwhenitisreported,andtoappointGrievance
Officerstoassistwiththisprocess.[21]ThepressreleasealsomentionstheIndianComputerEmergency
Responseteamworkswithsocialnetworkingwebsitestodisablefakeaccounts,andthatthisismoreeasily
achievedforsocialnetworkingwebsiteswithofficesinIndia.[22]
InnonurbanIndia,newplatformsarebeingsetuptobridgethedigitaldivideeventhoughbroadband
connectivityisstillnotavailableintheseregions.[23]TheseplatformsincludeinitiativeslikeCGNetSwara,
KanoonSwara,andGraamVani.CGNetSwaraallowspeopleinruralareasofcentralIndiawithmajoritiesof
tribalpopulationstosubmitandlistentoaudionewsreportsregardingthearea.Theinitiativereceivesan
averageof200callsperdayandisdrivingtheemergenceofonlinereportsonlocalissues.[24]TheGram
Vaani[25]operatesaMobileVaaniinitiativethatconnectsreportsfrommobilephoneuserstostakeholders
includinggovernmentsandNGOsusinganinteractivevoiceresponsesystem.InthestateofJharkhand,ithas
over100,000usersthatcall2000timesaday.[26]
Onlinerecruitmentwebsitessuchasnaukri.comandmonster.comhavealsogainedimmensepopularityin
India.[27]
[17]SatrajitSen,ArrangedmarriagesovertheInternetwerealaughableideawhenShaadi.comstarted,India
DigitalReview(Dec.5,2011),http://www.indiadigitalreview.com/interviews/arrangedmarriagesoverInternet
werelaughableideawhenshaadicomstartedanupamgmitt.
[18]HarsimranJulka&ApurvaVishwanath,Matrimonyportalsmakingseriouseffortstocounterrisingtideof
divorces,ensurelastingunions,EconomicTimes(June26,2013),
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20130626/news/40206906_1_portalsonlinebharatmatrimony
com.
[19]OnlinemarriagebusinessmaytouchRs.1,500croreby2017:Assocham,IndiaToday(Dec.18,2013),
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/onlinemarriagebusinessmaytouchrs1500croreby2017
assocham/1/331691.html.
[20]SadafAman,FraudsandCheatsRuleMatrimonialSites,NewIndianExpress,
http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2014/11/24/FraudandCheatsRuleMatrimonial
Sites/article2537595.ece,lastvisitedon8thJanuary2015.
[21]StepstoPreventFraudsbySocialNetworkingSitesandMatrimonialSites,PressInformationBureau(21
Feb.,2014)http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=104142.
[22]StepstoPreventFraudsbySocialNetworkingSitesandMatrimonialSites,PressInformationBureau(21
Feb.,2014)http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=104142.
[23]Asof2013only60millionofthe190milliontotalInternetuserswerefromruralIndia:IAMAIInternetin
India2013,InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia,2(2013)Theteledensityinruralareasisapproximately
43percentascomparedto140percentteledensityinurbanareas:TRAI,HighlightsonTelecomSubscription
Dataason30thApril,2014,PressReleaseNo.35/2014(June26,2014),
http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/PRTSDApr,14.pdf.
[24]India:UseMobileTechnologytoBringNewstoIsolatedTribalCommunities,InternationalCentrefor
Journalists,http://www.icfj.org/knightinternationaljournalismfellowships/fellowships/indiausingmobile
technologybringnewsis0.
[25]GraamVaani:AboutUs,http://www.gramvaani.org/?page_id=76.
[26]HowMobileVaaniWorks,http://www.gramvaani.org/?page_id=15.
[27]RebirthofeCommerceinIndia,ErnstandYoung(2013),availableat
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Rebirth_of_eCommerce_in_India/$FILE/EY_RE
BIRTH_OF_ECOMMERCE.pdf.
II.Governancemechanism&LegalFrameworkfor
IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia
0Comments
OnlineintermediariesaresubjecttoafairlycomplexregulatoryframeworkinIndia,whichleavesthemopento
civilandcriminalliability.ThemostsignificantlawsgoverningintermediariesmaybefoundintheInformation
TechnologyAct,2000,andtheCopyrightAct,1957.Howevertherearecircumstancesinwhichmoregenerally
applicablelegislation,suchastheIndianPenalCode(1860),theScheduledCasteandScheduledTribe
(PreventionofAtrocities)Act(1989),theProtectionofChildrenfromSexualOffencesAct(2012),aswellas
thelawoftorts,mayapply.IfanonlineintermediaryisnoteligibleforimmunityfromliabilityofferedbytheIT
Act[28],itcouldincurcivilorcriminalpenaltiesforoffencessuchasdefamation[29],obscenity[30],
sedition[31],and/orcopyrightclaims[32].
Theregulatoryapproachthusfarislargelycommandandcontrol,asistypicaloftheIndianlegalsystem.
However,thisseemstobechanginggraduallyasthearchitecturalconstraintsoftheInternetbecomemore
apparent.Onlineintermediaries,unlikeInternetserviceproviders(ISPs),cannotbesubjecttothedomestic
licensingregime,giventhatseveralofthemdonothaveofficesinIndiaandarethereforeoutofthephysical
jurisdictionwithinwhichtheIndianGovernmentiseasilyabletoimplementitslaws.Therefore,althoughISPs
aresubjecttoseveralobligationsthroughtheirlicenses(discussedbelowin2.1),internationalonline
intermediariesremainfreeoftheseconstraints.
[28]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79(priortotheInformationTechnologyAmendmentAct,2008).
5/23
10/1/2015
[29]TheIndianPenalCode,1860,499KhushwantSinghandAnr.v.ManekaGandhi,A.I.R.2002Delhi58
(India)RatanlalandDhirajlal,TheLawofTorts279(26thed.2013).
[30]TheIndianPenalCode,1860,292,TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,67.
[31]TheIndianPenalCode,1860,124A.
[32]TheCopyrightAct,1957,51.
A.LicensingSystemforInternetServiceProviders
0Comments
InternetserviceprovidersarerequiredtogetlicensesinIndia,andaresubjecttoseveralobligationsthrough
theirlicenseterms.Contentintermediaries,however,donothavetogetlicensesforoperation,andoneofthe
reasonsforthismightbethatitwouldbeverydifficulttoenforcesucharequirementonintermediarieslocated
inotherjurisdictions.OfthevarioustypesofInternetintermediaries,itistelecommunicationserviceproviders,
networkserviceproviders,andInternetserviceprovidersthatrequirealicensetoofferservicesinIndia.
TheregulatoryframeworkforintermediariesoriginatesintheIndianTelegraphAct,[33]whichempowersthe
CentralGovernmenttoissuelicensestoestablish,maintain,orworkatelegraph.[34]TheDepartmentof
TelecommunicationactsasalicensoronbehalfoftheCentralGovernment,andentersintoagreementswith
companiesfortheprovisionoftelecommunicationsandInternetServices.
TherearethreetypesoflicensesforcommunicationprovidersinIndia:TheLicenseAgreementforProvisionof
InternetServices(ISPLicense)[35]TheLicenseAgreementForProvisionOfUnifiedAccessServicesafter
MigrationfromCMTS(UASLicense)[36]*TheLicenseAgreementforUnifiedLicense(UnifiedLicense)[37]
TheGovernmenthastakentoissuingonlyUnifiedLicensessince2012.Thismightbeanefforttoconsolidate
andsimplifythelicensingprocess,sincetheUnifiedLicensecoversvarioustelecomservicessuchasAccess,
Internet,andLongDistancewithinasinglelicense.[38]ItcontainsaseparatechapterforInternetServices.
ThelicensesobligatelicenseeintermediariestoblockInternetsites,UniformResourceLocators(URLs),
UniformResourceIdentifiers(URIs),and/orindividualsubscribers,asidentifiedanddirectedbythegovernment
intheinterestofnationalsecurityorpublicinterestfromtimetotime.[39]Thelicensesalsodeclarethat
carriageofobjectionable,obscene,unauthorized,oranyothercontent,messages,orcommunications
infringingcopyrightandintellectualpropertyrightsetc.,inanyform,isnotpermitted,andobligateslicenseesto
preventsuchcarriagewhenspecificinstancesarereported.[40]
Thelicenseagreementscontainanumberofprovisionsconcerningdataretention,disclosure,andtheprovision
ofservicestoenablesurveillance.[41]TheyrequireISPstoputinplacesystemsthatenablelawfulmonitoring
andinterceptionofcommunicationsbytheIndianGovernment.[42]ISPsarealsorequiredtotraceormonitor
contentsuchascommunicationsthatareobnoxious,malicious,oranuisance[43],andobjectionable
communications.[44]
Ateveryinternationalgatewayornodehavinganoutboundcapacityofmorethan2MB/s,ISPsarerequiredto
setupmonitoringcentersequippedwithappropriatemonitoringsystemsinaccordancewithgovernment
specifications[45],officespace[46],telephonelines[47],andbeaccessibletomonitoringagenciesatalltimes.
[48]ISPsmustalsofacilitateGovernmentaccesstovariousequipment,leasedlines,recordfiles,and
logbooksoftheISPs.[49]Additionally,periodicinspectionsofInternetleasedlinecustomersattheirpremise
aretobeperformedbytheISPwithin15daysofcommissioninganInternetlinetocheckforpossiblemisuse.
[50]
TheUAS&UnifiedLicensesrequirelicenseeserviceproviderstoprovidethenecessaryfacilitiestothe
Governmenttocounteractespionage,subversiveacts,sabotage,oranyotherunlawfulactivity.[51]Allthree
licensesobligatelicenseestofacilitatetheapplicationofSection5oftheIndianTelegraphAct,whichdeals
withinterceptionofcommunication.[52]
[33]TheIndianTelegraphAct,1885,4.
[34]TheIndianTelegraphAct,1885,3(1AA).
[35]LicenceAgreementforProvisionofInternetServices,http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdf.
[36]LicenceAgreementforProvisionofUnifiedAccessServicesafterMigrationfromCMTS,
http://www.auspi.in/policies/UASL.pdf.
[37]LicenseAgreementforUnifiedLicense,http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Unified%20Licence_0.pdf.
[38]DepartmentofTelecommunications,UnifiedLicense,http://www.dot.gov.in/licensing/unifiedlicense.
[39]ChapterIXclause7.12,LicenseAgreementforUnifiedLicense,
http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Unified%20Licence_0.pdfclause7.12,LicenceAgreementforProvisionof
InternetServices,http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdf.
[40]ChapterVclause38.1,LicenseAgreementforUnifiedLicense,
InternetServices,http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdf.
[41]ChinmayiArunandUjwalaUppaluri,ResearchMemorandumConcerningTheIndianSurveillance
FrameworkforiProbono(2014).
[42]ChapterIXclause8.1.1,LicenseAgreementforUnifiedLicense,
http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Unified%20Licence_0.pdf.
[43]Clause33.4,LicenceAgreementforProvisionofInternetServices,http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdf.
6/23
10/1/2015
ChinmayiArunandUjwalaUppaluri,ResearchMemorandumConcerningTheIndianSurveillanceFrameworkfor
iProbono(2014).
[45]Clause,LicenceAgreementforProvisionofInternetServices,http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdf.
34.27(a)(i).
[46]Clause34.27(a)(ii),LicenceAgreementforProvisionofInternetServices,
http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdf.
[47]Clause34.27(a)(iii),LicenceAgreementforProvisionofInternetServices,
[51]Clause41.1,LicenceAgreementforProvisionofUnifiedAccessServicesafterMigrationfromCMTS,
[52]Clause40.1,LicenseAgreementforUnifiedLicense,
InternetServices,http://cca.ap.nic.in/i_agreement.pdfclause42.1LicenceAgreementforProvisionofUnified
AccessServicesafterMigrationfromCMTS,http://www.auspi.in/policies/UASL.pdf.
B.TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000
0Comments
TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000(referredtoasITAct)cameintoforceon17October2010andwas
meanttoprovidelegalrecognitionofelectroniccommerce.[53]ItwasalsomeanttogiveeffecttoaUNGeneral
AssemblyresolutiononModelLawonElectronicCommerceadoptedbytheUnitedNationsCommissionon
InternationalTradeLaw.[54]TheITActwasamendedin2008[55]inamannerthatexpandedthesafeharbor
protectionsignificantly,therebychangingtheintermediaryliabilityregimesubstantially.Theamendment
emergedaftertheReportoftheExpertCommitteeontheProposedAmendmentstotheITAct,2000
suggestedcertainreforms,whichwouldalsoensurethatthelawrelatingtointermediaryliabilityhadmore
clarityandwasclosertotheframeworkintheEUECommerceDirective2000/31/EC[56],whichwasusedto
guidetherevisionoftheITAct.[57]
TheITAct,priortoamendment,protectedintermediariesfromliability[58]inaverylimitedmanner.The
immunityextendedtoanarrowsetofintermediaries:itwasprovidedonlytoanetworkserviceprovider'which
wasdefinedasanintermediary,whichinturnwasdefinedasanypersonwhoonbehalfofanotherperson
receives,storesortransmitsthatmessageorprovidesanyservicewithrespecttothatmessage.'[59]
Additionally,protectionwasofferedonlywithrespecttooffencescommittedundertheITAct,leaving
intermediariesopentoliabilityunderotherlegislationforcontentthattheyhosted.
Oneoftheconcernsraisedwasthatofferingonlynetworkserviceprovidersprotectionfromliabilitymight
leaveoutarangeofonlineintermediaries[60],includingtheonesthatprovideonlinecreditvalidationservices.
[61]Ithasalsobeenarguedthatmessagesweretheonlykindofcontenttowhichthesafeharborliability
protectionapplied,anddependingonhowthetermmessageisinterpreted,thismayhavenarrowedthescope
oftheprotectionoffered.[62]However,theseconcernsdonotapplyanymore,sincetheITActhasbeen
amendedtoexpandboththeimmunityandthedefinitionoftheintermediariesthatmayclaimthisimmunity.
IntermediarieswithrespecttoelectronicrecordsaredefinedundertheamendedSection2(w)oftheInformation
TechnologyActasanypersonwhoonbehalfofanotherpersonreceives,storesortransmitsthatrecordor
providesanyservicewithrespecttothatrecordandincludestelecomserviceproviders,networkservice
providers,Internetserviceproviders,webhostingserviceproviders,searchengines,onlinepaymentsites,
onlineauctionsites,onlinemarketplaces,andcybercafes[63].Thiswashailedbysomecommentatorsforits
widerandclearerdefinitionofintermediaries,whichunambiguouslyincludedonlineintermediarieswithinits
purview.[64]Othershavepointedoutthatthatalthoughthisnewdefinitionexpandsthenumberofentitiesthat
canclaimsafeharborprotectionundertheITAct,itfailstomakeallowancesforthefunctionaldifferences
betweenthedifferentkindsofintermediaries.[65]
Section2(w)includesavarietyofverydifferentintermediaries,suchastelecomserviceproviders,network
serviceproviders,Internetserviceproviders,webhostingserviceproviders,searchengines,onlinepayment
sites,onlineauctionsites,onlinemarketplacesorcybercafes,initsscope.TheobligationsundertheITAct
aresuchthatalltheseintermediaries,onlineoroffline,aresubjecttoexactlythesamelegalregime.
Differentialobligationsmayapplytodifferentkindsofintermediariesowingtoregulationsthatmaybespecific
totheirparticularfunction,suchaslicensesforISPsorbankingregulationsforfinancialintermediaries.
However,thesafeharborprotectionforintermediariesincludesimmunityfromliabilityunderotherlegislations,
andthereforeintermediariesthatmeettheconditionsforimmunityinsection79oftheITActallgetimmunity
andfindthemselvesinasimilarpositionregardlessoftheirspecificroleornature.Ithasbeenarguedthatby
nottakingintoaccountthefunctionaldifferencesoftheintermediaries,theefficacyoftheimmunitymaybe
compromised.[66]
[53]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,preamble(priortotheInformationTechnologyAmendmentAct,
2008).
[54]G.A.Res.51/162,ModelLawonElectronicCommerce,U.N.Doc.A/RES/51/162(Jan.30,1997).
[55]TheInformationTechnology(Amendment)Act,2008.
7/23
10/1/2015
[56]Directive2000/31/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCounciloncertainlegalaspectsofinformation
societyservices,inparticularelectroniccommerce,intheInternalMarket(June8,2000),availableat
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:En:HTML.
[57]DepartmentofInformationTechnology,MinistryofCommunications&InformationTechnology,
GovernmentofIndia,ReportoftheExpertCommitteeonProposedAmendmentstoInformationTechnology
Act2000,46(Aug.2005),availableat
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Information%20Technology%20/bill93_2008122693_Report_of_Expert_C
ommittee.pdfDepartmentofInformationTechnology,MinistryofCommunications&InformationTechnology,
GovernmentofIndia,SummaryoftheReportoftheExpertCommitteeonProposedAmendmentsto
InformationTechnologyAct2000,17(Aug.2005),availableathttp://deity.gov.in/content/reportexpert
committeeamendmentsitact20003.
[58]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79(priortotheInformationTechnologyAmendmentAct,2008).
[59]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,2,cl.w(priortotheInformationTechnologyAmendmentAct,
2008).
[60]AparGupta,CommentaryonInformationTechnologyAct295(2nded.2011)ThiliniKahandawaarachchi,
LiabilityofInternetServiceProvidersforThirdPartyOnlineCopyrightInfringement:AStudyofUSandIndian
laws,12J.I.P.R.553,559(2007)PriyambadaMishraandAngsumanDutta,StrikingaBalancebetween
LiabilityofInternetServiceProvidersandProtectionofCopyrightovertheInternet:ANeedoftheHour,14J.
I.P.R.321,324(2009)PritikaRaiAdvani,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia,XLVIII(50)EPW120(Dec.2013)
SeegenerallyAdityaGupta,TheScopeofOnlineServiceProviders'LiabilityforCopyrightInfringingThird
PartyContentundertheIndianLawsTheRoadAhead,15J.I.P.R.35,37(2010).
[61]AparGupta,CommentaryonInformationTechnologyAct295(2nded.2011).
[62]AparGupta,CommentaryonInformationTechnologyAct295(2nded.2011).
[63]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,2,cl.w.
[64]AdityaGupta,TheScopeofOnlineServiceProviders'LiabilityforCopyrightInfringingThirdPartyContent
undertheIndianLawsTheRoadAhead,15J.I.P.R.35,37(2010).
[65]PritikaRaiAdvani,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia,XLVIII(50)EPW120,122(Dec.2013).
[66]PritikaRaiAdvani,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia,XLVIII(50)EPW120,122(Dec.2013).
1.SafeHarbor,DueDiligenceandEditorialControl
0Comments
TheamendedsafeharborprovisionunderSection79allowsawidespectrumofintermediariestoseeksafe
harborprotectionfromliabilityforanythirdpartyinformation,data,orcommunicationlinkhostedbythethird
party.Section79ensuresthattheintermediariesimmunityfromliabilityprevailsoverallotherlawsinforce,
[67]exceptfortheCopyrightActandthePatentsAct[68].
Tobegrantedimmunityundersection79,theintermediarymust:
Merelyprovideaccesstoacommunicationsystemoverwhichinformationmadeavailablebythirdpartiesis
transmittedortemporarilystoredorhosted[69]ornotinitiatethetransmission,selectitsreceiver,orselect
ormodifytheinformationcontainedinthetransmission[70]and
Observeduediligence[71]asprovidedbyrulespromulgatedbythegovernmentin2011.[72]
Theuseofthewordorbetweenthefirsttwoconditionsstatedabovemeansthattheyaredisjunctiveinnature
andonlyoneneedstobesatisfiedinorderfortheintermediarytobegrantedimmunity,alongwithfulfillingthe
thirdcondition.[73]
Somecommentatorssuggestthatsection79usesboththemereconduitandthecachingprinciples,
borrowedfromtheEUEcommerceDirective,[74]whereasotherspointoutthatthelanguageexplicitlyonly
discussesthemereconduitprinciple.[75]Whatisclearuponexaminationofsection79isthattobeeligiblefor
immunity,theintermediaryhastoconfineitselftotransmissionofinformationandnotinitiatetransmission,
selectthereceiver,ormodifytheinformation.[76]Servicesthatwouldclearlybecoveredherebecauseoftheir
conduitfunctionincludetelecommunicationscarriers,ISPs,andotherbackboneservices.[77]However,
cachingservicesshouldalsobeincludedsincetheydofallwithinthedefinitionofanintermediaryunderthe
amendedITAct(whichincludesthosewhostoreandhostinformation),[78]andtheimmunityundersection79
seemstoextendtoallintermediarieswithnospecificexclusionofcachingservices.Thereisnoreasonwhy
serviceproviderswhoofferhostingservicesanddonotfallafoulofthepreconditionstothesafeharbor
protectionshouldnotqualifyforimmunityundersection79.
Wieldingeditorialcontrolwouldalmostcertainlycauseanintermediarytobeexcludedfromthesafeharbor
protection.Foronething,itwouldamounttoselectionofinformation,suchthattheintermediarywillfailoneof
theprerequisiteslistedinSection79(2).[79]
Controversially,theimmunityfromliabilitygrantedbysection79iscontingentuponintermediariesobserving
duediligence.[80]Thisstandardhasbeenoutlinedinmultiplecases,andtheobligationsthatitentailsare
listedindetailintheInformationTechnology(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011.Theimplicationsofthis
standardarediscussedinmoredetailinthesectiononIntermediariesGuidelinesbelow.
However,thereareotherwaysinwhichevenintermediariesthatperformpurelyconduitorhostingservices
mightfindthemselvesliable,despitesection79.Section79(3)limitstheimmunityofferedbysection79,by
outliningthecircumstancesunderwhichanintermediarywillbeforbiddenfromclaimingimmunity:
8/23
10/1/2015
Iftheintermediaryhasconspiredorabettedinthecommissionoftheunlawfulact.[81]Thismeansthatif
theintermediaryisinvolvedinthecommissionofoffenceinanywaythenitcannotclaimexemptionfrom
liability
Oruponreceivingactualknowledgeaboutanyunlawfulcontenttheintermediaryfailstoremovethecontent
allegedtobeinfringing.[82]
Theprecisemeaningofactualknowledgeisunclearuponabarereadingofthestatuteitisnotdefinedin
theITAct,[83]anditremainsunclear,forexample,whetheranoticefromanyprivatepartywouldautomatically
implythattheintermediaryunderquestionnowhasactualknowledgeoftheunlawfulcontent.Thisisa
standarddiscussedinmoredetailintheIntermediariesGuidelines,whichalsousestheactualknowledge
standard.
[67]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79,cl.1.
[68]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,81.
[69]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79,cl.2(a).
[70]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79,cl.2(b).
[71]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79,cl.2(c).
[72]TheInformationTechnology(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011.
[73]SuperCassettesIndustriesLtdv.MyspaceInc,M.I.P.R.2011(2)303(India).
[74]Directive2000/31/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCounciloncertainlegalaspectsofinformation
societyservices,inparticularelectroniccommerce,intheInternalMarket(June8,2000),availableat
http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0031:En:HTMLPritikaRaiAdvani,
IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia,XLVIII(50)EPW120,12122(Dec.2013).
[75]RishabhDara,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia:ChillingEffectsonFreeExpressionontheInternet,Centrefor
Internet&Society2023(Apr.10,2012),availableathttp://cisindia.org/Internetgovernance/intermediary
liabilityinindia.
[76]SeealsoPritikaRaiAdvani,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia,XLVIII(50)EPW120,122(Dec.2013).
[77]RajendraKumarandLathaR.Nair,InformationTechnologyAct,2000andtheCopyrightAct,1957:
SearchingfortheSafestHarbor?,5NUJSL.Rev.554,562(2012).
[78]S.79.Exemptionfromliabilityofintermediaryincertaincases.(1)Notwithstandinganythingcontainedin
anylawforthetimebeinginforcebutsubjecttotheprovisionsofsubsection(2)and(3),anintermediaryshall
notbeliableforanythirdpartyinformation,data,orcommunicationlinkmadeavailableorhostedbyhim.
(2)Theprovisionsofsubsection(1)shallapplyif
(a)thefunctionoftheintermediaryislimitedtoprovidingaccesstoacommunicationsystemoverwhich
informationmadeavailablebythirdpartiesistransmittedortemporarilystoredorhostedor
(b)theintermediarydoesnot
(i)initiatethetransmission,
(ii)selectthereceiverofthetransmission,and
(iii)selectormodifytheinformationcontainedinthetransmission
(c)theintermediaryobservesduediligencewhiledischarginghisdutiesunderthisActandalsoobservessuch
otherguidelinesastheCentralGovernmentmayprescribeinthisbehalf.
(3)Theprovisionsofsubsection(1)shallnotapplyif
(a)theintermediaryhasconspiredorabettedoraidedorinduced,whetherbythreatsorpromiseorotherwisein
thecommissionoftheunlawfulact
(b)uponreceivingactualknowledge,oronbeingnotifiedbytheappropriateGovernmentoritsagencythatany
information,dataorcommunicationlinkresidinginorconnectedtoacomputerresourcecontrolledbythe
intermediaryisbeingusedtocommittheunlawfulact,theintermediaryfailstoexpeditiouslyremoveordisable
accesstothatmaterialonthatresourcewithoutvitiatingtheevidenceinanymanner.
Explanation.Forthepurposeofthissection,theexpressionthirdpartyinformationmeansanyinformation
dealtwithbyanintermediaryinhiscapacityasanintermediary.
[79]AdityaGupta,TheScopeofOnlineServiceProviders'LiabilityforCopyrightInfringingThirdPartyContent
undertheIndianLawsTheRoadAhead,15J.I.P.R.35,38(2010).
[80]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,79,cl.2(c).
[83]PritikaRaiAdvani,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia,XLVIII(50)EPW120,125(Dec.2013).*
0Comments
TheCentralGovernmentnotifiedtheIntermediaryguidelinesruleson11April,2011,inexerciseofthepowers
conferredbySection87(2)(zg)readwithSection79(2)oftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000.Themost
significantpartoftheserulesistheirdefinitionofthetermduediligenceasusedwithinsection79(2)(c)ofthe
ITAct.
TheduediligenceobligationsofintermediariesundertheIntermediaryGuidelines[84]includethreebroad
categoriesofrequirementsthatarerelevant:(a)thepublicationofcertainrules,policiesanduseragreements
(b)theobligationnottoknowinglyhost,publish,ortransmitinfringinginformationand(c)theobligationtotake
downinfringinginformationuponreceivingactualknowledgeofit.
[84]TheInformationTechnology(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011,r.3.
9/23
10/1/2015
i.PublicationofRules,Policies,andTermsandConditions
0Comments
Intermediariesarerequiredtopublishrulesandregulations,privacypolicies,anduseragreements,[85]which
appearstobeenforcedthroughselfregulation.[86]TheIntermediaryGuidelinesdo,however,setoutfairly
detailedbroadtermsthatneedtobeapartoftheintermediariesprivateagreementwithusers.Theuser
agreements,rules,andpoliciesmustforbidtheuserfromhosting,publishing,displaying,transmitting,or
sharinganyinformation[87]:
Thatisgrosslyharmful,harassing,blasphemous,defamatory,obscene,pornographic,pedophilic,libelous,
invasiveofanother'sprivacy,hatefulorracially,ethnicallyobjectionable,disparaging,orrelatingtoor
encouragingmoneylaunderingorgambling,
Harmsminorsinanyway
Impersonatesanotherperson
Belongstoanotherpersonandtowhichtheuserdoesnothaveanyright
Infringesanypatent,trademark,copyright,orotherproprietaryrights
Violatesanylaw,amongotherthingsor,
Threatenstheunity,integrity,defense,security,orsovereigntyofIndia,friendlyrelationswithforeign
states,orapublicorder,orcausesincitementtothecommissionofanycognizableoffenceorprevents
investigationofanyoffenceorisinsultingtoanyothernation.
[85]TheInformationTechnology(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011,r.3,cl.1.
[86]JohnBraithwaite,EnforcedSelfRegulation:ANewStrategyforCorporateCrimeControl,80(7)Mich.L.
Rev.1466(1982).
ii.Hosting,publishing,transmitting,ormodifyinginfringinginformation
0Comments
Theintermediaryisalsorequiredtorefrainfromknowinglyhosting,publishing,transmitting,ormodifyingany
informationprohibitedunderRule3(2)[88](aslistedinaabove).
Concernswereraisedabouttheambiguityoftheseterms,sincenoneofthemaredefinedintheITActorinthe
IntermediaryGuidelines.Inresponse,theParliamentaryStandingCommitteeonSubordinatelegislationhas
alreadyaskedtheMinistryofCommunicationsandInformationTechnologytoincorporatedefinitionsofall
thesetermswithintheIntermediaryGuidelines,andtoensurethattheGuidelinesdonotendupcreatingany
newcategoryofoffence.[89]
[88]TheInformationTechnology(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011,r.3,,cl.3.
[89]StandingCommitteeonSubordinateLegislation,ThirtyFirstReportonTheInformationTechnologyRules
(March21,2013),2526,availableat
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/IT%20Rules/IT%20Rules%20Subordinate%20committee%20Report.pdf.
iii.DisablingProhibitedInformationUponActualKnowledge
0Comments
Theintermediary,uponreceivingactualknowledge,whetheronitsownorwhetherthroughawritten
communicationfromanaffectedpersonthatinfringinginformationisbeingstored,hosted,orpublishedonits
computersystem,isobligatedtodisablesuchinformationwithin36hoursofobtainingsuchknowledge.[90]
Thislastrequirementeffectivelycreatesanoticeandtakedownregime.AlthoughtheMinistryinsiststhatthis
isaselfregulatoryregime[91],astudyconductedbytheCentreforInternetandSociety,Bangalorehas
demonstratedthatintermediariesovercomplyandtendtotakedownevenlegitimateinformationwhentheyare
sentanotice.[92]
TheMinistryofCommunicationandInformationTechnologyarguedbeforetheParliamentaryStanding
Committeethattherequirementtoactwithin36hoursmeansthatintermediarieshavetorespondtoand
acknowledgethecomplaintwithin36hoursofreceivingit,andinitiateappropriateaction.Uponthe
Parliamentarycommitteesinsistencethatthispositionshouldbeclarifiedintherules,theministryissuedan
officialclarificationthatstatesthisposition.[93]ItsaidthatwhiletheGrievanceOfficeractingonbehalfofthe
intermediarymustactonthecomplaintexpeditiously,themaximumtimeforredressisonemonthfromthe
dateonwhichthecomplaintwasreceived,inaccordancewithRule3(11).
Subsequently,on23March2012,amotiontoannulguidelineswasmovedintheRajyaSabha(UpperHouseof
theParliament).Theannulmentwasdefeated.[94]However,theruleshavebeenchallengedbeforethe
SupremeCourtofIndia.
(March21,2013),49,55,availableat
[92]RishabhDara,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia:ChillingEffectsonFreeExpressionontheInternet,Centrefor
Internet&Society(Apr.10,2012),availableathttp://cisindia.org/Internetgovernance/intermediaryliabilityin
india.
[93]DepartmentofElectronicsandInformationTechnology,MinistryofCommunications&Information
10/23
10/1/2015
Technology,GovernmentofIndia,ClarificationonTheInformationTechnology(IntermediaryGuidelines)Rules,
2011undersection79oftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000(Msarch18,2013),availableat
http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Clarification%2079rules(1).pdf.
[94]AnupamSaxena,MotionForAnnulmentofIndiasITRulesDefeatedInRajyaSabhaITMinisterPromises
Consultation,Medianama(May18,2012),http://www.medianama.com/2012/05/223motionforannulmentof
india%E2%80%99sitrulesdefeatedinrajyasabhaitministerpromisesconsultation/.
3.BlockingOrdersUndertheITAct
0Comments
Section69AoftheITActempowerstheCentralGovernmenttodirecttheblockingofaccesstoonline
information,andtheInformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguardsforBlockingforAccessofInformation
byPublic)Rules,2009containtheproceduretobefollowed[95]forblockingaccesstoinformation.Aswillbe
apparentfromreadingtheprocedurebelow,therearefewexternalchecksandbalancesinthisprocess:the
differentstagesofreviewofblockingordersareallconductedbycommitteesorindividualswhoareapartof
theexecutivebranchofthegovernment,andsincethereisaprohibitionondisseminatinginformationaboutthe
blockingorders[96],theentireprocessisveryopaque.
Theseblockingordersmaybedirectedatanygovernmentagencyorintermediary.Althoughtheseorderscan,
intheory,bedirectedatanyintermediary(includingISPsandonlineintermediaries),sourcestellusthatthey
aretypicallydirectedattelecommunicationcompaniesandISPs.However,thisisnotexclusivelyso,sinceit
appearsthatthegovernmenthasissuedsection69Ablockingorderstoonlineintermediaries.[97]
ThelanguageusedintheITActdoesnotpermitblockingorderstobeissuedarbitrarily.Undersection69A,it
isonlywhentheGovernmentisoftheviewthatitisnecessaryorexpedientsotodointheinterestof
sovereigntyandintegrityofIndia,defenseofIndia,securityoftheState,friendlyrelationswithforeignStates
orpublicorderorforpreventingincitementtothecommissionofanycognizableoffencerelatingtoabove[98],
thatitcandirectblockingaccesstoinformationgenerated,transmitted,received,stored,orhostedinany
computerresource.[99]
Thereasonsfortheblockingmustberecordedinwriting.[100]Intermediarieswhodonotcomplywiththe
requestscanbepunishedwithimprisonmentofuptosevenyearsandarealsoliabletopayafine.[101]
Individualscannotdirectlyrequesttheblockingofaccesstoanycontent[102]andneedtosendtheir
complaintstothe'nodalofficers'oftheorganizationsinquestion.[103]ThetermorganizationsinIndiameans
ministriesanddepartmentsoftheCentralGovernment,oranyoftheState,UnionTerritory,orotherCentral
Governmentagencythatmaybenotified.[104]Afterexaminingthecomplaintandbeingsatisfiedhtheneedto
blockaccess,theorganizationmayforwardthecomplaintthroughitsnodalofficertothe'Designatedofficer',
[105]whoisappointedbytheCentralGovernmentandistheonlypersonundertheactwhocanissue
directionsforblocking(apartfromthecourts).
AlltherequestsreceivedbytheDesignatedOfficeraretobeexaminedbyacommittee[106](referredtoas
BlockingOrderCommitteeinthispaper)consistingofthedesignatedofficerandrepresentativesfromthe
ministriesofLawandJustice,HomeAffairs,InformationandBroadcasting,andtheIndianComputer
EmergencyResponseTeam(CERTIn)[107]withinsevendays[108].Thecommitteeisrequiredtoexaminethe
requestanddeterminewhetheritiscoveredunderthegroundsmentionedinSection69Aandshouldgive
specificrecommendationsontherequestreceived.[109]Thedesignatedofficerisrequiredtomakeaneffortto
identifythepersontowhomtheinformationinthecomplaintbelongsortheintermediarywhohashostedthe
information,andgivethisindividualorentitytheopportunitytobeheard.[110]Therecommendationsofthe
BlockingOrderCommitteearepresentedtotheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofTechnologyforapproval.[111]
Thisprocessmaybebypassedintheeventofanemergency,inwhichcasethedesignatedofficeris
authorizedtoexaminetherequestandsubmithisrecommendationstotheSecretary[112],who,ifsatisfied,
canpassaninterimdecisiontoblockaccessthroughawrittenandreasonedorder.[113]However,thisrequest
hastobebroughtbeforetheBlockingOrderCommitteewithin48hoursoftheblockingorderbythe
Secretary[114]andonthebasisoftherecommendationsofthecommittee,theSecretarymayrevokehis/her
approvalandaskfortheblockedcontenttobeunblocked.[115]Itisimportanttonotethatbythetimeblocking
orderscomebeforetheReviewCommittee,thecontentunderquestionisalreadyblockedinIndia.Thisraises
questionsabouthowthecommitteeisabletoviewtheactualcontent,whichmayincludevideos,blocked
duringitsreview.
TherulesalsoprovideseparatelyforaReviewCommittee[116],whichismandatedtomeetatleastoncein
everytwomonthstoreviewwhetherthedirectionsissuedforblockingareinaccordancewithSection69A(1).
[117]IftheReviewCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheordersissuedarenotinconformitywithSection
69A(1),itmaysetasidetheblockingorderandaskfortheinformationtobeunblocked.[118]Itisimportantto
notethatbythetimeblockingorderscomebeforetheReviewCommittee,thecontentunderquestionisalready
blockedinIndia.Thisraisesquestionsabouthowthecommitteeisabletoviewtheactualcontent,whichmay
includevideos,blockedduringitsreview.
TheReviewCommitteeforblockingordersdoesnothavetoreviewordersfromIndiancourtsaskingforthe
blockingofanyinformation.Inthesesituations,thedesignatedofficerisrequiredtosubmitacertifiedcopyof
thecourtordertotheSecretaryandinitiateactionasdirectedbythecourt.[119]
11/23
10/1/2015
[95]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,69A,cl.2.
[96]TheInformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguardsforBlockingforAccessofInformationbyPublic)
Rules,2009,r.16VerizonReleasesTransparencyReport(Jan,22,2014),
http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/newsarticles/2014/0122verizonreleasestransparencyreport/.
[97]http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/QResult15.aspx?qref=151935.
Rules,2009,r.6.
Rules,2009,r.4.
Rules,2009,r.2,cl.g.Organisationmeans(i)Ministries/DepartmentsofGovernmentofIndia(ii)State
GovernmentsandUnionTerritories(iii)AnyotherentityasmaybenotifiedinOfficialGazettebytheCentral
Government.
Rules,2009,r.3.
Rules,2009,r.7.
[107]ConstitutedundertheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,70B.
Rules,2009,r.11.
Rules,2009,r.8.
Rules,2009,r.8,cl.1,cl.2andcl.3.
Rules,2009,r.8,cl.5andcl.6.
Rules,2009,r.9,cl.1.
Rules,2009,r.2,cl.(i)readwiththeIndianTelegraphRules,1951,r.419A.
Rules,2009,r.14.
Rules,2009,r.14.
Rules,2009,r.10.
4.InterceptionUndertheITAct
0Comments
Section69oftheInformationTechnologyActrequiresintermediariestoextendallfacilitiesandtechnical
assistancetointercept,monitorordecryptinformation,provideinformationstoredinacomputerorprovide
accesstoacomputerresource,whencalledupontodosobytheagencyoftheappropriategovernmentas
contemplatedinSection69.Thisclearlyextendstoonlineintermediaries.Asstatedabove,intermediariesthat
failtomeettheseobligationsmaybepunishedwithimprisonmentofuptosevenyears.[120]
ThepowertoorderinterceptionrestswithboththeCentralGovernmentandtheStateGovernments.Officers
speciallyauthorizedhavethepowertoorderinterception,monitoring,ordecryptionofdataunderspecified
circumstances.Aninterceptionordercanbepassedifitisnecessaryorexpedienttodosointheinterestof
sovereigntyorintegrityofIndia,thedefenseofIndia,thesecurityofState,friendlyrelationswithforeignstates,
apublicorder,forpreventingincitementtothecommissionofacognizableoffencerelatingtotheabove,orfor
investigationofanyoffence.[121]InterceptionofonlinecommunicationissubjecttotheInformation
Technology(ProceduresandSafeguardsforInterception,MonitoringandDecryptionofInformation)Rules
2009,andhastofollowtheprocessdetailedinthelegislation.
Theorderforinterceptionmustbeissuedbyacompetentauthority[122]designatedastheSecretaryincharge
oftheMinistryofHomeAffairsforCentralGovernment,[123]ortheHomedepartmentforStatesorUnion
Territories[124]asmaybeapplicable.Thecompetentauthorityisrequiredtoconsiderwhetheritispossibleto
acquirethenecessaryinformationbyothermeansandtoorderinterceptiononlyifthisisnotpossible.[125]An
interceptionordermayonlyremaininforceforuptoaperiodof60daysandcannotbeextendedbeyondatotal
of180days.[126]
12/23
10/1/2015
Interceptionordersareconveyedtointermediariesbyadesignatednodalofficerwhoauthenticatesthemand
conveysthemtothedesignatedpersonwithintheintermediary[127]alongwithawrittenrequesttofacilitatethe
interception.[128]Thedesignatedofficeroftheintermediaryorpersonincharge[129]mustacknowledgethe
interceptionorderwithintwohoursofreceiptandhastofacilitateinterception.[130]Intermediariesneedtosend
interceptionrequestsevery15daysforauthenticationtothenodalofficerofgovernmentagency.[131]
Intermediariesarerequiredtodestroyalltherecordswithinaperiodoftwomonthsfollowingthediscontinuance
ofinterceptionormonitoring,unlesstheyarerequiredforanyongoinginvestigation,criminalcomplaint,orlegal
proceedings.[132]
Section69BoftheITActempowerstheCentralGovernmenttoauthorizeagovernmentagencytomonitorand
collectattributesofthecontent,suchasthetimeanddateofitssending,size,duration,route(includingthe
locationandidentitiesofthepointsoforiginanddestination),[133]andthetypeofunderlyingservice(traffic
data)inordertoenhancecybersecurityorforidentificationanalysisandthepreventionofintrusionorspread
ofcomputercontainmentinIndia.[134]Intermediariesareobligatedtoprovidetechnicalassistanceandextend
allfacilitiestotheauthorizedagency,[135]orriskimprisonmentforuptosevenyears.[136]Thesedetailed
proceduresandothersafeguardsforsuchordersarelistedintheInformationTechnology(Proceduresand
SafeguardsforMonitoringandCollectingTrafficDataorInformation)Rules2009.
LiketheInformationTechnology(ProceduresandSafeguardsforInterception,MonitoringandDecryptionof
Information)Rules2009,theserulesrequireanorderfromacompetentauthority.Thisordermayhoweverbe
issuedforarangeofcybersecuritypurposesincluding,trackingcybersecuritybreachesorincidents,
identifyingortrackinganypersonwhohasbreached,orwhoissuspectedofhavingbreachedorbeinglikelyto
breach,cybersecurity[137],andmustcontainthereasonsissuingsuchdirection.[138]Anodalofficerhasto
receivetheorderandsendittothedesignatedofficeroftheintermediary.[139]Thesesafeguardsarevery
similartothesafeguardsoutlinedaboveforinterceptionofinformation.
Theserulesalsoplaceobligationsontheintermediaryorthepersoninchargetoputinplaceadequatechecks
toensurethatunauthorizedmonitoringdoesnottakeplace[140]andmaketheintermediaryliableforthe
actionsofitsemployeesinthecaseofunauthorizedmonitoringorthecollectionofdata[141].
[122]TheInformationTechnology(ProceduresandSafeguardsforInterception,MonitoringandDecryptionof
Information)Rules,2009,r.3.
Information)Rules,2009,r.2(d)(i).
Information)Rules,2009,r.2(d)(ii).
Information)Rules,2009,r.23(2).
[133]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,69B,explanation(ii).
[134]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,69B,cl.1.
Information)Rules2009,r.3(2).
Information)Rules2009,r.5.
C.TheCopyrightAct,1957
0Comments
13/23
10/1/2015
ThesafeharborprotectionprovidedtointermediariesundertheITActissubjecttosection81oftheITAct
whichstatesthatnothingcontainedintheITActshallrestrictanypersonfromexercisinganyrightconferred
undertheCopyrightAct.[142]IfnotforthesafeharborprotectioncontainedwithintheCopyrightAct,
intermediariescouldbeheldliableunderSection51(a)(ii)forsecondarycopyrightinfringement:underthis,any
personwhoprovidesanyplacetobeusedforcommunicationofworktothepublicforprofit,wheresuch
communicationconstitutesacopyrightinfringement,maybeheldliablefortheinfringement.[143]Thiswould
ordinarilyopenintermediariestoliabilityincaseswheretheystoreinformationontheirserversand/ortransmitit
onwards,particularlywhentheprofitfromadvertisinginrelationtoinfringingcontent.[144]
However,asafeharborhasbeenincludedviasection52oftheCopyrightAct,whichstatesthattransientor
incidentalstorageofaworkorperformancepurelyinthetechnicalprocessofelectronictransmissionor
communicationtothepublicshallnotamounttocopyrightinfringementandthattransientorincidental
storageofaworkorperformanceforthepurposeofprovidingelectroniclinks,accessorintegration,where
suchlinks,accessorintegrationhasnotbeenexpresslyprohibitedbytherightholderisalsonotinfringement,
unlesstheintermediaryhasreasonablegroundsforbelievingthatsuchstorageisofaninfringingcopy.Ithas
beenmadeclearthattheimmunityofferedundersection52isnotmeanttoextendtodeliberatestorageof
infringinginformation.[145]Howevertheproblemhereistheinterpretationofwhatamountstoreasonable
groundsforbeliefthatanintermediaryisstoringinfringingcontentthejudiciaryhas,inthepast,seenthe
insertionofalgorithmgeneratedadvertisementsasanindicationofknowledgeofinfringement[146].
Commentatorspointoutthatthisstandardwillneedtobediscardedsinceitconfusesphysicalspacewiththe
mannerinwhichtheInternetworks.[147]
LiketheITAct,theCopyrightActmakesitsimmunityforintermediariesconditional:theprovisotoSection
52(1)(c)requiresintermediariestorefrainfromfacilitatingaccesstopotentiallyinfringingcontentfor21days
uponreceivingawrittencomplaintfromthecopyrightowneraboutinfringementthatistakingplacethetransient
orincidentalstoragethatconstitutesinfringement.However,accesstothecontentmayberestoredafter21
daysunlessacourtorderrequiringthetakedownisreceivedwithinaperiodof21days.Thiscreatesanotice
andtakedownregimewherecontentneedstoberemovedatthebehestofindividualcomplaints.UnliketheIT
Act,however,theCopyrightActexplicitlyauthorizestherestorationofcontentincaseswhereacourthasnot
endorsedthecomplaint.
ThisnoticeandtakedownregimeismappedoutmoreclearlyinRule75oftheCopyrightRulesof2013.The
rightsholderhastogivewrittennotice[148]totheintermediary,includingdetailsaboutthedescriptionofwork
foridentification,[149]proofofownershipoforiginalwork,[150]proofofinfringementbyworksoughttobe
removed,[151],thelocationofthework[152](whichwouldbethespecificURL),anddetailsofthepersonwho
isresponsibleforuploadingthepotentiallyinfringingwork(ifavailable).[153]Uponreceivingsuchanotice,the
intermediaryhastodisableaccesstosuchcontentwithin36hours.[154]InadeparturefromtheIntermediaries
Guidelines,andinapositivemovefortransparency,intermediariesthathostcontentarerequiredtodisplay
reasonsfordisablingaccesstoanyonetryingtoaccessthecontent.[155]Theintermediaryispermitted,but
notrequired,torestorethecontentafter21daysifnocourtorderisreceivedtoendorseitsremoval.[156]Itis
thennotrequiredtorespondtofurthernoticesfromthesamecomplainantaboutthesamecontentatthesame
location.[157]
However,theregimeundertheCopyrightActisalsonotwithoutitsproblems.Criticshaveobjectedtothe
narrowness,transientorincidentalstorage,whichisnecessarytoclaimimmunityfromliabilityunderthesafe
harborprovision.TheyhavealsoobjectedtotheprocessunderRule75,pointingoutthatitshouldhave
requiredtheintermediarytonotifythepersonwhouploadedorcreatedthecontent,creatinganopportunityfora
responsethatwillenabletheintermediarytoletthecontentremainasis.[158]
Alsoofconcernarethevaguelywordedcourtordersincreasinglyissuedinthecontextofcopyrightissues.
TheseJohnDoeordersorAshokKumarordersastheyarecalledinIndiaareusedbycopyrightowners
togetexparteinjunctionsagainstunknownparties.[159]Therewasapointatwhichtheseorderswereso
broadthattheycouldbeinterpretedascreatingapositiveobligationonallintermediariestoproactivelyremove
thequestionablecontent.Anexampleofthelanguageusedis,Fortheforgoingreasons,defendants,their
partners,proprietorsservants,agents,representativesotherunnamedandundisclosedpersons,are
restrainedfromcommunicatingwithoutlicenseordisplaying,releasing,showing,uploading,downloading,
exhibiting,playing,and/ordefrayingthemovie"DEPARTMENT"inanymannerwithoutaproperlicensefrom
theplaintiff.[160]
TheMadrasHighCourtinM/s.R.K.ProductionsPvt.Ltd.vs.BharatSancharNigamLimited&19others,[161]
clarifiedinJune2012thatanearlierinteriminjunctionwasgrantedonlyinrelationtoaparticularURLwherethe
infringingmovieishosted,andnottooftheentirewebsite(addressingtheoverbroadblockingthatwastaking
placebyISPsinresponsetosuchinjunctions).Further,theapplicantisdirectedtoinformthe
respondents/defendantsabouttheparticularsofURLwheretheinfringingmovieiskept.Onsuchreceiptofthe
particularsoftheURLinquestionfromtheplaintiff/applicant,thedefendantsshalltakenecessarystepsto
blocksuchURLswithin48hours.Thefollowingyear,inDecember2013,theDelhiHighCourtpassedanAshok
Kumarorder,anadinterimexparteinjunctionthatappliedtounnamedandundisclosedpersonsinrelationto
thedisplay,duplication,anddistributionofthefilmDhoom3.[162]Recently,theDelhiHighCourtissuedsuch
aninjunctionprohibiting472websites[163]andotherunknownonesfrombroadcasting2014FIFAWorldCup
matches,whichitthenreducedtoalistof219uponanobjectionthatseveralofthewebsitesonthelistdidnot
belongthere.[164]
14/23
10/1/2015
[142]ThispositionisaffirmedbySuperCassettesIndustriesLtdv.MyspaceInc,M.I.P.R.2011(2)303(India).
[143]TheCopyrightAct,1957,51,cl.a(ii).
[144]SuperCassettesIndustriesLtdv.MyspaceInc,M.I.P.R.2011(2)303(India)AdityaGupta,TheScope
ofOnlineServiceProviders'LiabilityforCopyrightInfringingThirdPartyContentundertheIndianLawsThe
RoadAhead,15J.I.P.R.35,37(2010).
[145]AnanthPadmanabhan,GiveMeMySpaceandTakeDownHis,9I.J.L.T2(2013),availableat
http://www.ijlt.in/archive/volume9/Ananth%20Padmanabhan.pdf.
[146]SuperCassettesIndustriesLtdv.MyspaceInc,M.I.P.R.2011(2)303(India).
[147]AnanthPadmanabhan,GiveMeMySpaceandTakeDownHis,9I.J.L.T1516(2013),availableat
http://www.ijlt.in/archive/volume9/Ananth%20Padmanabhan.pdf.
[148]TheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.2.
[149]TheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.2(a).
[150]TheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.2(b).
[151]TheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.2(c).
[152]TheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.2(d).
[153]TheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.2(e).
[156]TheCopyrightAct,1957,52(1),proviso.
[158]AparGupta,CopyrightRules,2013andInternetIntermediaries,IndianLawandTechnologyBlog(March
22,2013)http://www.iltb.net/2013/03/copyrightrules2013andInternetintermediaries/Chaitanya
Ramachandran,ALookattheNewNoticeandTakedownRegimeundertheCopyrightRules2013,SpicyIP
(Apr29,2013),http://spicyip.com/2013/04/guestpostlookatnewnoticeand.html.
[159]LawrenceLiang,MeetAshokKumartheJohnDoeofIndiaorThePirateAutobiographyofanUnknown
Indian,Kafila(May18,2012),http://kafila.org/2012/05/18/meetashokkumarthejohndoeofindiaorthepirate
autobiographyofanunknownindian/.
[160]Viacom18MotionPicturesv.JyotiCableNetworkandOrs,C.S.(OS)1373/2012(May14,2012),High
CourtofDelhi(India).
[161]M/s.R.K.ProductionsPvt.Ltd.v.BharatSancharNigamLimited&19Others,C.S.(OS)208/2012
(June22,2012),TheHighCourtofJudicatureatMadras(India).
[162]YashRajFilmsPvtLtdv.CableOperatorsFederationofIndiaandOrs,C.S.(OS)2335/2013(Dec.2,
2013),HighCourtofDelhi(India).
[163]MultiScreenMediaPvtLtdv.SunitSinghandOrs,CS(OS)1860/2014(June23,2014),HighCourtof
Delhi(India).
[164]NikhilPahwa,WorldCup2014:219websitesblockedinIndia,afterSonycomplaint,Medianama(Jul7,
2014),http://www.medianama.com/2014/07/223worldcup2014472websitesincludinggoogledocsblockedin
indiafollowingsonycomplaint/.
III.ImpactAssessment
0Comments
ThelegalframeworkgoverningtheliabilityofInternetintermediariesinIndiahastoremainconsistentwiththe
IndianConstitution.[165]Thismeansthatthestatutoryframeworkunderwhichintermediariesareliableto
block,takedown,intercept,andmonitorcontentmaybechallengedifitviolatestherighttothefreedomof
speechandexpression,[166]ortherighttoprivacy(asreadintotherighttolifeandpersonalliberty,[167]the
righttothefreedomofspeech,andexpressionbythejudiciary[168])grantedbytheConstitution.The
regulatoryframeworkisalsosubjecttoadministrativelawprinciples,derivedlargelyfromcommonlaw
meaningrules,notifications,andactionsarisingfromlegislationsmustremainwithinthescopeoftheirparent
statuteandtheconstitution[169]andcannotusurpanyfunctionthatrightfullybelongstothelegislature.[170]
Thetechnologyactuallyusedbyintermediarieshashadvisibleeffectsonspeech,[171]andhasresultedin
overblockinginthepast.Itdoes,however,appearthatregulatorstakeintoaccountmarketconcernsthese
concernsareincreasinglyreflectedinreportsthatdiscusstheformulationoftheregulatoryregimeandin
argumentsmadebytheGovernmentofIndiabeforetheSupremeCourtofIndia.[172]
Thenarrativeintheearlierpartsofthispapermapsoutthedifferentkindsofliabilitytowhichonline
intermediariesaresubjectinIndia.Thisincludescriminalliabilityforseveralkindsofcontent,includingcontent
thatisdefamatory,[173]obscene,[174]oramountstocontemptofcourt.[175]TheIndianPenalCodeuses
gatekeeperliabilitytoregulateunlawfulspeech[176],andthiscanmakeoperationsriskyforintermediaries
withoutimmunityfromliabilityundersection79oftheITAct.RecentinterpretationsofthelawbytheIndian
SupremeCourtindicatethatintermediariesmayfindthemselvesatriskdespitetheimmunityofferedbytheIT
Act.InJanuary2015,theSupremeCourtpassedaninterimorderinanongoingcase,requiringGoogle,Yahoo,
andMicrosofttorefrainfromadvertisingorsponsoringanyadvertisementwhichwouldviolateSection22ofthe
PreConceptionandPreNatalDiagnosticTechniquesAct,1994.[177]Thisinterpretationseemstoacceptthe
argumentmadebytheMinistryofInformationandCommunicationsthatsearchengines,asintermediaries
undertheITAct,owingtotheirduediligenceobligations,mustblockallcontentthatbreachesIndianlaws.
Howeversincethisismerelyaninterimorder,thereremainssomechancethattheSupremeCourtwillchange
itsmindonthesubjectbythetimethefinaljudgmentisdelivered.
IftheinterimorderrepresentstheSupremeCourtsstandonthissubject,itmayundothebeneficialeffectsof
safeharborprotectionforsearchengines.Intermediariesmayhaveverylittleclarityaboutthekindsofcontent
15/23
10/1/2015
theyneedtoweedout,giventhedifferentkindsofspeechcriminalizedbymultipleIndianstatutes(indicative
listinthetableinAnnexure1).Thismakesintermediarieswhoexerciseeditorialcontrolparticularlyvulnerable.
TheITActaddstothelistofcriminalizedspeech,creatingnewcategoriesofoffencespunishablewith
imprisonment(grosslyoffensiveinformation,[178]forexample).
Onlineintermediarieswithnoeditorialcontrolarealsoinaprecariousposition,despitetheirgreateraccessto
immunityfromliability.ThesafeharborprotectiongrantedtothemundertheITActisconditionaluponthe
intermediariesobservingduediligence,[179]andontheirremovingunlawfulcontentuponreceivingactual
knowledgeofsuchcontent.[180]Interestingly,oneoutcomeofsection79hasbeenthatonlineintermediaries
areimmunefromliabilityincontextsinwhichbookstores,traditionalmedia,andpublishinghouseswouldhave
beenfoundtobeliable(suchashostingobscenecontent).[181]Evenonlineintermediarieswithimmunityare
requiredtorefrainfromknowinglyhosting,publishing,transmitting,ormodifyinganyinformationprohibited
underRule3(2).[182]Thislistofprohibitedinformationconsistsofaverywiderangeofcontentincluding
contentthatisgrosslyharmful,harassing,pornographic,pedophilic,libelous,invasiveofanother's
privacy,hateful,racially,ethnicallyobjectionable,anddisparaging.[183]Manyofthesearecategoriesof
contentthatarenotdefinedinIndianlawatall.
Termslikedefamatoryandobscene,[184]whichareactuallydefinedinotherpiecesofIndianlegislation,are
notdefinedintheIntermediaryGuidelines.Whilethismightnotbeahardshipforlargeonlineintermediarieslike
GoogleorFacebookthathavetheresourcestohirealegalteam,astartuporsmallonlineintermediarymay
struggletoacquirethelegalexpertisetoascertainwhatismeantbyallthetermslistedinRule3.Thismakes
Rule3anopaqueandinaccessiblerulefromtheintermediariesperspective.Compliancewithsuchanunclear
standardisdifficult.TheParliamentaryStandingCommitteeonsubordinatelegislationhasrecommendedthat
allthesetermswhicharenotdefinedintheITActbedefinedintheIntermediaryGuidelinesforthe
convenienceoftheintermediariesandthegeneralpublic.[185]Ifthisrecommendationwereexecuted,itwould
makeforamoretransparentrule.
IntermediariesthataresubjecttothelicensingsysteminIndiahavetocontendwiththeaddedburdenof
onerousrequirementsthatcoverblocking,interception,andmonitoring.
ThearchitecturalconstraintsoftheInternetarebecomingapparenttothegovernment,whichhasmovedfrom
itscommandcontrolapproachtothepositionthatcomprehensiveandguaranteedblockingofinformationis
impossible.[186]Thecurrentregulatoryregimetriestoleverageintermediariesexistingcapabilitiesbyrequiring
themtomakereasonableeffortstodeveloptermsandconditions,aswellastechnologicalfilterstoregulate
userbehavior.Thislookslikethebeginningsofenforcedselfregulationsinceitleavesthechoiceof
technologyanduseragreementstotheintermediariesafterspecifyingtheminimumtermsorstandardsthat
needtobeincorporated.However,itisnotclearwhetherandhowcomplianceismonitoredinthiscontext.
Asitstands,underresourcedstartupcompaniesmaynotbeabletoputinplaceacomplexsystemtomeet
thesestandards,andmakingitriskytoenterthemarket.[187]AGlobalNetworkInitiativestudyconcludedthat
onlineintermediariesareburdenedbycostsandrisksassociatedwiththecurrentlegalregimeinIndia,andthat
thisregimehashadadetrimentalimpactonestablishedbusinessesandnewventures.[188]
Thereisverylittletransparency,andthereforelimitedaccountability,intheprocessfollowedwhileblocking,
intercepting,ormonitoringcontent.Thisisdetailedinthesectionsbelow.
[165]IndiaConst.
[166]IndiaConst.art.19,cl.1(a).
[167]IndiaConst.art.21.
[168]KharakSinghv.StateofUP,A.I.R.1963S.C.1295(India)Gobindv.StateofMadhyaPradesh,(1975)2
S.C.C.148(India)RRajagopalv.StateofTamilNadu,A.I.R.1995S.C.264(India),9DistrictRegistrar
&Collectorv.CanaraBank,A.I.R.2005S.C.186(India),39.
[169]IndianExpressNewspapers(Bombay)Pvt.Ltd.v.UnionofIndiaA.I.R.1986S.C.515(India).
[170]AgriculturalMarketCommitteev.ShalimarChemicalWorksLtdA.I.R.1997S.C.2502(India)Ujwala
Uppaluri,ConstitutionalAnalysisoftheInformationTechnology(Intermediaries'Guidelines)Rules,2011,CIS
IndiaBlog(Jul.16,2012,09:45AM),http://cisindia.org/Internetgovernance/constitutionalanalysisof
intermediariesguidelinesrules.
[171]AnupamSaxena,Over200sitesblockedinIndiaafterSony'spiracycomplaint:Report,TimesofIndia
(Jul.7,2014),http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/technews/Over200sitesblockedinIndiaafterSonys
piracycomplaintReport/articleshow/37961214.cmsOpenNetInitiative,CountryProfile:India304(Aug.9,
2012),availableathttp://access.opennet.net/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/accesscontestedindia.pdf.
[172]StandingCommitteeonInformationTechnology200708,ParliamentaryReportontheInformation
Technology(Amendment)Bill,2006,16(Sept.7,2007),availableat
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Information%20Technology%20/scr1198750551_Information_Technolog
y.pdfStandingCommitteeonSubordinateLegislation,ThirtyFirstReportonTheInformationTechnology
Rules(March21,2013),77,availableat
http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/IT%20Rules/IT%20Rules%20Subordinate%20committee%20Report.pdf
SarvjeetSingh,ABlanketBanonPornwillviolateArticles19&21oftheConstitution:Governmentinformsthe
SupremeCourt,CCGatNLUDBlog(May5,2014),http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/ablanketban
onpornwillviolatearticles1921oftheconstitutiongovernmenttothesupremecourt/.
[173]TheIndianPenalCode,1860,499.
16/23
10/1/2015
[174]TheIndianPenalCode,1860,292,TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,67.
[175]TheContemptofCourtsAct,1971,2,cl.cand12.
[176]ChinmayiArun,N.U.J.S.L.Rev.(forthcoming2014).
[177]SabuMathewGeorgev.UnionofIndia,W.P.(C)No.341/2008,interimorder(Jan.28,2015),Supreme
CourtofIndia(India).
[178]TheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,66A.
[181]ChinmayiArun,N.U.J.S.L.Rev.(forthcoming2014).
(March21,2013),25,availableat
[186]SarvjeetSingh,ABlanketBanonPornwillviolateArticles19&21oftheConstitution:Government
informstheSupremeCourt,CCGatNLUDBlog(May5,2014),http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/a
blanketbanonpornwillviolatearticles1921oftheconstitutiongovernmenttothesupremecourt/Sarvjeet
Singh,CannotBlockallPornographicMaterialovertheInternet:CentreinformstheSC,CCGatNLUDBlog
(Aug29,2014),http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/cannotblockallpornographicmaterialoverthe
Internetcentreinformsthesc/.
[187]MartinHvidtThelleet.al.,ClosingtheGapIndianOnlineIntermediariesandaLiabilitySystemNotYet
FitforPurpose,CopenhagenEconomics(2014),availableat
http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20
%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf.
[188]MartinHvidtThelleet.al.,ClosingtheGapIndianOnlineIntermediariesandaLiabilitySystemNotYet
FitforPurpose,CopenhagenEconomics(2014),availableat
http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20
%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf.
A.GovernmentOrderedBlockingofContent
0Comments
TheBlockingRulespermitgovernmentagenciestoaskforcontenttobeblocked.Althoughtheserequestsare
mostfrequentlydirectedattelecommunicationcompaniesandInternetserviceproviders,theyarealsosentto
onlineintermediariesfromtimetotime.Forexample,socialnetworkingsiteswereaskedtocomplywithcourt
ordersbyblocking8URLSin2010,21URLSin2011,352URLsin2012,and1299URLSfromJanuary2013
2014.[189]
ThegovernmentorderedblockingprocessundertheBlockingRulesisshroudedinsecrecyRule16ofthe
BlockingRulesrequiresthatblockingrequestsandimplementationbekeptconfidential.Theeffectisthatthe
governmentisabletorefusetogiveoutinformationaboutblocking,[190]andcompaniesarerestrictedfrom
makingdisclosuresinthiscontext.ThisisthereasonthattheJanuary2014Verizontransparencyreportdid
notdisclosethenumberofblockingrequestsfromtheIndiangovernment,andexplainedthatIndianlawdidnot
permitVerizontomakethisdisclosure.[191]
Sincethesystemisopaqueanddoesnotrequirejudicialorthirdpartyrevieworoversightatanypoint,itis
reasonabletodeducethatthismayleadtoreducedaccountability.Governmentagenciesaskforonlinecontent
blockingthroughaprocessthatisauthorized,executed,andreviewedbytheexecutive.Informationaboutthis
blockingisnotproactivelydisclosedbythegovernmentandcannotbedisclosedbytheintermediariesowingto
Rule16.TheonlymechanismtoobtainthefiguresappearstobeifaMemberofParliamentasksforthemin
QuestionHour.[192]Eventheauthororcreatorofthecontent,whomightintheoryhavecontestedablocking
orderongroundsofhis/herconstitutionalfreespeechrights,hasnowayofcontestingitsincenoreasonsor
notificationsabouttheblockingofcontentneedtobegiventothecreatorsortheaudienceofcontent.
Inadditiontotheblockingrequeststhatcomefromgovernmentagencies,courtorderedblockingofcontent
alsotakesplaceundertheITAct.ThereisaDelhiHighCourtjudgmentconfirmingthat69Ablockingorders
weresenttoGoogleIndiaPrivateLtd.overtheInnocenceofMuslimsvideosonYouTube.[193]190URLS
wereblockedoverthevideosastheDepartmentofElectronics&InformationTechnologyimplementedorders
fromcourtsinBudagam,Ganderbal,Baramula,Srinagar,AnantnaginJammu&KashmirandcourtsatAkola,
Bhiwadi,Mumbai,andDelhi.[194]52URLSofthesevideoswereblockedundertheBlockingRules.[195]
Eventhecourtorders,whicharepublicdocumentsintheory,areinaccessibleinpracticesincemanyofthem
areobtainedfromremoteregionalcourts.Thisalsoraisesquestionsabouthowanintermediarymightfindthe
resourcestotraveltotheselocationsandchallengeanyunreasonableblockingrequests.Finally,sincethereis
nomechanismtoverifythateachoftheblockedURLSdoinfactcontainthecontentcomplainedof,thereis
extensivepotentialformisuseoftheblockingprocess.
AtameetingoftheCyberRegulationAdvisoryCommittee,theMinisterofCommunicationsandInformation
TechnologyaskedtheInternetandMobileAssociationofIndia,whichisanindustryassociation,tomonitor
andpreparealistofpornographicsitesforblockingbytheISPs.Theministerhassuggestedtheneedto
understandUnitedKingdomsystemofinstallationoffilteringsoftwareonhomecomputerssothatthismaybe
17/23
10/1/2015
replicatedinIndiawithmodificationsfortheIndiancontext.[196]
Thisinclinationtowardsblockingcontentisnot,however,uniformwithintheGovernment.Therearethosewho
arguethatfilteringandblockingofcontentisaproblematicsolution.Forexample,aSecretaryoftheMinistryof
LawandJusticestatedinaCyberRegulationAdvisoryCommitteemeeting[197]that,itisnotdesirableto
submitthepleatoSupremeCourtthatitisdifficulttofilterorblockpornographysitesandwemusttryto
evolveasolution.[198]Similarly,theGovernmenthas,inthepast,toldtheSupremeCourtthatitisnot
technicallyfeasibletoblockpornographicsites[199]andthatdoingsowillbeviolationofArticle19and21of
theIndianConstitution.[200]Itis,however,importanttorememberthatthisisnotaconsistentpositionanditis
possiblethatthegovernmentwillreverseitsstanceintheverysamecaseonceitcomesupforhearingin
February2015.
[189]ReplybyMr.KapilSibbal,MinisterofCommunications&InformationTechnology,GovernmentofIndiato
Mr.BaijayantPanda,MemberofParliament,Starredquestionnumber318onObjectionableContenton
Websites,LokSabha(Feb.12,2014),http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/psearch/QResult15.aspx?qref=151935.
[190]ReplytotheRTIApplicationfiledbySarvjeetSinghatCentreforCommunicationGovernanceatNational
LawUniversity,DelhitotheDepartmentofElectronicsandInformationTechnology,ESecurityDivision,
(March25,2014).
[191]VerizonReleasesTransparencyReport,(Jan.22,2014),http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news
articles/2014/0122verizonreleasestransparencyreport/.
[192]ReplybyMr.KapilSibbal,MinisterofCommunications&InformationTechnology,GovernmentofIndiato
Mr.BaijayantPanda,MemberofParliament,Starredquestionnumber318onObjectionableContenton
Websites,LokSabha(Feb.12,2014).
[193]Mohd.Amanullah&Ors.v.UnionOfIndia&Ors.,W.P.(C)No.6325/2012(Oct.10,2012),HighCourtof
Delhi(India).
[194]MaulanaMahmoodAsadMadaniv.UnionofIndiaandOrs.,W.P.(C)7545/2012(Jan.24,2013),High
[195]MaulanaMahmoodAsadMadaniv.UnionofIndiaandOrs.,W.P.(C)7545/2012(Jan.24,2013),High
[196]MinutesofMeetingoftheCyberRegulationAdvisoryCommittee,14,(5Sept.2014),availableat
http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinCRAC5%20Sept.pdfJayadevanPK&NehaAlawadhi,
Governmentasksinternetservicecompaniestoblockpornographysites,upgradesystems,TheEconomic
Times(Nov.11,2014),http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20141111/news/55990473_1_internet
serviceprovidersinternetfreedomblockinginternet.
[197]EstablishedundertheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,88.
[198]MinutesofMeetingoftheCyberRegulationAdvisoryCommittee,4,(5Sept.2014),availableat
http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/MinCRAC5%20Sept.pdf.
[199]SarvjeetSingh,CannotBlockallPornographicMaterialovertheInternet:CentreinformstheSC,CCGat
NLUDBlog(Aug29,2014),http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/cannotblockallpornographic
materialovertheInternetcentreinformsthesc/.
[200]SarvjeetSingh,ABlanketBanonPornwillviolateArticles19&21oftheConstitution:Government
informstheSupremeCourt,CCGatNLUDBlog(May5,2014),http://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/a
blanketbanonpornwillviolatearticles1921oftheconstitutiongovernmenttothesupremecourt/.
B.NoticeandTakedown
0Comments
Thesafeharborprotectionundersection79oftheITActissubjecttotheintermediarysremovalofunlawful
contentimmediatelyafterreceivingactualknowledgeofit.TheIntermediaryGuidelinesattempttoclarifywhat
thisphrasemeans,explainingthattheintermediarycouldobtainsuchknowledgebyitselforhavesuch
knowledgecommunicatedtoitbyanaffectedpartyinwritingorthroughanemailsignedbyanelectronic
signature.Afterthis,theintermediaryisexpectedtoactwithinthirtysixhourstodisablesuchinformationasit
fallswithinthelistof(undefined)prohibitedcontentgivenintheIntermediaryGuidelines.Thishaseffectively
createdanoticeandtakedownregimeforcontent.
TheimpactoftheseguidelinesonintermediarieswasdemonstratedinastudyconductedbytheCentrefor
Internet&Society,Bangalore,[201]whichtriedsendingfrivolousnoticestomultipleintermediariesabout
perfectlylegitimatecontent.Thestudyfoundthatintermediariestendtoremoveevenlegitimatecontentin
responsetonoticesfromprivateparties.Aresearchersenttakedownnoticestosevenmajorintermediaries
andfoundthatsixoftheseintermediariesovercomplied.Thisofferssomeevidencetosupporttheargument
thattheIntermediariesGuidelinesmightresultinsuppressionoflegitimateexpression,sincethereisavisible
chillingeffectcreatedbytheseguidelines.Howeverthesamplesizeforthisstudymaybeseenas
problematic,andalargerinvestigationusingthesamemethodmightbewelcome.
Thefactthatintermediariesovercomply,disablinglegitimateandlegalcontentundertheIntermediaries
Guidelinesisnotsurprisinggiventheincentivescreatedbytherules.Anyfailuretotakedowncontentplaces
theintermediaryattheriskofexpensivelitigation,buttherulesdonotrequiretheintermediarytonotifythe
authororuserwhosecontenthasbeentakendown,orofferthisspeakertherighttodefendhis/hercontentor
modifyitsuchthatitmaylegitimatelystayonline.Therulesalsodonotcontainanymechanismrequiring
intermediariestomakeitcleartotheaudiencethatcontenthasbeentakendown,makingtheentiresystem
veryopaque.
18/23
10/1/2015
Bringingalltheseelementstogether,itisclearthatthesystemfortakingdowncontentundertheITActin
Indiaisveryproblematicbecauseit(a)permitshorizontalcensorshipbyrequiringintermediariestorespond
quicklytoanyprivatecitizenwhomaycaretosendthemnoticewithoutanycountervailingobligationstowards
authorsoraudiences(b)obligatesprivateintermediariestomakedecisionsaboutspeechevenwhentheyare
notperforminganeditorialfunction,andmaylacktheresourcestomakesuchdeterminationsand(c)ensures
thatthereisnotransparencyatallaboutdecisionstotakedowncontent,leadingtoalackofaccountabilityof
privateintermediariesforoverbroadblockingandalackofinformationbasedonwhichcitizensmaychallenge
particularinstancesofblocking.
ThenoticeandtakedownsystemundertheCopyrightActmightbemarginallybetterintermsoftransparency,
sinceintermediariesarerequiredtodisplayanoticeaboutwhyitwastakendown.[202]Thestatutealso
permits(althoughitdoesnotobligate)theintermediarytoreinstateanycontentforwhichacourtorderisnot
receivedin21days.[203]Thiscould,intheory,reducetheabuseofthenoticeandtakedownsystembyprivate
parties.
HoweverthisprocessisunderminedtoagreatdegreebythejudiciaryspracticeofissuingexparteJohnDoe
orAshokKumarorderstodisableallegedlyinfringingcontent.Theseorderswouldimplythatthelimitationon
theperiodofthetakedownwouldceasetoapply.CriticspointoutthatcaseslikeMultiScreenMediaPvtLtdv.
SunitSingh[204]indicatethatthecourtsdonotpaysufficientattentiontotheactualURLsthattheyareasked
toblock(thelistofURLshadtoberevisedsubstantiallywebsitesobviouslywronglynamedincludedGoogle
Documents,whichhadtoberemovedfromtheoriginallist).[205]Courtorderedblocksareonlythetipofthe
iceberg.ThisisapparentwhenoneconsidersforinstancethatMultiScreenMediaPvtLtdv.SunitSingh[206]
isnotMultiScreenMediasfirstsojournintotherealmcontentblocking.Googlestransparencyreportfor2014
indicatesthatbetweenFebruaryandJuly2014,thiscompanyhasmade77removalrequeststoGoogle,
coveringatotalof27,624URLs.[207]Outofthese,16309URLswereactuallyremoved.InDecember2014,32
websites,includingdailymotion.com,vimeo.com,andgithub.comwereblockedasaresultofacourtorder.
[208]Thisledtocontroversyowingtotheapparentoverblockingofcontent.[209]Afterextensivenegative
publicity,thewebsiteswereunblocked.[210]Theincidentisagoodillustrationoftheflawsofthecourtordered
blockingsystem.Theoverbroadblockingsuggeststhatthejudiciarymaynothaveexaminedthecontentsof
eachURLandwebsiteonthelistcompiledforblocking.
Generally,intheperiodbetweenJulyDecember2013,Googlereceived21courtordersfortakingdowncontent,
affecting118items.Itcompliedwith52%oftheserequests.Italsoreceived133requestsaffecting422items
fromotheragencies(executive,policeetc.)andcompliedwith23%ofthoserequests.[211]Theserequests
includedonefromanelectioncandidatesrepresentativefortheremovalofaYouTubevideothatallegedly
connectedthecandidatewithcorruptfinancialpracticesGoogledeniedthisrequestsinceitnotgothrough
properlegalchannels.Anothersuchcontentremovalrequestcamefromthelocalpoliceandsoughtthe
removalofablogpostthatcontainedcontentandpicturesaboutapolitician'ssexscandal.Thisrequestwas
alsodenied,thistimeongroundsofthesubjectsoftheblogpostnotbeingidentifiable.[212]
DuringJanuaryJune2014,Facebookrestricted4960piecesofcontentbasedonrequestsprimarilybylaw
enforcementofficialsandtheIndianComputerEmergencyResponseTeam.[213]Duringthesameperiod,
Twitterreceivednocourtordersand5requestsfromotheragencies(executive,policeetc.)toremovecontent.
Itcompliedwithnoneoftheserequests,whichinvolved9accounts.[214]
[201]RishabhDara,IntermediaryLiabilityinIndia:ChillingEffectsonFreeExpressionontheInternet,Centre
forInternet&Society(Apr.10,2012),availableathttp://cisindia.org/Internetgovernance/intermediaryliability
inindia.
[203]TheCopyrightAct,1957,52(1),provisoTheCopyrightRules,2013,r.75,cl.5.
[204]CS(OS)1860/2014(June23,2014),HighCourtofDelhi(India).
[205]NikhilPahwa,WorldCup2014:219websitesblockedinIndia,afterSonycomplaint,Medianama(Jul7,
2014),http://www.medianama.com/2014/07/223worldcup2014472websitesincludinggoogledocsblockedin
indiafollowingsonycomplaint/.
[206]CS(OS)1860/2014(June23,2014),HighCourtofDelhi(India).
[207]RequeststoremovecontentduetocopyrightviolationbyMultiScreenMediaPrivateLimited,Google
TransparencyReport(2014),
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/owners/57964/MultiScreenMediaPrivate
Limited/.
[208]WebsitesBlockedFollowingCourtOrder,PressInformationBureau(Dec.31,2014)
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=114259http://cisindia.org/internet
governance/resources/20141217_DoT32URLBlockOrder.pdf.
[209]KimArora,Governmentblocks32websitestocheckISISpropaganda,TheTimesofIndia(Jan.1,2015),
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/technews/Governmentblocks32websitestocheckISIS
propaganda/articleshow/45712815.cmsR.JaiKrishna,IndiaOrdersBlockingofWebsitesforAllegedISIS
Content,TheWallStreetJournal(Jan.2,2015),http://www.wsj.com/articles/indiaordersblockingofwebsites
forallegedisiscontent1420032698JayadevanPK&NehaAlawadhi,Governmentfacesafirestormof
protests,decidestounblocksomewebsites,TheEconomicTimes(Jan.1,2015),
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20150101/news/57581476_1_websitesvariousinternetservice
providersinformationtechnology.
[210]NehaAlawadhi,GovernmentordersISPstounblock32websites,links,TheEconomicTimes(Jan.10,
19/23
10/1/2015
2015),http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/governmentordersispstounblock32websites
links/articleshow/45829881.cms.
[211]RequeststoremovecontentfromtheGovernmentofIndia,
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/IN/.
[212]RequeststoremovecontentfromtheGovernmentofIndiaExploreRequests,
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/notes/?hl=en#authority=IN&period=Y2013H2.
[213]GovernmentRequestsReport:India,https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/India/2014H1/India
topsFacebook'scontentrestrictionlist,TheEconomicTimes(Nov.5,2014),
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20141105/news/55798412_1_requestsfacebookjanuaryjune.
[214]Removalrequests:India,https://transparency.twitter.com/country/in.
C.InterceptionofInformationbyIntermediaries
0Comments
Section69oftheInformationTechnologyActrequiresonlineintermediariestoextendallfacilitiesandtechnical
assistancetointercept,monitorordecryptinformation,provideinformationstoredinacomputer,orprovide
accesstoacomputerresourcewhencalledupontodosobythegovernment.
TheinterceptionofinformationundertheITActfollowsaverydetailedprocessinwhichattemptsaremadeat
varioussafeguards,suchasdesignatingseniorofficialsfordecisionmaking,creatingreviewcommittees,and
requiringintermediariestocheckandonlyfollowlegitimatelyissuedorders.However,atnopointdoesit
provideforthirdpartyoversightortransparency.Thelatter,inparticular,maybefarmoreeffectiveinensuring
thatnomisuseofthesystemtakesplacethaninrelyingonabusyseniorofficialwhomaynothavethetimeto
properlyjudgetheinterceptionrequest,andarenotaccountableiftheyshouldendupauthorizingan
interceptionthattheyshouldnothave.[215]AlthoughtheITActasksthatinterceptionsnotbeauthorized
unlesstheinformationunderquestioncannotbeobtainedbyothermeans,itdoesnotcontainanyprocedural
enforcementofthisprinciple.
Onlineintermediariesarerequiredtointerceptinformationonthethreatofimprisonment,[216]andtheyhaveto
designateofficerstomeettheITActsdetailedandcumbersomesafeguards.[217]Thisprocessofdesignating
apersonandthenensuringthatalltheinterceptionordersarereceived,areintheproperform,andaresigned
bytherightpartiesmayproveverydifficultfornewentrants.
Yahoowasactuallyfined1.1millionRupees(aboutUS$22,000)whenthecompanyrefusedtohandover
informationrelatedtoaboutadozenYahooIDsandIPaddressesthatthegovernmentwantedbecauseit
suspectedtheseIDswerebeingusedbyIslamicterroristsorMaoists.[218]Yahoorefusedtherequest,arguing
thatitwasnotmadethroughthechannelsrequiredbylaw,andthatthefinewasimposedbyanentity
(ControllerofCertifyingAuthorities)[219]withoutanyauthoritytoimposeit.[220]Thefinewaseventually
retracted,butYahoowasmadetoprovidetheinformation.[221]
Googlereceived2513userdatarequestsregarding4401accountsfromtheIndianGovernmentbetween
JanuaryandJune2013.Googlehandedovertheinformationin66%ofthecases.[222]Facebookreceiveda
totalof3598requestsregarding4711accountsbetweenJulytoDecember2013anditprovidedinformationin
53.56%ofcases.[223]Twitterreceived19accountinformationrequestsregarding27accountsandcomplied
with32%ofthese.[224]
Intheabsenceoftransparency,itisimpossibleforcitizenstodiscoverwhethertheirinformationhasbeen
intercepted.Asaresult,theyhavenomeansatallofholdingthestateaccountableforillegalinterceptionof
information.
[215]ChinmayiArun,WaytoWatch,IndianExpress(June26,2013),
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/waytowatch/1133737/.
[218]ControllerofCertifyingAuthorities,availableathttp://cca.gov.in/rw/resource/CCAORDERISSUEDTO
YAHOODIGITALLTYSIGNED.pdf?download=true.
[219]AppointedunderTheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,17(7).
[220]YahooIndiaPvt.Ltd.v.UnionofIndia,W.P.(C)6654/2011(Sept.14,2011),HighCourtofDelhi.
[221]YahooIndiaPvt.Ltd.v.UnionofIndia,W.P.(C)6654/2011(Sept.14,2011),HighCourtofDelhi
ChinmayiArunandUjwalaUppaluri,ReportontheIndianSurveillanceFramework(July2014),preparedon
behalfofiProbonoforPrivacyInternational.
[222]RequestsforuserinformationfromtheGovernmentofIndia
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/IN/.
[223]Governmentrequestsreport:India,https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/India/2013H2/.
[224]Informationrequests:India,https://transparency.twitter.com/informationrequests/2013/juldec.
IV.CasescurrentlybeforetheSupremeCourt[225]
0Comments
A.RajeevChandrasekhar[226]
20/23
10/1/2015
RajeevChandrasekhar,amemberoftheRajyaSabha(theupperhouseoftheParliamentofIndia)hasfileda
petitionintheIndianSupremeCourtchallengingSection66AoftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000and
Rules3(2),3(3),3(4)and3(7)oftheInformationTechnology(IntermediariesGuidelines)Rules,2011as
violatingArticles14,19,and21oftheIndianConstitution.
[225]SarvjeetSingh,CasesthatwilldefinethecontoursofFreeSpeechovertheInternetinIndia,CCGat
NLUDBlog(Dec10,2014),https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/casesthatwilldefinethecontours
offreespeechovertheinternetinindia/.
[226]RajeevChandrasekharv.U.O.I.&Anr.,W.P.(C)No.23(2013)(India),availableat
https://drive.google.com/a/nludelhi.ac.in/file/d/0B3Do39ZtwCrWnFKdTdLeXMwWlU/view.
0Comments
ThepetitionstatesthatRule3(2)liststhevarioustypesofinformationthatshouldnottobecarried.This
violatesArticle14oftheConstitution,asthesecategoriesarearbitraryandoverlybroad.Moreover,therules
granttheprivateintermediarytherighttosubjectivelyassessobjectionablecontentandcreatecategories
outsideoftherestrictionsprovidedunderArticle19.
Rule3(4)oftheguidelinesprovidestheintermediary36hourstodisabletheinformationthatisincontravention
ofRule3(2)whenitreceivessuchinformationonitsown,oronthebasisofinformationreceived.Thepetition
arguesthattheperiodof36hoursforremovalofcontentisimpracticalandinfeasibleforintermediariesthat
processenormousquantitiesofdata.Therulesalsorequiretheintermediarytokeeptheoffendinginformation
andassociatedrecordsforatleast90days,whileRule3(7)callsupontheintermediarytoprovideany
informationorassistancetoaGovernmentagencyseekingsuchinformationinwriting.Boththeserulesviolate
theprivacyunderArticle21oftheconstitution.
B.CommonCause[227]
0Comments
CommonCause,anNGOalongwithseniorAamAadmiPartyleaderandformerLawMinisterofDelhiSomnath
BhartihasfiledawritpetitionintheSupremeCourtofIndiaarguingthatSection66AoftheInformation
TechnologyAct,2000,Section69AoftheITActandtheInformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguards
forBlockingforAccessofInformationbyPublic)Rules,2009andSection80oftheITActareinviolationof
Article14,19,and21oftheIndianConstitution.
[227]CommonCause(ARegd.Society)&Anr.v.U.O.I.,W.P.(C)No.21(2013)(India),availableat
http://www.commoncause.in/whatsNew/8writpetition.pdf.
1.Section69AandtheInformationTechnology(Procedureand
SafeguardsforBlockingforAccessofInformationbyPublic)Rules,2009
0Comments
ThepetitionputsforthvariousadministrativelawargumentsthatSection69AoftheITActandthe2009rules
framedunderitviolatetheConstitution.Itarguesthattherulesdonotofferthecreatororauthorofthecontent
withareasonableopportunitytobeheardbeforeblockingthecontent.Additionally,thereisnoscopeforapost
decisionhearing,noristhereanyprovisiontoappealtheblockingorderundertherules.
C.Moutshut.com[228]
0Comments
Moutshut.com,auserreviewwebsite,hasfiledapetitionbeforetheSupremeCourtofIndiachallengingthe
InformationTechnology(IntermediariesGuidelines)Rules,2011,claimingthatitviolatesArticles14,19,and21
oftheIndianConstitution.
Thepetitionarguesthatsubrule(2)ofRule3oftheguidelinesmandatesintermediariestoplacerestrictionson
thekindsofcontentthatausercanpostwithabroadlistofinformationthatishighlysubjectiveandcanresult
inwideinterpretation.Additionally,mostofthesetermsareoutsidethereasonablerestrictionsprovidedunder
Article19(2)oftheconstitution.Theimpugnedrulesresultintheremovalofanycontentthatisdislikedbyany
personorisnotinhis/herinterest.TherulesempowerprivatepartiestocensorcontentovertheInternetand
placesonthemtheburdentodecidethelawfulnessofthecontent,whichshouldnormallybeajudicialfunction.
Thedecisiontotakedowncontentdoesnotprovideanyopportunitytotheownerofcontenttoappeal,noris
thepersoninformed.
[228]Mouthshut.Com(India)Pvt.Ltd.&Anr.v.U.O.I.&Ors.,W.P.(C)No.217(2013)(India),availableat
http://www.mouthshut.com/pdf/main_pitition.pdf.
D.Peoples'UnionforCivilLiberties[229]
0Comments
PeoplesUnionforCivilLiberties,ahumanrightsorganizationhasfiledawritpetitionintheSupremeCourtof
IndiaarguingthatSection66AoftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000,theInformationTechnology(Procedure
andSafeguardsforBlockingforAccessofInformationbyPublic)Rules,2009andtheInformationTechnology
(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011areinviolationofArticles14,19,and21oftheIndianConstitution.
21/23
10/1/2015
[229]PeoplesUnionforCivilLibertiesv.U.O.I.&Ors.,W.P.(Crl.)No.199(2013)(India),availableat
https://drive.google.com/a/nludelhi.ac.in/file/d/0B_V5K_jBhEXcmd1SmdVVFFGNDQ/edit.
1.InformationTechnology(ProcedureandSafeguardsforBlockingfor
AccessofInformationbyPublic)Rules,2009
0Comments
Thepetitionmakesanumberofargumentswhilearguingthatthe2009rulesviolatetheConstitution.Itargues
thattherulesdonotofferthecreatororauthorofthecontentareasonableopportunitytobeheardbefore
blockingthecontent.Thecreatorisnoteveninformedaboutthecontentbeingblocked.Thereisnoprovision
forapostdecisionhearing,ortoappealtheblockingorderundertherules.Additionally,thereareno
safeguardsorguidelinesprovided,whichneedtobefollowedwhilemakingadecision.
0Comments
Thepetitionarguesthatnoneofthetermsunderrule3(2)oftheintermediaryrulesaredefined,andmostof
thesetermsareincompatiblewithArticle19(2).Therulesarevagueandambiguousanddonotprovidethe
userreasonableopportunitytoknowwhatispermittedsothathe/shemayactaccordingtolaw.Therules
empowerprivateentitiestocensorcontentovertheInternetandplaceonthemtheburdentodecidethe
lawfulnessofthecontentwithoutanylegislativeguidance,therebyforcinganadjudicatoryroleonan
intermediary.Thedecisiontotakedowncontentismadebytheintermediarywithouthearingthepartywhose
contentisaffectedandwithoutevennotifyingthemoftheremoval.
Undertheserules,similarcontentistreateddifferentlyacrossonlineandofflinespaces.Therulesalsostate
thattheintermediaryhastotakeactionuponacomplaintbyanyaffectedperson,however,whoqualifiesasan
affectedpersonhasnotbedefinedanywhere.
Thepetitionalsoarguesthattheintermediaryrulesareultravirestheparentstatuteastheguidelinesformed
undersection79oftheITActcanonlyberelatedto'duediligence'andtherulesintheircurrentformgoastep
furtherandlegislateonvariousissues,includingtheinformationthatcanbepostedonlinebyauser,whereas
theparentprovisiondoesnotintendanyprohibition.
E.InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia[230]
0Comments
InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia,anindustrybodyrepresentingInternetplatformsandbusinesses,has
filedawritpetitionintheSupremeCourtofIndiaarguingthatSection79(3)(b)oftheInformationTechnology
Act,2000isinconsistentwithArticles14and19oftheConstitution,andthattheInformationTechnology
(Intermediariesguidelines)Rules,2011areinviolationofArticles14,19,and21oftheIndianConstitution.
ThepetitionstatesthattheperemptoryobligationonintermediariesunderSection79(3)(b)todisableortake
downcontentisinviolationofArticles14and19oftheConstitutionofIndia.Accordingtothepetition,Section
79(3)(b)deprivesintermediariesofaccesstojudicialrecoursebeforeremovingmaterialsinceintermediariesare
requiredtotakedownunlawfulmaterialuponbeingnotifiedbyaprivatepartyortheGovernment.Thisviolates
thefreedomofexpressionoftheusersandhasachillingeffectonspeech.
[230]InternetandMobileAssociationofIndia&Anr.v.U.O.I.&Anr.,W.P.(C)No.758(2014)(India),available
athttps://drive.google.com/a/nludelhi.ac.in/file/d/0B3Do39ZtwCrNnQzQTg5QmJFRjA/view.
0Comments
Thepetitionarguesthatthetermsunderrule3(2)oftheintermediaryrulesarevagueandambiguousanddonot
providetheuserwithreasonableopportunitytoascertainwhatislawfulcontenthe/shemayconformwiththe
law.ThepetitionalsostatesthatRule3(2)(b)isultraviresSection79(3)(b)oftheITActsincetherulegoes
beyondthelegislativemandateofrequiringintermediariestodisablecontentwhichisunlawfulandcreates
newcategoriesofsubstantiveban.WithrespecttoRule3(2)(f),thepetitiontakestheviewthatitisultravires
sinceitgoesbeyondthelegislativemandateofrequiringintermediariestodisablecontentthatisunlawful.It
arguesthatthisrulecreatesnewcategoriesofsubstantiveproscriptionsofspeechthatarenotdefined
anywhereinIndianlaw.
ThepetitionalsoarguesthatRule3(4)oftheIntermediaryGuidelinesisinconflictwithSection79(3)(b),which
requiresanintermediarytoactwhenallegedlyunlawfulinformationisbroughttotheactualknowledgeofthe
intermediary.Rule3(4)exceedsthelimitsofSection79(3)(b)bymakingreferencetotheintermediary
obtainingknowledgebyitself.Thepetitionsaysthatthislanguageimpliesproactivemonitoringbyan
intermediaryalthoughSection79(3)(b)oftheITActdoesnotobligateintermediariestoproactivelymonitor
data/informationunlessitisbroughttotheirattentionbyathirdpartyortheGovernment.Thisruleistherefore
seenasgoingbeyondthescopeoftheparentprovisionandasanunreasonablerequirementthatispractically
impossibletocomplywithgiventhevolumesofdatahandledbyintermediaries.Finally,thepetitionstatesthat
Rule3(7)hastheeffectofcircumventingthelimitationplacedontheStatespowerbyArticle21ofthe
Constitution.
F.KamleshVaswani[231]
0Comments
22/23
10/1/2015
KamleshVaswani,anIndianadvocatehasfiledapetitionbeforetheIndianSupremeCourt,whichseeksto
declaresections66,67,69,71,72,75,79,80and85oftheInformationTechnologyAct,2000as
unconstitutional.ItalsoaskstheGovernmenttoframeaspecificlawandanationalpolicyonpornography,to
makeviewingpornographyanoffence,andtodirectintermediariestoproactivelymonitorandblockall
pornographiccontentontheInternet.
[231]KamleshVaswaniv.U.O.I&Ors.,W.P.(C)177(2013),availableat
https://docs.google.com/a/nludelhi.ac.in/document/d/1ZyBevXbdC
FXzkSNA9itU5oFjhwO7CNSmZ7_H0Ji_B0/edit.
G.SabuMathewGeorge
0Comments
SabuMathewGeorge[232],amemberoftheNationalInspectionandMonitoringCommitteeconstitutedunder
thePreConceptionandPreNatalDiagnosticTechniques(PCPNDT)Act,1994,andhisNonGovernmental
Organisationcopetitioner,VoluntaryHealthAssociationofPunjab,havefiledapetitionbeforetheSupreme
CourtofIndia.Thepetitionstatesthat,theprovisionsofthePCPNDTAct,arebeingviolatedbyvarioussearch
enginesasadvertisementsrelatedtosexdeterminationtechniquesandproductsarebeingdisplayedinIndia
bythesesearchengines.[233]ItfurtherasksthattheDepartmentofElectronicsandInformationTechnologyat
theMinistryofCommunicationsandInformationTechnologyandthecompetentauthorityofDepartmentof
HealthandFamilyWelfareworkharmoniouslytoimplementtheprovisionsoftheAct.[234]Thepetitionisnot
publiclyavailableanditispossiblethatitseeksotherremediesthathavenotbeenreportedinthemedia.
[232]SabuMathewGeorgev.UnionofIndia,W.P.(C)No.341(2008)(India).
[233]ShreejaSen,NothingcontrarytoIndianlawsshouldbeadvertisedonline:SC,Mint(Dec.5,2014),
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/5fGedpkVoAlvMQHd6nEopL/NothingcontrarytoIndianlawsshouldbe
advertisedonline.html.
[234]SabuMathewGeorgev.UnionofIndia,W.P.(C)No.341/2008,interimorder(Dec.4,2014),Supreme
CourtofIndia(India),availableathttp://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wc34108.pdf.
0Comments
Photo:twitter.com/mattwi1s0n(CCBY2.0)
0Amendments
[BacktoCaseStudies]
FAQs
AboutPublixphere
TermsofUse
AbouttheNetworkofCenters
DataProtection
Imprint
ThissitesupplementstheNoCsmainwebsite
Netiquette
Thisplatformisrunwith
23/23

Online Intermediaries in India - Network of Centers - Publixphere

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Online Intermediaries in India - Network of Centers - Publixphere

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

10/1/2015

HOME SESSIONS PAPERS COMMUNITY

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi