--- abstract: This paper examines the provision for Internet blocking and shutdowns in the Indian law, and compares it with international human rights law (IHRL). It finds that IHRL potentially offers a useful lens through which to view these actions; that IHRL is widely accepted by the Indian state, including the judiciary; and that IHRL provides a useful complement to constitutional analysis. It also finds that the Indian laws and practices around Internet shutdowns and online content blocking fall short of IHRL in significant ways, including when it comes to the principles of legality, legitimate aims, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and remedies for violation of rights. Finally, it offers suggestions on how to improve the laws and practices in each of these areas so as to comply with India's IHRL obligations. acknowledgement: The author would like to thank the Centre for Internet and Society for funding the research for this paper. Further, he is grateful for the helpful comments provided by Gurshabad Grover, Divyansha Sehgal, and the anonymous reviewer. author: - Pranesh Prakash authors: - affiliations: - Principal Consultant, Anekaanta - Affiliated Fellow, Yale Law School's Information Society Project name: Pranesh Prakash orcid: 0000-0002-5368-4827 citation: abstract: This paper examines the provision for Internet blocking and shutdowns in Indian law, and compares it with international human rights law (IHRL). It finds that IHRL potentially offers a useful lens through which to view these actions; that IHRL is widely accepted by the Indian state, including the judiciary; and that IHRL provides a useful complement to constitutional analysis. It also finds that the Indian laws and practices around Internet shutdowns and online content blocking fall short of IHRL in significant ways, including when it comes to the principles of legality, legitimate aims, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and remedies for violation of rights. Finally, it offers suggestions on how to improve the laws and practices in each of these areas, so as to comply with India's IHRL obligations. accessed: 2024-06-22 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240622073734/https://ippr.in/index.php/ippr/article/view/282" author: - family: Prakash given: Pranesh available-date: date-parts: - - 2024 - 6 - 21 iso-8601: 2024-06-21 literal: 2024-06-21 raw: 2024-06-21 citation-key: prakashInternetBlocking2024 container-title: Indian Public Policy Review container-title-short: Indian Public Policy Rev. DOI: 10.55763/ippr.2024.05.03.002 id: prakashInternetBlocking2024 ISSN: 2582-7928 issue: 3 (May-Jun) issued: date-parts: - - 2024 - 6 - 21 iso-8601: 2024-06-21 literal: 2024-06-21 raw: 2024-06-21 language: en-IN license: CC BY-SA 4.0 number: 3 (May-Jun) page: 38-76 source: ippr.in title: Internet blocking and shutdowns in India and international human rights law type: article-journal URL: "https://ippr.in/index.php/ippr/article/view/282" volume: 5 citecolor: black colorlinks: true comments: hypothesis: theme: clean date: 2024-06-21 doi: 10.55763/ippr.2024.05.03.002 engines: - path: /opt/quarto/share/extension-subtrees/julia-engine/\_extensions/julia-engine/julia-engine.js filecolor: black keywords: - International Human Rights Law - Internet shutdowns - Content blocking - Necessity - Proportionality - Transparency license: text: CC BY-SA 4.0 type: creative-commons url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" link-citations: true linkcolor: black listing-page: ../../scholarly.html notes-after-punctuation: false original-url: "https://ippr.in/index.php/ippr/article/view/282" publication: Indian Public Policy Review reference-section-title: References references: - accessed: 2021-10-08 citation-key: 63rdRepublic container-title: "https://www.outlookindia.com/" id: 63rdRepublic title: 63rd Republic Day Celebrated Across India type: webpage URL: "https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/63rd-republic-day-celebrated-across-india/749072" - accessed: 2021-12-08 citation-key: AbbasUnion container-title: 1971 AIR 481 id: AbbasUnion note: on 24 September, 1970 title: K.A. Abbas v. Union of India type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1719619/" - abstract: In this post, the authors attempt to highlight the positive and negative effects of the recent judgement of X v. Union of India vis-a-vis global blocking. The authors discuss the right to be forgot... accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Abhishek given: R. - family: Yerrapureddy given: Poorvi citation-key: abhishekDiscourseGlobal2021 container-title: RMLNLU Law Review Blog id: abhishekDiscourseGlobal2021 issued: 2021-07-26 language: en title: A discourse on global takedowns vis-a-vis X v. Union of india type: post-weblog URL: "https://rmlnlulawreview.com/2021/07/26/global-takedown-x-vs-union-of-india/" - abstract: After reports of threatening SMS-es being sent to North Eastern students in Bangalore and other cities like Hyderabad, the government has banned bulk text messages for the next 15 days. So no cellphone user can send a message to more than 5 people. accessed: 2021-10-08 citation-key: AllBulk container-title: NDTV.com id: AllBulk title: All bulk SMS-es banned for 15 days to stop rumours type: webpage URL: "https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/all-bulk-sms-es-banned-for-15-days-to-stop-rumours-497094" - accessed: 2021-12-08 citation-key: AnujGarg2007 container-title: AIR 2008 SC 663 id: AnujGarg2007 issued: 2007 note: "& Ors on 6 December, 2007" title: Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/845216/" - accessed: 2021-12-03 authority: Supreme Court of India citation-key: AnuradhaBhasin2020 container-title: 2019 SCC Online SC 1725 id: AnuradhaBhasin2020 issued: 2020-01-10 note: 10 January, 2020 title: Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82461587/" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: Article 19 citation-key: article19FreedomExpression2013 id: article19FreedomExpression2013 ISBN: 978-1-906586-67-6 issued: 2013 license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License (CC-BY-NC-SA) title: "Freedom of expression and ICTs: Overview of international standards" type: book URL: "https://www.article19.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/FoE-and-ICTs.pdf" - abstract: Section 69 (A) of the IT Act gives the Centre the power to "block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource". accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Aryan given: Aashish citation-key: aryanSOPIT2021 container-title: Indian Express id: aryanSOPIT2021 issued: 2021-09-27 language: en title: "SOP for IT Rules: Clarity on sections 69 (A), 79 of IT Act, liability of cos likely" title-short: SOP for IT Rules type: article-newspaper URL: "https://indianexpress.com/article/business/sop-for-it-rules-clarity-on-sections-69-a-79-of-it-act-liability-of-cos-likely-7536194/" - abstract: "In the recent case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a criminal prohibition on advocacy carried out in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization is constitutionally permissible: it is not tantamount to an unconstitutional infringement of freedom of speech." author: - family: Barak-Erez given: Daphne - family: Scharia given: David citation-key: barak-erezFreedomSpeech2011 container-title: Freedom of Speech container-title-short: Freedom Speech id: barak-erezFreedomSpeech2011 issued: 2011 language: en page: 30 source: Zotero title: Freedom of Speech, Support for Terrorism, and the Challenge of Global Constitutional Law type: article-journal volume: 2 - author: - family: Barak given: Aharon call-number: K3165 .B37413 2012 citation-key: barakProportionalityConstitutional2012 collection-title: Cambridge studies in constitutional law event-place: Cambridge, U.K. ; New York id: barakProportionalityConstitutional2012 ISBN: 978-1-107-00858-8 978-1-107-40119-8 issued: 2012 language: en number-of-pages: 611 OCLC: ocn756281089 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge, U.K. ; New York source: Library of Congress ISBN title: "Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations" title-short: Proportionality type: book - accessed: 2024-06-08 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240519115745/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GFoE_Internet-shutdowns-in-international-law.pdf" author: - family: Barata given: Joan - family: Richter given: Andrei citation-key: barataInternetShutdowns2023 id: barataInternetShutdowns2023 issued: 2023-07-07 language: en-US publisher: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression title: Internet shutdowns in international law type: report URL: "https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/GFoE_Internet-shutdowns-in-international-law.pdf" - abstract: In response to the increasing pressure on governments, legislatures, and courts to conform to global standards, courts in several democracies are seeking to strengthen the ability of their governments to stand up against interest groups and powerful foreign governments, and to expand the space for domestic deliberation. By coordinating policies with counterparts in other countries through the common language of international and comparative constitutional law, courts can contribute to reclaiming democracy from the grip of globalization. accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Benvenisti given: Eyal citation-key: benvenistiReclaimingDemocracy2008 container-title: The American Journal of International Law container-title-short: Am. J. Int. Law DOI: 10.2307/30034538 id: benvenistiReclaimingDemocracy2008 ISSN: 0002-9300 issue: 2 issued: 2008 page: 241-274 publisher: American Society of International Law source: JSTOR title: "Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts" title-short: Reclaiming Democracy type: article-journal URL: "https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034538" volume: 102 - abstract: The law on global governance that emerged after World War II was grounded in irrefutable trust in international organizations and an assumption that their subjection to legal discipline and judicial review would be unnecessary and, in fact, detrimental to their success. The law that evolved systematically insulated international organizations from internal and external scrutiny and absolved them of any inherent legal obligations -- and, to a degree, continues to do so. Indeed, it was only well after the end of the Cold War that mistrust in global governance began to trickle through into the legal discourse and the realization gradually took hold that the operation of international organizations needed to be subject to the disciplining power of the law. Since the mid-1990s, scholars have sought to identify the conditions under which trust in global bodies can be regained, mainly by borrowing and adapting domestic public law precepts that emphasize accountability through communications with those affected. Today, although a "culture of accountability" may have taken root, its legal tools are still shaping up and are often contested. More importantly, these communicative tools are ill-equipped to address the new modalities of governance that are based on decision making by machines using raw data (rather than two-way exchange with stakeholders) as their input. The new information and communication technologies challenge the foundational premise of the accountability school -- that "the more communication, the better" -- as voters turned users obtain their information from increasingly fragmented and privatized marketplaces of ideas that are manipulated for economic and political gain. In this article, I describe and analyse how the law has evolved to acknowledge the need for accountability, how it has designed norms for this purpose and continues in this endeavour, yet also how the challenges it faces today are leaving its most fundamental assumptions open to question. I argue that, given the growing influence of public and private global governance bodies on our daily lives and the shape of our political communities, the task of the law of global governance is no longer limited to ensuring the accountability of global bodies but also serves to protect human dignity and the very viability of the democratic state. accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - family: Benvenisti given: Eyal citation-key: benvenistiUpholdingDemocracy2018 container-title: European Journal of International Law container-title-short: European Journal of International Law DOI: 10.1093/ejil/chy013 id: benvenistiUpholdingDemocracy2018 ISSN: 0938-5428 issue: 1 issued: 2018-05-08 page: 9-82 source: Silverchair title: "Upholding Democracy Amid the Challenges of New Technology: What Role for the Law of Global Governance?" title-short: Upholding Democracy Amid the Challenges of New Technology type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy013" volume: 29 - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Bhardwaj given: Shrutanjaya - family: Nayak given: Nakul - family: Singh given: Sarvjeet - family: Dandamudi given: Raja Venkata Krishna - family: Handa given: Veda citation-key: bhardwajRisingInternet2020 container-title: Indian Journal of Law and Technology container-title-short: Indian J. Law Technol. id: bhardwajRisingInternet2020 ISSN: 0973-0362 issue: 1 issued: 2020 language: en page: 122-158 title: "Rising Internet Shutdowns in India: A Legal Analysis" title-short: Rising Internet Shutdowns in India type: article-journal URL: "https://www.ijlt.in/journal/rising-internet-shutdowns-in-india%3A-a-legal-analysis" volume: 16 - abstract: This is in addition to a total of 177 Chinese apps banned till now accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Bhargava given: Yuthika citation-key: bhargavaGovtBlocks2020 container-title: The Hindu event-place: New Delhi id: bhargavaGovtBlocks2020 ISSN: 0971-751X issued: 2020-11-24 language: en-IN publisher-place: New Delhi section: National source: www.thehindu.com title: Govt blocks 43 more mobile apps, including AliExpress, Alipay Cashier and CamCard type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-blocks-43-more-mobile-apps-including-aliexpress-alipay-cashier-and-camcard/article33170211.ece" - accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Brady given: Alan D. P. citation-key: bradyProportionalityDeference2012 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139003445 event-place: Cambridge id: bradyProportionalityDeference2012 ISBN: 978-1-139-00344-5 issued: 2012 language: en publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Crossref title: "Proportionality and deference under the UK Human Rights Act: an institutionally sensitive approach" title-short: Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights Act type: book URL: "http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781139003445" - accessed: 2021-11-29 citation-key: CableTelevision1995 id: CableTelevision1995 issued: 1995 license: zaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaa title: The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act type: legislation URL: "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1928/1/A1995-07.pdf" - accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: Celebrating702021 id: Celebrating702021 issued: 2021 language: en-US title: "UN: Celebrating 70 years" title-short: UN type: post-weblog URL: "https://in.one.un.org/page/un-celebrating-70-years/" - abstract: The Software Freedom Law Centre challenged the accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610111717/thewire.in/law/internet-shutdowns-exams-petition-supreme-court-protocol" citation-key: ChallengeInternet container-title: The Wire id: ChallengeInternet language: en-US section: Law title: "On Challenge to Internet Shutdowns During Exams, SC Asks Centre: 'What Is the Protocol?'" title-short: On Challenge to Internet Shutdowns During Exams, SC Asks Centre type: webpage URL: "https://thewire.in/law/internet-shutdowns-exams-petition-supreme-court-protocol" - accessed: 2021-11-30 author: - family: Chandrachud given: Abhinav citation-key: chandrachudWednesburyReformulated2013 container-title: Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal container-title-short: Oxf. Univ. Commonw. Law J. DOI: 10.5235/14729342.13.1.191 id: chandrachudWednesburyReformulated2013 ISSN: 1472-9342 issue: 1 issued: 2013-09-30 page: 191-208 publisher: Routledge source: Taylor and Francis+NEJM title: "Wednesbury Reformulated: Proportionality and the Supreme Court of India" title-short: Wednesbury Reformulated type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.5235/14729342.13.1.191" volume: 13 - abstract: India has traditionally been described as a dualist country in relation to its engagement with international law. Formally at least, the allocation of the power of assumption of international obligations rests with the Executive, while its domestic implementation requires Parliamentary sanction. In this paper, I argue that while India remains formally committed to dualism, in practice it exhibits many monist tendencies. Once international law obligations are assumed, they are transported into domestic law through various channels, not all of which require Parliamentary approval. Further, the Indian judiciary also applies non-domesticated international law obligations in various ways that reflect shades of monism. I argue that this departure from dualism is problematic since it removes much needed Parliamentary scrutiny, and results in a lack of executive accountability, erosion of federalism, the loss of value of legal pluralism, and the amplification of international law's democratic deficits. accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Chandra given: Aparna citation-key: chandraIndiaInternational2017 container-title: Indian Journal of International Law container-title-short: Indian Journal of International Law DOI: 10.1007/s40901-017-0069-0 id: chandraIndiaInternational2017 ISSN: 2199-7411 issue: 1 issued: 2017-06-01 language: en page: 25-45 source: Springer Link title: "India and international law: formal dualism, functional monism" title-short: India and international law type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-017-0069-0" volume: 57 - abstract: "The chapter presents an analysis of the practice of limitation analysis in the case law of the Indian Supreme Court. Based on both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of a large sample of case law relating to claims for limitation of the rights to equality, fundamental freedoms, and life and personal liberty, the chapter deconstructs the Court's approach to identify the distinct elements of limitation analysis, and argues that though the Court has not expressly articulated a single structured test for the validity of rights limitations, in practice the Court generally examines three elements: worthy purpose, rational nexus (at times including narrow tailoring), and a general balancing between various interests at stake. Quantitative indicators are used to provide an overview of the characteristics of limitation analysis in action, including the rights and subject matters to which limitation analysis is applied and the division of labour between the components of the analysis when striking down measures. The findings demonstrate that the majority of limitations struck down are based on either lack of legitimate purpose, lack of rational nexus, or both. The chapter further analyses qualitatively the formulations and applications in practice of each of the components of limitation analysis." accessed: 2021-11-30 author: - family: Chandra given: Aparna citation-key: chandraLimitationAnalysis2020 collection-title: Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law container-title: "Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice" DOI: 10.1017/9781108596268.009 editor: - family: Lang given: Andrej - family: Kremnitzer given: Mordechai - family: Steiner given: Talya event-place: Cambridge id: chandraLimitationAnalysis2020 ISBN: 978-1-108-49758-9 issued: 2020 page: 458-541 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Cambridge University Press title: Limitation Analysis by the Indian Supreme Court type: chapter URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/proportionality-in-action/limitation-analysis-by-the-indian-supreme-court/B2C1E7CEAADB739804431BE0EEFD2B72" - abstract: From the very dawn of India's constitutional republic, the Supreme Court of India has held that a measure that restricts a fundamental right should bear a proportional relationship to the right. However, it is only recently, starting in 2016 with Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh, that the Court has adopted a structured four-part proportionality test to determine the validity of rights restricting measures. In this article, I describe how the Supreme Court has engaged with the doctrine of proportionality in its recent case law. I argue that the Supreme Court's approach to proportionality is riddled with conceptual confusion which stems from the Court's (mistaken) assumption that proportionality has always existed in Indian constitutional jurisprudence and that therefore adopting the test requires the Court to do nothing very different from its existing practices of rights review. The Court's approach of assimilating proportionality into the pre-existing framework for rights review has limited the disruptive potential of proportionality in reshaping legal culture, and in re-aligning the relations between citizens and the State, and between the Court and other branches. author: - family: Chandra given: Aparna citation-key: chandraProportionalityIndia2020 container-title: University of Oxford Human Rights Hub Journal container-title-short: Univ. Oxf. Hum. Rights Hub J. id: chandraProportionalityIndia2020 issue: 2 issued: 2020 language: en page: 55-86 source: Zotero title: "Proportionality in India: A Bridge to Nowhere?" type: article-journal volume: 3 - abstract: In Pune and Hyderabad, there is a sense of greater calm among students from the North East, who have spent the last few days worried about whether they are potential targets, as warned by some inflammatory text messages and videos circulating online. In Bangalore, five people have been arrested for spreading rumours - Chief Minister Jagadish Shettar has been warning that the police is identifying those who are trying to disturb the peace by deliberately misreporting facts. accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - family: Chaturvedi given: Amit citation-key: chaturvediFiveArrested2012 container-title: NDTV.com id: chaturvediFiveArrested2012 issued: 2012-08-18 title: Five arrested in Bangalore for rumours, social media told to be alert type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/five-arrested-in-bangalore-for-rumours-social-media-told-to-be-alert-497149" - abstract: This paper examines how the Indian State regulates the Internet and the relation this has to the limitations imposed on the State's actions vis-a-vis the rights provided by the Indian constitution protecting speech and expression as well as privacy. Building upon contemporary technology law writings, it argues that not only is the Internet "regulable" by nation states, it is in fact more and more being regulated even by liberal democratic nation states which have constitutional limitations on the powers of their governments to direct and enforce such restrictions. The Indian situation has demonstrated the increasing engagement of the State with issues concerning Internet surveillance and regulation but with comparatively poor documentation of the same. This has been in addition to a glaring lack of informed debate concerning civil liberties and constitutional values with respect to Internet regulation in India. This paper tracks the Internet regulatory regime in India and argues that it takes place largely by means of executive actions lacking legislative sanction, and hence are arguably unconstitutional in many parts with respect to past and ongoing actions undertaken by State agencies. accessed: 2014-09-16 author: - family: Chima given: Raman Jit Singh citation-key: chimaRegulationInternet2008 genre: SSRN Scholarly Paper id: chimaRegulationInternet2008 issued: 2008-04-25 publisher: Social Science Research Network source: papers.ssrn.com title: The regulation of the internet with relation to speech and expression by the indian state type: report URL: "http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1237262" - accessed: 2021-09-23 citation-key: ChineseApps id: ChineseApps title: "chinese apps ban: India to permanently ban 59 Chinese apps, including TikTok - The Economic Times" type: article-newspaper URL: "https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/india-to-permanently-ban-59-chinese-apps-including-tiktok/articleshow/80451148.cms" - accessed: 2021-12-03 author: - family: Chugh given: Ashish citation-key: chughSupremeCourt2004 container-title: SCC Journal container-title-short: SCC J. id: chughSupremeCourt2004 issued: 2004 page: 33 title: Is the Supreme Court disproportionately applying the proportionality principle? type: article-journal URL: "https://www.ebc-india.com/lawyer/articles/2004_8_33.htm" volume: 8 - accessed: 2021-11-24 author: - family: Dara given: Rishabh citation-key: daraIntermediaryLiability2011 id: daraIntermediaryLiability2011 issued: 2011 language: en publisher: Centre for Internet and Society title: "Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet" title-short: Intermediary Liability in India type: report URL: "https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: De Schutter given: Olivier citation-key: deschutterInternationalHuman2010 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511779312 event-place: Cambridge id: deschutterInternationalHuman2010 ISBN: 978-0-511-77931-2 issued: 2010 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Crossref title: "International Human Rights Law: Cases, Materials, Commentary" title-short: International Human Rights Law type: book URL: "http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511779312" - abstract: The restrictions also limit the fundamental right to free expression. accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Dhonchak given: Anupriya - family: Purohit given: Nikhil citation-key: dhonchakIndiaBan2020 container-title: Scroll.in id: dhonchakIndiaBan2020 issued: 2020-06-01 language: en_US publisher: "https://scroll.in" title: Is India's ban on Tiktok and 58 other Chinese apps consistent with the provisions of IT Act? type: article-newspaper URL: "https://scroll.in/article/966131/is-indias-ban-on-tiktok-and-58-other-chinese-apps-consistent-with-the-provisions-of-it-act" - accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: duarteProportionalityLaw2018 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2 editor: - family: Duarte given: David - family: Sampaio given: Jorge Silva event-place: Cham id: duarteProportionalityLaw2018 ISBN: 978-3-319-89646-5 978-3-319-89647-2 issued: 2018 language: en publisher: Springer International Publishing publisher-place: Cham source: Crossref title: "Proportionality in Law: An Analytical Perspective" title-short: Proportionality in Law type: book URL: "http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-89647-2" - abstract: As this publication explains, freedom of expression is not just a by-product of technical change; it must be protected by legal and regulatory measures that balance a variety of potentially conflicting values and interests in a complex global ecology of choices. The impetus that this report provides for the prioritization of research in this field encourages further scrutiny of the multifaceted issues that govern the conditions for freedom of expression on the Internet. The findings of this research point to the need to better track a wider array of global, legal and regulatory trends. It is my hope that this publication proves to be a useful and informative resource for all users working in this domain, whether individual researchers, students or policy makers author: - family: Dutton given: William H. - family: Dopatka given: Anna - family: Law given: Ginette - family: Nash given: Victoria citation-key: duttonFreedomConnection2011 event-place: Paris id: duttonFreedomConnection2011 ISBN: 978-92-3-104188-4 issued: 2011 language: eng number-of-pages: 103 publisher: UNESCO publisher-place: Paris source: K10plus ISBN title: "Freedom of connection, freedom of expression: the changing legal and regolatory; ecology shaping the Internet; a report prepared for UNESCO's Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace" title-short: Freedom of connection, freedom of expression type: book - accessed: 2021-11-29 citation-key: Expedience2020 container-title: Wiktionary id: Expedience2020 issued: 2020-10-26 language: en license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License note: "Page Version ID: 60954376" source: Wiktionary title: expedience type: entry-dictionary URL: "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=expedience&oldid=60954376" - accessed: 2021-11-29 citation-key: Expedient2021 container-title: Wiktionary id: Expedient2021 issued: 2021-07-25 language: en license: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License note: "Page Version ID: 63393589" source: Wiktionary title: expedient type: entry-dictionary URL: "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=expedient&oldid=63393589" - author: - literal: Expert Committee on Amendments to the IT Act 2000 citation-key: expertcommitteeonamendmentstotheitact2000ReportExpert2005 id: expertcommitteeonamendmentstotheitact2000ReportExpert2005 issued: 2005-08 note: The Committee will be headed by Shri Brijesh Kumar, Secretary, Department of Information Technology. The Committee shall comprise Dr. A.K. Chakravarty, Scientist-G, DIT, Shri Kiran Karnik, President NASSCOM, Shri A.K. Singh, Shri Vakul Sharma, Advocate, Shri Ajay Chowdhry, Chairman HCL Infosystems Ltd., Shri Ajit Balakrishnan, CEO, Rediff, and Shri R. Ramraj, CEO, Sifi Ltd. Shri M. Madhavan Nambiar, Joint Secretary in the DIT will be the Member-Secretary of the Committee. title: "Report of the expert committee: proposed amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000" type: report URL: "https://www.meity.gov.in/content/report-expert-committee-amendments-it-act-2000" - accessed: 2021-10-07 citation-key: ExpertsJammu id: ExpertsJammu title: UN Experts on Jammu & Kashmir - Pakistan Mission to the UN, Geneva type: webpage URL: "https://www.pakungeneva.pk/ContentPage.aspx?ID=40" - accessed: 2021-10-07 authority: Kerala HC citation-key: FaheemaShirin2019 id: FaheemaShirin2019 issued: 2019-09-19 note: P.V. Asha, J. 2019 SCC Ker 2976 number: WP (C) 19716/2019-L title: Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188439981/" - author: - family: Fuller given: Lon Luvois citation-key: fullerMoralityLaw1969 id: fullerMoralityLaw1969 ISBN: 978-0-300-00472-4 issued: 1969 language: en-US number-of-pages: 272 publisher: Yale University Press source: Google Books title: The Morality of Law type: book - abstract: This article is written by Akshita Gupta, from Symbiosis Law School, Noida. This article discusses Section 118A of the Kerala Police Act and why it was struck down. Table of Contents IntroductionThe provisionObjective of the provisionSituation after the AmendmentGrounds for challenging Section 118-A of the Kerala Police ActThe path taken by ordinanceRevocation of the ordinanceConclusionReferences \[...\] accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - family: Garg given: Rachit citation-key: gargSection118A2021 container-title: iPleaders id: gargSection118A2021 issued: 2021-10-28 language: en-US title: Section 118A of Kerala Police Act type: post-weblog URL: "https://blog.ipleaders.in/section-118a-of-kerala-police-act/" - author: - family: Gautam given: Khagesh citation-key: gautamUseInternational2019 container-title: Stanford Journal of International Law container-title-short: Stan. J. Int'l L. id: gautamUseInternational2019 issued: 2019 page: 27 title: The use of international law in constitutional interpretation in the Supreme Court of India type: article-journal URL: "https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/stanit55&id=35&div=&collection=" volume: 55 - abstract: Geoffrey Gertz explains the Trump administration's executive orders banning Chinese apps TikTok and WeChat from the U.S. market. accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Gertz given: Geoffrey citation-key: gertzWhyTrump2020 container-title: Brookings id: gertzWhyTrump2020 issued: 2020-08-07 language: en-US title: Why is the Trump administration banning TikTok and WeChat? type: post-weblog URL: "https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/08/07/why-is-the-trump-administration-banning-tiktok-and-wechat/" - abstract: The Ministry of Information Technology, invoking it's power under section 69A of the Information Tec accessed: 2021-09-23 citation-key: GovernmentBans id: GovernmentBans title: Government Bans 59 mobile apps which are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order type: webpage URL: "https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1635206" - abstract: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India invoking it's power unde accessed: 2021-09-23 citation-key: GovernmentBlocks id: GovernmentBlocks title: Government Blocks 118 Mobile Apps Which are Prejudicial to Sovereignty and Integrity of India, Defence of India, Security of State and Public Order type: webpage URL: "https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1650669" - abstract: Internet shutdowns are on the rise. In the past few years, an escalation of this blunt censoring practice has affected different regions of the world, particularly Africa and Asia. Scholars and advocates have proposed no substantive solutions to effectively address Internet shutdowns, and analysis has largely been limited to examining the negative effects through data about their frequency, duration, and economic costs. This article attempts to move beyond the polarized debate between "keep it on" and "shut it off" to explore how there can be more transparency around decision-making processes behind Internet shutdowns. We also discuss the limits of law when it comes to the imposition and implementation of shutdowns. Shutdowns tend to be imposed somewhat arbitrarily with little process. Bringing back legal arguments into the exploration of the justifications around shutdowns may make the use of shutdowns less frequent and more limited, when they do occur. accessed: 2024-06-08 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240608191751/ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13752" author: - family: Gregorio given: Giovanni De - family: Stremlau given: Nicole citation-key: gregorioInternetShutdowns2020 container-title: International Journal of Communication container-title-short: Int. J. Commun. id: gregorioInternetShutdowns2020 ISSN: 1932-8036 issue: 0 issued: 2020-08-13 language: en-US license: "The International Journal of Communication is an academic journal. As such, it is dedicated to the open exchange of information. For this reason, IJoC is freely available to individuals and institutions. Copies of this journal or articles in this journal may be distributed for research or educational purposes free of charge and without permission. However, commercial use of the IJoC website or the articles contained herein is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the editor. Authors who publish in The International Journal of Communication will release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd) license . This license allows anyone to copy and distribute the article for non-commercial purposes provided that appropriate attribution is given. For details of the rights authors grants users of their work, see the \"human-readable summary\" of the license , with a link to the full license. (Note that \"you\" refers to a user, not an author, in the summary.) This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. The publisher perpetually authorizes participants in the LOCKSS system to archive and restore our publication through the LOCKSS System for the benefit of all LOCKSS System participants. Specifically participating libraries may: Collect and preserve currently accessible materials; Use material consistent with original license terms; Provide copies to other LOCKSS appliances for purposes of audit and repair.   Fair Use The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 specifies, in Section 107, the terms of the Fair Use exception: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; & the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. In accord with these provisions, the International Journal of Communication believes in the vigorous assertion and defense of Fair Use by scholars engaged in academic research, teaching and non-commercial publishing. Thus, we view the inclusion of \"quotations\" from existing print, visual, audio and audio-visual texts to be appropriate examples of Fair Use, as are reproductions of visual images for the purpose of scholarly analysis. We encourage authors to obtain appropriate permissions to use materials originally produced by others, but do not require such permissions as long as the usage of such materials falls within the boundaries of Fair Use. The International Journal of Communication encourages authors to employ fair use in their scholarly publishing wherever appropriate. Fair use is the right to use unlicensed copyrighted material (whether it is text, images, audio-visual, or other) in your own work, in some circumstances. We consult the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication , created by the International Communication Association and endorsed by the National Communication Association, and you should too. If you have any questions about whether fair use applies to your uses of copyrighted material (whether it is text, images, audio-visual, or other) in your scholarship, simply include your rationale, grounded in the Best Practices, as a supplementary document with your submission." number: 0 page: 20 source: ijoc.org title: Internet Shutdowns in Africa \| Internet Shutdowns and the Limits of Law type: article-journal URL: "https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/13752" volume: 14 - abstract: Under section 69A, a content removal request can be sent by authorised personnel in the Central Government, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary. The .... accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - family: Grover given: Gurshabad - family: Sarkar given: Torsha citation-key: groverContentTakedown2020 container-title: The Leaflet id: groverContentTakedown2020 issued: 2020-02-12 language: en-US title: Content takedown and users' rights type: webpage URL: "https://theleaflet.in/content-takedown-and-users-rights/" - abstract: Read more about Govt to impose a permanent ban on some Chinese apps including TikTok on Business Standard. The government has sent notices to Chinese companies regarding the same accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Gupta given: Surajeet Das citation-key: guptaGovtImpose2021 container-title: Business Standard India id: guptaGovtImpose2021 issued: 2021-01-22 source: Business Standard title: Govt to impose a permanent ban on some Chinese apps including TikTok type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/govt-to-impose-a-permanent-ban-on-some-chinese-apps-including-tiktok-121012201460_1.html" - accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - family: Hariharan given: Geetha - family: Baruah given: Padmini citation-key: hariharanLegalValidity2015 container-title: Centre for Internet and Society id: hariharanLegalValidity2015 issued: 2015-10-08 title: "The Legal Validity of Internet Bans: Part II" type: webpage URL: "https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-legal-validity-of-internet-bans-part-ii" - abstract: The approach of Indian courts towards international law has been consistently evolving. Initially, the Indian constitutional framework provided a flexible basis for the application and use of international law, the reasons for which could be seen in the socio-political context of India as a developing country. India, for its part, continued to argue that it remained essentially at the periphery of the mainstream international law, as it had no role in formulating some of the basic principles of international law. For the Indian courts the first substantive encounter with international law emerges in the context of several territorial-related issues. The socio-political context forms the next phase, for the Indian courts to have recourse to diverse international legal norms relating to the environment and human rights and applying them as a persuasive tool. Later, the development context brings a complex array of commercial, environmental, and other related international legal norms into the Indian legal system. For Indian courts, in the present context, the correct sourcing and identification of international legal norms and their application remain a huge challenge. The majority of the legal systems of developing countries for varied historical reasons continue to treat international law as an exotic legal tool to be used sparingly, perhaps only to broaden the interpretation of or sustain a comparable domestic legal norm. accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Hegde given: V. G. citation-key: hegdeIndianCourts2010 container-title: Leiden Journal of International Law container-title-short: Leiden J. Int. Law DOI: 10.1017/S0922156509990331 id: hegdeIndianCourts2010 ISSN: 1478-9698, 0922-1565 issue: 1 issued: 2010-03 language: en page: 53-77 publisher: Cambridge University Press source: Cambridge University Press title: Indian courts and international law type: article-journal URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/indian-courts-and-international-law/B3F3815FF2B0111D94DF06A9ADA359E7" volume: 23 - accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Hulsroj given: Peter citation-key: hulsrojPrincipleProportionality2013 collection-title: SpringerBriefs in Law DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-5775-2 event-place: Dordrecht id: hulsrojPrincipleProportionality2013 ISBN: 978-94-007-5774-5 978-94-007-5775-2 issued: 2013 language: en publisher: Springer Netherlands publisher-place: Dordrecht source: Crossref title: The Principle of Proportionality type: book URL: "http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-007-5775-2" volume: 7 - accessed: 2021-10-07 citation-key: HumanRightsa id: HumanRightsa title: Human rights experts' letter to Indian govenment on detention of Miyan Abdul Qayoom type: personal_communication URL: "https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=25083" - author: - family: Humphrey given: John P citation-key: humphreyHumanRights1984 event-place: Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. id: humphreyHumanRights1984 ISBN: 978-0-941320-14-6 issued: 1984 language: English OCLC: 9730149 publisher: Transnational Publishers publisher-place: Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. source: Open WorldCat title: "Human rights & the United Nations: a great adventure" title-short: Human rights & the United Nations type: book - accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Huscroft given: Grant - family: Miller given: Bradley W. - family: Webber given: Gregoire citation-key: huscroftProportionalityRule2014 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107565272 event-place: New York id: huscroftProportionalityRule2014 ISBN: 978-1-107-56527-2 issued: 2014 language: en publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: New York source: Crossref title: "Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning" title-short: Proportionality and the Rule of Law type: book URL: "http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781107565272" - accessed: 2021-11-29 citation-key: iccpr id: iccpr issued: 1966 title: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights type: legislation URL: "https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx" - citation-key: InformationTechnology id: InformationTechnology title: Information Technology Act, 2000 type: legislation URL: "https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1999/3/A2000-21.pdf" - accessed: 2021-12-08 citation-key: IntermediaryGuidelines2021 id: IntermediaryGuidelines2021 issued: 2021 title: Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules type: legislation URL: "https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2021/Intermediary_Guidelines_and_Digital_Media_Ethics_Code_Rules-2021.pdf" - abstract: The central government's recent amendment to the Telecom Suspension Rules will have limited utility and represents a missed opportunity for wider reform because it fails to incorporate directions issued by the SC requiring proactive publication and periodic review of internet shutdown orders. accessed: 2021-11-29 author: - literal: Internet Freedom Foundation citation-key: internetfreedomfoundationAmendmentTelecom2020 container-title: Internet Freedom Foundation id: internetfreedomfoundationAmendmentTelecom2020 issued: 2020-11-12 title: "Amendment to the Telecom Suspension Rules offers little protection against arbitrary and prolonged internet shutdowns #KeepUsOnline" type: webpage URL: "https://internetfreedom.in/telecom-suspension-rules-amendment-15-day-time-limit/" - abstract: The ongoing internet shutdowns in the states of Haryana & Rajasthan, & online censorship in response to Farmers Protest 2024 have an adverse impact on our right to free speech & right to protest. accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610113059/internetfreedom.in/the-ongoing-internet-shutdowns-in-the-states-of-haryana-rajasthan-online-censorship-in-response-to-farmers-protest/" author: - literal: Internet Freedom Foundation citation-key: internetfreedomfoundationStatementOngoing2024 container-title: Internet Freedom Foundation id: internetfreedomfoundationStatementOngoing2024 issued: 2024-02-13 language: en-US title: "Statement: The ongoing internet shutdowns in the states of Haryana & Rajasthan, & online censorship in response to Farmers Protest" title-short: Statement type: webpage URL: "https://internetfreedom.in/the-ongoing-internet-shutdowns-in-the-states-of-haryana-rajasthan-online-censorship-in-response-to-farmers-protest/" - abstract: Every year, some governments cut off access to the Internet during school exam time. Find out why this extreme measure harms the Internet. accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610113733/www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/internet-shutdowns-during-exams/" author: - literal: Internet Society citation-key: internetsocietyInternetShutdowns container-title: Internet Society id: internetsocietyInternetShutdowns language: en-US title: Internet Shutdowns during Exams type: post-weblog URL: "https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/internet-fragmentation/internet-shutdowns-during-exams/" - accessed: 2022-03-23 citation-key: ISPsIndia id: ISPsIndia title: "ISPs in India: sailing into safe harbours - Indian Express" type: webpage URL: "http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/isps-in-india-sailing-into-safe-harbours/423860/" - accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: jacksonProportionalityNew2017 DOI: 10.1017/9781316691724 editor: - family: Jackson given: Vicki C. - family: Tushnet given: Mark event-place: Cambridge id: jacksonProportionalityNew2017 ISBN: 978-1-316-69172-4 issued: 2017 language: en publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Crossref title: "Proportionality: New Frontiers, New Challenges" title-short: Proportionality type: book URL: "http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9781316691724" - abstract: This chapter argues that international law has served as a useful tool for the Indian Supreme Court in fulfilling aims that have little to do with the court's purported status as an organ of the international community. Rather, the Supreme Court has appropriated international legal norms to pursue primarily domestic goals. This chapter proceeds as follows. Section II gives an overview of the status of international law in the Indian constitutional scheme. Section III analyzes the creative uses of international law by the Indian Supreme Court to fill in and add to the content of constitutional rights and guarantees, enabling its encroachment into domains that are normally the prerogative of the legislature and the executive. Section IV puts forward a possible explanation for this appropriation of international legal norms and suggests that international law has performed a legitimizing function in the Supreme Court's articulation of its vision of the state. accessed: 2021-09-24 author: - family: Jain given: Neha citation-key: jainDemocratizingForce2018 container-title: Comparative International Law DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190697570.003.0015 event-place: New York id: jainDemocratizingForce2018 ISBN: 978-0-19-069757-0 issued: 2018 language: eng publisher: Oxford University Press publisher-place: New York source: University Press Scholarship title: "The Democratizing Force of International Law: Human Rights Adjudication by the Indian Supreme Court" title-short: The Democratizing Force of International Law type: chapter URL: "https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/10.1093/oso/9780190697570.001.0001/oso-9780190697570-chapter-15" - abstract: "Since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, over 140 countries have incorporated human rights standards into their legal systems: the resulting jurisprudence from diverse cultural traditions brings new dimensions to concepts first articulated in the 1948 Declaration. Nihal Jayawickrama draws on all available sources to encapsulate the judicial interpretation of human rights law in one ambitious, comprehensive volume. Jayawickrama covers the case law of the superior courts of over eighty countries in North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific, and the jurisprudence of the UN." accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Jayawickrama given: Nihal citation-key: jayawickramaJudicialApplication2002 event-place: Cambridge id: jayawickramaJudicialApplication2002 ISBN: 978-0-511-06895-9 issued: 2002 language: English OCLC: 1058453560 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Open WorldCat title: "The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law: National, Regional and International Jurisprudence." title-short: The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law type: book URL: "http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511494017" - abstract: The present report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, is being submitted to the Human Rights Council pursuant to Council resolution 34/18. In the report the Special Rapporteur registers alarm that some efforts to combat the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic may be failing to meet the standards of legality, necessity and proportionality. The Special Rapporteur highlights five areas of concern, showing that access to information, independent media and other free expression rights are critical to meeting the challenges of pandemic. author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeDiseasePandemics2020 event-place: Geneva id: kayeDiseasePandemics2020 issued: 2020-04-23 number: A/HRC/44/49 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Disease pandemics and the freedom of opinion and expression: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" title-short: Disease pandemics and the freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/44/49" - abstract: In the present report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 25/2, the Special Rapporteur addresses the use of encryption and anonymity in digital communications. Drawing from research on international and national norms and jurisprudence, and the input of States and civil society, the report concludes that encryption and anonymity enable individuals to exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression in the digital age and, as such, deserve strong protection. accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2015 DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_HRD-9970-2016149 event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2015 issued: 2015-05-22 language: en note: Encryption number: A/HRC/29/32 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva source: Crossref title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye type: dataset URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/29/32" - author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2016 event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2016 issued: 2016-05-11 number: A/HRC/32/38 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/32/38" - abstract: In the present report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 25/2, the Special Rapporteur addresses contemporary challenges to freedom of expression. He assesses trends relating to the permissible restrictions laid out in article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and concludes with recommendations that the United Nations, States and civil society may take to promote and protect freedom of opinion and expression. author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2016a event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2016a issued: 2016-09-06 number: A/71/373 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/71/373" - author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2017 event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2017 issued: 2017-03-30 number: A/HRC/35/22 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/35/22" - abstract: In his report the Special Rapporteur addresses the regulation of user-generated online content. He recommends that States ensure an enabling environment for online freedom of expression and that companies apply human rights standards at all stages of their operations. Human rights law gives companies the tools to articulate their positions in ways that respect democratic norms and counter authoritarian demands. At a minimum, companies and States should pursue radically improved transparency, from rule-making to enforcement of the rules, to ensure user autonomy as individuals increasingly exercise fundamental rights online. author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2018 event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2018 issued: 2018-04-06 number: A/HRC/38/35 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/35" - abstract: In a world of rising calls for limits on hate speech, international human rights law provides standards to govern State and company approaches to online expression. In the present report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 34/18, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression explains how those standards provide a framework for Governments considering regulatory options and companies determining how to respect human rights online. The Special Rapporteur begins with an introduction to the international legal framework, focusing on United Nations treaties and the leading interpretations of provisions related to what is colloquially called "hate speech". He then highlights key State obligations and addresses how content moderation by companies may ensure respect for the human rights of users and the public. He concludes with recommendations for States and companies. author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2019 event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2019 issued: 2019-10-09 note: Online hate speech number: A/74/486 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/74/486" - abstract: "In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, focuses on the freedom of opinion and expression aspects of academic freedom, highlighting the special role played by academics and academic institutions in democratic society and noting that, without academic freedom, societies lose one of the essential elements of democratic self-governance: the capacity for self-reflection, for knowledge generation and for a constant search for improvements of people's lives and social conditions . The Special Rapporteur finds that threats to and restrictions on academic freedom limit the sharing of information and knowledge, an integral componen t of the right to freedom of expression. He reveals that academics and their institutions face social harassment and State repression for their research, the questions t hat they pursue, the points that they raise and the methodologies that they bring to be ar on public policy -- or simply for the stature that their academic work has given them in society. While he focuses on the ways in which the freedom of opinion and ex pression protects and promotes academic freedom, the Special Rapporteur also recognizes that there is no single, exclusive international human rights framework for the subject. He emphasizes one set of protections for academic freedom, while recognizing an d reaffirming others. He concludes with a set of recommendations to States, academic institutions, international organizations and civil society." author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeReportSpecial2020 event-place: Geneva id: kayeReportSpecial2020 issued: 2020-07-28 language: en note: Academic freedom number: A/75/261 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/75/261" - author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeSummaryExperts2019 id: kayeSummaryExperts2019 issued: 2019-05-27 number: A/HRC/41/35/Add.4 publisher: UN Human Rights Council title: "Summary of an Experts consultation on A/HRC/41/35: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/35/Add.4" - abstract: Surveillance of individuals -- often journalists, activists, opposition figures, critics and others exercising their right to freedom of expression -- has been shown to lead to arbitrary detention, sometimes to torture and possibly to extrajudicial killings. Such surveillance has thrived amid weak controls on exports and transfers of technology to Governments with well-known policies of repression. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur begins by identifying the problem of targeted surveillance seen from the obligations that human rights law imposes on States and the related responsibilities of companies. He then proposes a legal and policy framework for regulation, accountability and transparency within the private surveillance industry. He concludes with a call for tighter regulation of surveillance exports and restrictions on their use, as well as a call for an immediate moratorium on the global sale and transfer of the tools of the private surveillance industry until rigorous human rights safeguards are put in place to regulate such practices and guarantee that Governments and non-State actors use the tools in legitimate ways. author: - family: Kaye given: David citation-key: kayeSurveillanceHuman2019 event-place: Geneva id: kayeSurveillanceHuman2019 issued: 2019-05-28 number: A/HRC/41/35 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Surveillance and human rights: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/35" - abstract: Kerala High Court Declares "Right to Access Internet" as a Fundamental Right The Kerala High Court in a monumental decision has held "Right to Internet Access" as a fundamental right. The Court declared that the right to have access to Internet becomes the part of right to education as well as right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: KeralaHigh container-title: SFLC.in id: KeralaHigh language: en title: Kerala High Court Declares "Right to Access Internet" as a Fundamental Right type: webpage URL: "https://sflc.in/kerala-high-court-declares-right-access-internet-fundamental-right" - accessed: 2021-11-30 author: - family: Khaitan given: Tarunabh citation-key: khaitanReasonablenessRigorous2008 container-title: Journal of the Indian Law Institute container-title-short: J. Indian Law Inst. id: khaitanReasonablenessRigorous2008 ISSN: 0019-5731 issue: 2 issued: 2008 page: 177-208 publisher: Indian Law Institute source: JSTOR title: Beyond reasonableness -- a rigorous standard of review for Article 15 infringement type: article-journal URL: "https://www.jstor.org/stable/43952433" volume: 50 - abstract: In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression examines the threats posed by disinformation to human rights, democratic institutions and development processes. While acknowledging the complexities and challenges posed by disinformation in the digital age, the Special Rapporteur finds that the responses by States and companies have been problematic, inadequate and detrimental to human rights. She calls for multidimensional and multi- stakeholder responses that are well grounded in the international human rights framework and urges companies to review their business model and States to recalibrate their responses to disinformation, enhancing the role of free, independent and diverse media, investing in media and digital literacy, empowering individuals and rebuilding public trust. author: - family: Khan given: Irene citation-key: khanDisinformationFreedom2021 event-place: Geneva id: khanDisinformationFreedom2021 issued: 2021-04-13 number: A/HRC/47/25 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Disinformation and freedom of opinion and expression: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/47/25" - author: - family: Klatt given: Matthias - family: Meister given: Moritz call-number: K247 .K58 2012 citation-key: klattConstitutionalStructure2012 edition: 1st ed event-place: Oxford, U.K id: klattConstitutionalStructure2012 ISBN: 978-0-19-966246-3 issued: 2012 language: en number-of-pages: 184 OCLC: ocn794296040 publisher: Oxford University Press publisher-place: Oxford, U.K source: Library of Congress ISBN title: The constitutional structure of proportionality type: book - abstract: "The chapter discusses the ways in which the ideal of transparency is manifested in law. The discussion does not concentrate on any particular legal system but is general in nature. It is argued that to create structures of accountability, the transparency metaphor in law both relies on and attempts to bridge the premised distance between the governor and the governed. It is not clear, however, how law can make the state visible for that purpose. Documentation is argued to be vital. Furthermore, transparency as a legal ideal is analysed through the lens of \"technocratic translations\", namely the ways in which the ideal is concretized in legal practice: through access to documents, the attendance of the public, and communication. These translations are contrasted with legal versions of unauthorized exposure: information leaking and whistleblowing. It is argued that in law, too, transparency needs to be controlled to create legitimacy." accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610054535/academic.oup.com/book/44015/chapter-abstract/371868300?redirectedFrom=fulltext" author: - family: Koivisto given: Ida citation-key: koivistoTransparencyLaw2022 container-title: The Transparency Paradox DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192855466.003.0006 editor: - family: Koivisto given: Ida id: koivistoTransparencyLaw2022 ISBN: 978-0-19-285546-6 issued: 2022-07-14 language: en-US page: 0 publisher: Oxford University Press source: Silverchair title: Transparency and Law type: chapter URL: "https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192855466.003.0006" - authority: African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights citation-key: KonateBurkina2014 container-title: \[2014\] AfCHPR 004/2013 container-title-short: 2014 AfCHPR 0042013 id: KonateBurkina2014 issued: 2014 language: en page: 50 title: Konaté v. Burkina Faso type: legal_case URL: "http://www.ijrcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Konate-Decision-English.pdf" - abstract: "Proportionality in Action presents an empirical and comparative exploration of the proportionality doctrine, based on detailed accounts of the application of the framework by apex courts in six jurisdictions: Germany, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Poland and India. The analysis of each country is written and contextualized by a constitutional scholar from the relevant jurisdiction. Each country analysis draws upon a large sample of case law and employs a mixed methodological approach: an expansive coding scheme allows for quantitative analysis providing comparable and quantifiable measurements, which is enriched by qualitative analysis that engages with the substance of the decisions and captures nuance, contextualizing the data and providing it with meaning. The book concludes with a comparative chapter that synthesizes some of the most interesting findings. Focusing on deviations of the practice of proportionality from theory, the authors conclude their argument in support of an integrated approach to the application of proportionality." accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: kremnitzerProportionalityAction2020 collection-title: Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law DOI: 10.1017/9781108596268 editor: - family: Kremnitzer given: Mordechai - family: Steiner given: Talya - family: Lang given: Andrej event-place: Cambridge id: kremnitzerProportionalityAction2020 ISBN: 978-1-108-49758-9 issued: 2020 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Cambridge University Press title: "Proportionality in Action: Comparative and Empirical Perspectives on the Judicial Practice" title-short: Proportionality in Action type: book URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/proportionality-in-action/7FB8D3B8D595DFE37B97C69E6B3097B4" - author: - family: La Rue given: Frank citation-key: larueReportSpecial2011 id: larueReportSpecial2011 issued: 2011-08-10 number: A/66/290/E publisher: UN General Assembly title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/66/290" - author: - family: La Rue given: Frank citation-key: larueReportSpecial2011a id: larueReportSpecial2011a issued: 2011-05-16 number: A/HRC/17/27 publisher: UN Human Rights Council title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/17/27" - abstract: "This report explores key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet. The Special Rapporteur underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole. Chapter III of the report underlines the applicability of international human rights norms and standards on the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the Internet as a communication medium, and sets out the exceptional circumstances under which the dissemination of certain types of information may be restricted. Chapters IV and V address two dimensions of Internet access respectively: (a) access to content; and (b) access to the physical and technical infrastructure required to access the Internet in the first place. More specifically, chapter IV outlines some of the ways in which States are increasingly censoring information online, namely through: arbitrary blocking or filtering of content; criminalization of legitimate expression; imposition of intermediary liability; disconnecting users from Internet access, including on the basis of intellectual property rights law; cyberattacks; and inadequate protection of the right to privacy and data protection. Chapter V addresses the issue of universal access to the Internet. The Special Rapporteur intends to explore this topic further in his future report to the General Assembly. Chapter VI contains the Special Rapporteur's conclusions and recommendations concerning the main subjects of the report." accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: La Rue given: Frank citation-key: larueReportSpecial2011b event-place: Geneva id: larueReportSpecial2011b issued: 2011-05-16 language: en number: A/HRC/17/27 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/17/27" - abstract: "The present report is submitted to the General Assembly by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, pursuant to Human Rights Council resolutions 7/36 and 16/4. The report expands upon the last report submitted to the Council by the Special Rapporteur on key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet (A/HRC/17/27), and addresses the issue through two equally important dimensions of Internet access: access to online content (sect. III), and access to Internet connection (sect. IV). In section III, the Special Rapporteur outlines the types of expression that States are exceptionally required to prohibit under international law (III.A) and also discusses impermissible restrictions (III.B), given the ongoing debate regarding regulation of content on the Internet. The report also addresses the importance of digital literacy and training in information and communications technology skills for individuals to enable them to access online content in an effective and meaningful manner. While access to Internet connection is not yet recognized as a human right, the report focuses on the positive obligation of States to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression via the Internet, and outlines both challenges and positive initiatives to make the Internet available, accessible and affordable to all segments of society (sect. IV). The report concludes with recommendations to ensure full access to online content that is free of censorship and access to Internet connection, particularly for marginalized and disadvantaged groups." archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610110003/undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%252F66%252F290&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False" author: - family: La Rue given: Frank citation-key: larueReportSpecial2011c event-place: Geneva id: larueReportSpecial2011c issued: 2011-08-10 number: A/66/290 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/66/290" - abstract: The focus of the present report is on hate speech and incitement to hatred, given the continuing challenge faced in identifying ways to reconcile the need to protect and promote the right to freedom of opinion and expression, on the one hand, and to combat discrimination and incitement to hatred, on the other. The Special Rapporteur presents an overview of the phenomenon, the relevant international norms and standards, including distinctions between types of hate speech, and examples of domestic legislation that contravene international norms and standards. While noting the importance of clear laws that conform to international norms and principles to combat hate speech, the Special Rapporteur underscores the importance of non-legal measures to tackle the root causes of hatred and intolerance. The report concludes with a set of recommendations to combat hate speech effectively without unduly curtailing the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur also provides a brief account of his activities since his report to the Human Rights Council at its twentieth session (A/HRC/20/17). author: - family: La Rue given: Frank citation-key: larueReportSpecial2012 event-place: Geneva id: larueReportSpecial2012 issued: 2012-09-07 note: Hate speech and incitement to hatred number: A/67/357 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/67/357" - abstract: In the present report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 16/4, the Special Rapporteur focuses on the realization of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral contexts, paying particular attention to the establishment and enforcement of legal instruments regulating political communications. He details the human rights framework applicable to the question of freedom of opinion and expression in political communications and electoral processes. He then describes common violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression in electoral periods. Finally, he provides recommendations on the alignment of national legal frameworks to the most relevant international human rights standards, emphasizing the importance of promoting pluralism, transparency and accountability. accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: La Rue given: Frank citation-key: larueReportSpecial2014 event-place: Geneva id: larueReportSpecial2014 issued: 2014-07-02 language: en number: A/HRC/26/30 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/26/30" - accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - literal: Law Commission of India citation-key: lawcommissionofindiaWrongfulProsecution2018 id: lawcommissionofindiaWrongfulProsecution2018 issued: 2018-08 number: 277 title: "Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies" type: report URL: "https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report277.pdf" - citation-key: LegislativeBrief2006 id: LegislativeBrief2006 issued: 2006 language: en page: 6 source: Zotero title: Legislative Brief type: article-journal - accessed: 2024-06-12 author: - family: Locke given: John citation-key: lockeSecondTreatise1690 id: lockeSecondTreatise1690 issued: 1690 language: en-US license: Public domain in the USA. note: "Last Modified: 2024-06-03T15:47:57.450850+00:00" publisher: Project Gutenberg title: Second Treatise of Government type: book URL: "https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370/pg7370-images.html" - abstract: In May 2023, the Supreme Court was pleased to issue a notice, and in Sept 2023, the court granted the UoI, the liberty to file a response. However, on Dec 7 the Supreme Court was not inclined to hear the matter. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Application was dismissed as withdrawn. accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610112307/internetfreedom.in/sc-anuradha-bhasin-fmp-update/" author: - family: Malhotra given: Gayatri citation-key: malhotraSupremeCourt2023 container-title: Internet Freedom Foundation id: malhotraSupremeCourt2023 issued: 2023-12-13 language: en-US title: Supreme Court refuses to hear Miscellaneous Application seeking compliance with internet shutdown guidelines laid out in the Anuradha Bhasin judgement type: webpage URL: "https://internetfreedom.in/sc-anuradha-bhasin-fmp-update/" - abstract: Delhi High Court ruled that Indian courts can issue global takedown orders to Facebook, Google & Twitter for illegal content uploaded from or located in India. accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Mandhani given: Apoorva citation-key: mandhaniWhyBaba2019 container-title: ThePrint id: mandhaniWhyBaba2019 issued: 2019-10-29 language: en-US title: Why Baba Ramdev's win against Facebook, Google in Delhi HC only adds to judicial confusion type: article-newspaper URL: "https://theprint.in/judiciary/why-baba-ramdevs-win-against-facebook-google-in-delhi-hc-only-adds-to-judicial-confusion/312403/" - author: - family: Maran given: Thiru Dayanidhi citation-key: maranEXPERTCOMMITTEE id: maranEXPERTCOMMITTEE language: en page: 4 source: Zotero title: EXPERT COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS TO IT ACT 2000 SUBMITS ITS REPORT type: article-journal - abstract: "International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis introduces the reader to the international legal instruments and case law governing the substantive and procedural dimensions of international human rights and humanitarian law, including economic, social, and cultural rights. The book, which was originally published in 2006, also discusses the history and organisational structure of human rights and humanitarian law enforcement mechanisms. A chapter is devoted a chapter to the issues surrounding the incorporation of international law into U.S. law, including principles of constitutional and statutory interpretation, conflict rules, and the self-execution doctrine. Questions and comments sections provide critical analyses of issues raised in the materials. The last chapter addresses theoretical issues facing contemporary international human rights and humanitarian law and its enforcement." accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: martinInternationalHuman2006 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511808746 editor: - family: Martin given: Francisco Forrest - family: Schnably given: Stephen J. - family: Wilson given: Richard - family: Simon given: Jonathan - family: Tushnet given: Mark event-place: Cambridge id: martinInternationalHuman2006 ISBN: 978-0-521-85886-1 issued: 2006 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Cambridge University Press title: "International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Treaties, Cases, and Analysis" title-short: International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law type: book URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/international-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law/BF7EFD58F6788BE8FB6F1FD996F19EC4" - abstract: There are a multitude of UN legal instruments which pertain to the rights of freedom of expression and information, and this book is the first to comprehensively map them and their function. It details the chequered history of both of these rights within the UN system and evaluates the suitability of the system for overcoming contemporary challenges and threats to the rights. Leading scholars address key issues, such as how the rights to freedom of expression and information can come into conflict with other human rights and with public policy goals, such as counter-terrorism. The book's institutional focus comprises five international treaties, UNESCO and the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression. Relevant for academics, lawyers, policy-makers and civil society actors, it also examines how new communication technologies have prompted fresh thinking about the substance and scope of the rights to freedom of expression and information. accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: mcgonagleUnitedNations2015 DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316018552 editor: - family: McGonagle given: Tarlach - family: Donders given: Yvonne event-place: Cambridge id: mcgonagleUnitedNations2015 ISBN: 978-1-107-08386-8 issued: 2015 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Cambridge University Press title: "The United Nations and Freedom of Expression and Information: Critical Perspectives" title-short: The United Nations and Freedom of Expression and Information type: book URL: "https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316018552" - accessed: 2021-11-29 citation-key: MdGulam1977 container-title: 1978 SCR (2) 419 container-title-short: 1978 SCR 2 419 id: MdGulam1977 issued: 1977-12-16 title: Md. Gulam Abbas v. Md. Ibrahim type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177888/" - abstract: "A widespread assumption alleges that human rights are not universal, as they claim to be, but are instead Western oriented. Yet a growing body of research provides evidence that human rights are not just Western. Both perspectives are critical of repressive dimensions in the human rights regime, though they recommend different approaches to addressing them. This article explores both viewpoints from an International Political Theory perspective. Examining the pluralist idea, institutionalization, and application of human rights, the first section argues that human rights are not just Western. The second section investigates why it nevertheless matters to ask whether human rights are Western. This article develops four interrelated criteria: dynamic pluralism, awareness of power and inequalities, contextual universalism, and open normativity. These criteria help determine whether human rights are (not just) Western, and, more importantly, they provide the basis for an emancipatory human rights regime." accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Mende given: Janne citation-key: mendeAreHuman2021 container-title: Journal of International Political Theory container-title-short: Journal of International Political Theory DOI: 10.1177/1755088219832992 id: mendeAreHuman2021 ISSN: 1755-0882 issue: 1 issued: 2021-02-01 language: en page: 38-57 publisher: SAGE Publications source: SAGE Journals title: Are human rights western---And why does it matter? A perspective from international political theory title-short: Are human rights western---And why does it matter? type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.1177/1755088219832992" volume: 17 - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Mendel given: Toby citation-key: mendelSpecialRapporteur2015 container-title: "The United Nations and Freedom of Expression and Information: Critical Perspectives" DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316018552.009 editor: - family: McGonagle given: Tarlach - family: Donders given: Yvonne id: mendelSpecialRapporteur2015 ISBN: 978-1-107-08386-8 issued: 2015-06-05 page: 235-268 publisher: Cambridge University Press source: Cambridge University Press title: "The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression: progressive development of international standards relating to freedom of expression" title-short: The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression type: chapter URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/united-nations-and-freedom-of-expression-and-information/un-special-rapporteur-on-freedom-of-opinion-and-expression-progressive-development-of-international-standards-relating-to-freedom-of-expression/29E14CC994BA76CD6F2F098AAC54B772" - accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610104022/ijclinic.law.uci.edu/2021/08/02/provided-by-law-applying-article-19s-legality-requirement-to-facebooks-content-moderation-standards/" author: - family: Miller given: Amanda citation-key: millerProvidedLaw2021 container-title: UCI Law's International Justice Clinic id: millerProvidedLaw2021 issued: 2021-08-02 language: en-US title: "\"Provided by Law\"? Applying Article 19's Legality Requirement to Facebook's Content Moderation Standards" title-short: "\"Provided by Law\"?" type: post-weblog URL: "https://ijclinic.law.uci.edu/2021/08/02/provided-by-law-applying-article-19s-legality-requirement-to-facebooks-content-moderation-standards/" - accessed: 2022-03-23 author: - literal: Ministry of Communications and IT citation-key: ministryofcommunicationsanditDITSets2005 container-title: Press Informaiton Bureau id: ministryofcommunicationsanditDITSets2005 issued: 2005-01-07 title: DIT sets up expert committee on Information Technology Act type: webpage URL: "https://pib.gov.in/newsite/erelcontent.aspx?relid=6372" - accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - literal: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India citation-key: ministryofelectronicsandinformationtechnologygovernmentofindiaITAct2003 id: ministryofelectronicsandinformationtechnologygovernmentofindiaITAct2003 issued: 2003-02-27 title: IT Act Notification No 181 type: legislation URL: "https://www.meity.gov.in/content/it-act-notification-no-181" volume: G.S.R.181(E) - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: Ministry of External Affairs, India citation-key: ministryofexternalaffairsindiaIndiaUnited2020 id: ministryofexternalaffairsindiaIndiaUnited2020 issued: 2020-06-01 title: India and United Nations type: webpage URL: "https://mea.gov.in/Portal/ForeignRelation/India_UN_2020.pdf" - abstract: The tag of the world's Internet shutdown capital stems from a lack of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines accessed: 2024-06-12 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240612184126/www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/behind-the-great-indian-internet-shutdown/article62105487.ece" author: - family: Mishra given: Anandita citation-key: mishraGreatIndian2021 container-title: The Hindu id: mishraGreatIndian2021 ISSN: 0971-751X issued: 2021-09-14 language: en-US section: Comment source: www.thehindu.com title: Behind the great Indian Internet shutdown type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/behind-the-great-indian-internet-shutdown/article62105487.ece" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Mohan given: Archis citation-key: mohanIndiaUnited2013 id: mohanIndiaUnited2013 issued: 2013-09-20 title: India and the United Nations type: webpage URL: "https://mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?22231/India+and+the+United+Nations" - abstract: Police and public order are State subjects as per the Constitution. States are responsible for preve accessed: 2021-09-23 citation-key: MonitoringSocial id: MonitoringSocial title: Monitoring of Social Media type: webpage URL: "https://pib.gov.in/pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1539891" - abstract: In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court was called upon to review the constitutionality of the communication shutdown imposed in Jammu & Kashmir in August 2019. The Court's decision endorsed human rights principles of necessity and proportionality and recognized a derivative fundamental right to internet access. Yet, this principled adjudication failed to provide any immediate relief to the 12.5 million people of Jammu & Kashmir reeling under the longest internet shutdown imposed in any democracy. Our analysis considers why and how this occurred and how the absence of relief necessitated further litigation. Subsequently in Foundation for Media Professionals v. U.T. of Jammu & Kashmir, the Court once again declined to provide relief while denial of 4G mobile internet continued in Jammu & Kashmir during the COVID-19 pandemic. author: - family: Mukhopadhyay given: Devdutta - family: Gupta given: Apar citation-key: mukhopadhyayJammuKashmir2020 id: mukhopadhyayJammuKashmir2020 issued: 2020-08 language: en page: 11 source: Zotero title: "Jammu & Kashmir Internet restrictions cases: A missed opportunity to redefine fundamental rights in the digital age" type: article-journal - abstract: From curbing protests to preventing cheating in exams, shutdowns are the Indian government's favourite tool. accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - family: Munjal given: Diksha citation-key: munjalIndiaAre2021 container-title: Newslaundry id: munjalIndiaAre2021 issued: 2021-10-29 title: In India, are internet shutdowns in accordance with law? Not always title-short: In India, are internet shutdowns in accordance with law? type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.newslaundry.com/2021/10/29/in-india-are-internet-shutdowns-in-accordance-with-law-not-always" - accessed: 2021-10-07 authority: Delhi HC citation-key: MySpaceSuper2016 id: MySpaceSuper2016 issued: 2016-12-23 note: 23.12.2016 number: FAO(OS) 540/2011, C.M. APPL.20174/2011, 13919 & 17996/2015 title: MySpace v. Super Cassettes type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/12972852/" - abstract: On 10 December 2008, the United Nations led worldwide celebrations to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Six decades ago, the international community affirmed that the strength of shared ideas and a common vision of respectful and peaceful coexistence could prevail over brutality, hatred and destruction. accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - family: Nations given: United citation-key: nationsAreHuman container-title: United Nations id: nationsAreHuman language: en publisher: United Nations title: Are Human Rights Universal? type: webpage URL: "https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/are-human-rights-universal" - accessed: 2021-11-29 citation-key: NecessaryExpedient container-title: Indian Kanoon id: NecessaryExpedient title: "\"necessary or expedient\" doctypes: laws" type: webpage URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=%22necessary+or+expedient%22+doctypes%3Alaws" - accessed: 2021-12-08 citation-key: NedunchezhianBar2015 id: NedunchezhianBar2015 issued: 2015 note: "& on 17 July, 2014" number: W.P. 10673/2015 title: M. Nedunchezhian v. Bar Council of Tamil Nadu type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141782083/" - accessed: 2024-06-08 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240608185934/documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g22/341/55/pdf/g2234155.pdf?token=L9doL61eepdE5K1nxj&fe=true" author: - literal: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights citation-key: officeoftheunitednationshighcommissionerforhumanrightsInternetShutdowns2022 id: officeoftheunitednationshighcommissionerforhumanrightsInternetShutdowns2022 issued: 2022-05-13 language: en-US number: A/HRC/50/55 title: "Internet shutdowns: trends, causes, legal implications and impacts on a range of human rights" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/a/hrc/50/55" - accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - family: Padmanabhan given: Ananth citation-key: padmanabhanCanJudges2014a container-title: Centre for Internet and Society id: padmanabhanCanJudges2014a issued: 2014-01-30 title: Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 1) type: webpage URL: "https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1" - accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - family: Padmanabhan given: Ananth citation-key: padmanabhanCanJudges2014b container-title: Centre for Internet and Society id: padmanabhanCanJudges2014b issued: 2014-02-05 title: Can Judges Order ISPs to Block Websites for Copyright Infringement? (Part 2) type: webpage URL: "https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-2" - author: - family: Panikkar given: Raimon - family: Sharma given: Arvind citation-key: panikkarHumanRights2007 event-place: New Delhi id: panikkarHumanRights2007 ISBN: 978-81-246-0429-8 issued: 2007 language: English OCLC: 1120426885 publisher: D.K. Printworld publisher-place: New Delhi source: Open WorldCat title: Human rights as a western concept type: book - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Panikkar given: R. citation-key: panikkarNotionHuman1982 container-title: Diogenes DOI: 10.1177/039219218203012005 id: panikkarNotionHuman1982 ISSN: 0392-1921, 1467-7695 issue: 120 issued: 1982-12 language: en page: 75-102 source: Crossref title: Is the Notion of Human Rights a Western Concept? type: article-journal URL: "http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/039219218203012005" volume: 30 - abstract: Cheating on exams is a significant problem in India, where competition for university places and government jobs can be fierce. accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Pannett given: Rachel citation-key: pannettIndianState2021 container-title: Washington Post id: pannettIndianState2021 ISSN: 0190-8286 issued: 2021-09-29 language: en-US source: www.washingtonpost.com title: Indian state shuts down Internet for millions to prevent cheating on teachers' exam type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/29/india-exam-cheating-internet-shutdown/" - abstract: The paper is rooted in the observations from the two internet blackouts witnessed in Meghalaya in 2018 and 2019. The state is located in the North Eastern region of India and this study focuses on the Khasi population residing in the East Khasi Hills District. The study explores the complex role social media has played in information dissemination in the digital age. India currently leads the world in terms of internet blackouts and it has been imposed 538 times in the country. This phenomenon has become a reoccurring trend over the last few years with the rise in digital communications and technological affordances. The paper addresses the dualistic nature of social media and how it can be empowering on the one hand, and can also be a key contributor to mis(dis)information on the other. The study offers a non-digital centric approach by adopting digital ethnographic methods and offers insights into the social media practices and experiences of the Khasi participants as well as delving into the problematic nature of internet blackouts with respect to Meghalaya. Evidently, social media has become a space in which most individuals carry their identity, aspirations, views, history, and opinions. accessed: 2024-06-08 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240608191134/journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01634437211045343" author: - family: Passah given: Alexander Lewis citation-key: passahInternetBlackouts2021 container-title: Media, Culture & Society container-title-short: Media Cult. Soc. DOI: 10.1177/01634437211045343 id: passahInternetBlackouts2021 ISSN: 0163-4437, 1460-3675 issue: 8 issued: 2021-11 language: en-US note: 2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) \[2024-06-09\] page: 1515-1527 publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd source: SAGE Journals title: "Internet blackouts in Meghalaya: A case of emerging complexities in the digital age" title-short: Internet blackouts in Meghalaya type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.1177/01634437211045343" volume: 43 - accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - family: Peck given: James citation-key: peckIdealIllusions2011 collection-title: American Empire Project id: peckIdealIllusions2011 ISBN: 978-0-8050-8328-6 issued: 2011 publisher: Metropolitan Books source: Library Genesis title: "Ideal Illusions: How the U.S. Government Co-opted Human Rights (American Empire Project)" title-short: Ideal Illusions type: book URL: "http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=ac016d7006b23d502987737d579eb46f" - abstract: India has decided to retain its ban on video app TikTok and 58 other Chinese apps after reviewing responses from the companies on issues such as compliance and privacy, two sources with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Tuesday. accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Phartiyal given: Sankalp citation-key: phartiyalIndiaRetains2021 container-title: Reuters id: phartiyalIndiaRetains2021 issued: 2021-01-25 language: en section: Media Industry source: www.reuters.com title: India retains ban on 59 Chinese apps, including TikTok type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-china-apps-idUSKBN29U2GJ" - accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - family: Prakash given: Pranesh citation-key: prakashAnalysingLatest2012a container-title: Centre for Internet and Society id: prakashAnalysingLatest2012a issued: 2012-08-22 title: Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition) type: webpage URL: "https://cis-india.org/about/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism" - accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - family: Prakash given: Pranesh citation-key: prakashDITResponse2011 container-title: Centre for Internet and Society id: prakashDITResponse2011 issued: 2011-04-07 title: DIT's Response to RTI on Website Blocking type: webpage URL: "https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-dit-blocking" - accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - family: Prakash given: Pranesh citation-key: prakashInvisibleCensorship2011 container-title: Centre for Internet and Society id: prakashInvisibleCensorship2011 issued: 2011-12-14 title: "Invisible Censorship: How the Government Censors Without Being Seen" title-short: Invisible Censorship type: webpage URL: "https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/invisible-censorship" - accessed: 2022-05-02 author: - literal: Pranesh Prakash citation-key: praneshprakashWhoBlame2014 container-title: Twitter genre: Tweet id: praneshprakashWhoBlame2014 issued: 2014-07-08 language: en title: Who to blame for blocking sites like Google Docs? Blame should fall on MarkScan, Multi Screen Media, the lawyers, & Delhi HC. All complicit. type: post URL: "https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/486424696356098048" - abstract: "Read more about Over 4400 Facebook, Twitter URLs blocked in 2020: Dhotre on Business Standard. Over 4,400 URLs from Facebook and Twitter were blocked by the government in 2020 under Section 69A of the IT Act, Parliament was informed on Wednesday" accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: PTI citation-key: pti4400Facebook2021 container-title: Business Standard id: pti4400Facebook2021 issued: 2021-03-10 source: Business Standard title: "Over 4400 Facebook, Twitter URLs blocked in 2020: Dhotre" title-short: Over 4400 Facebook, Twitter URLs blocked in 2020 type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.business-standard.com/article/technology/over-4400-facebook-twitter-urls-blocked-in-2020-dhotre-121031001374_1.html" - abstract: Move to ensure that no electronically controlled remote control devices were operated by militants accessed: 2021-10-08 author: - literal: PTI citation-key: ptiRDayMobile2012 container-title: Governance Now id: ptiRDayMobile2012 issued: 2012-01-27 language: en title: "R-Day: Mobile phone, Internet service jammed in Kashmir" title-short: R-Day type: article-magazine URL: "https://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/r-day-mobile-phone-internet-service-jammed-kashmir" - accessed: 2021-11-21 authority: Supreme Court of India citation-key: PUCLUnion1996 container-title: AIR id: PUCLUnion1996 issued: 1996-12-18 page: 568 title: PUCL v. Union of India type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31276692/" volume: 1997 SC - citation-key: PuttaswamyUnion2017 container-title: AIR 2017 SC 4161 id: PuttaswamyUnion2017 issued: 2017 title: Puttaswamy v. Union of India type: legal_case URL: "https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_24-Aug-2017.pdf" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Rajan given: M.S. citation-key: rajanIndiaMaking1973 container-title: International Studies container-title-short: International Studies DOI: 10.1177/002088177301200303 id: rajanIndiaMaking1973 ISSN: 0020-8817 issue: 3 issued: 1973-07-01 language: en page: 430-459 publisher: SAGE Publications India source: SAGE Journals title: India and the making of the UN Charter type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.1177/002088177301200303" volume: 12 - abstract: No state suspends internet services more than Rajasthan. These suspensions violate fundamental rights of the residents of Rajasthan and cause irreparable economic damage. Udaipur Chambers of Commerce and Industry ("UCCI"), and Hotel Association, Udaipur have approached the Rajasthan High Court pointing out that the Government of Rajasthan has been consistently violating applicable law and also the directions of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610113524/internetfreedom.in/rajasthan-hc-issued-notice-in-a-petition-by-industry-bodies-against-repeated-internet-suspensions-in-rajasthan/" citation-key: RajasthanHC2022 container-title: Internet Freedom Foundation id: RajasthanHC2022 issued: 2022-05-18 language: en-US title: Rajasthan HC issued notice in a petition by Industry Bodies against repeated internet suspensions in Rajasthan type: webpage URL: "https://internetfreedom.in/rajasthan-hc-issued-notice-in-a-petition-by-industry-bodies-against-repeated-internet-suspensions-in-rajasthan/" - author: - family: Ramachandran given: Chaitanya citation-key: ramachandranPUCLUnion2014 container-title: NUJS Law Review container-title-short: NUJS Law Rev. id: ramachandranPUCLUnion2014 issued: 2014 language: en page: 105-119 source: Zotero title: "PUCL v. Union of India revisited: why india's surveillance law must be redesigned for the digital age" type: article-journal volume: 7 - accessed: 2021-10-06 authority: Delhi HC citation-key: RamdevFacebook2019 id: RamdevFacebook2019 issued: 2019-10-23 note: Pratibha Singh, J. 263 (2019) DLT 689 number: CS (OS) 27/2019 title: Ramdev v. Facebook type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/63056689/" - abstract: This article examines some traditional Western views of rights and offers a critique of them. In particular it is shown that the case against the doctrine of logical correlativity is flawed. It is argued that rights and duties are always correlative, and that therefore duty-based moral systems can accommodate human rights. By expanding the standard view of rights, the author tries to provide a more solid foundation for a broader range of human rights. In addition, the presumed universality of human rights is called into question. The fact of cultural diversity reveals the inadequacy of traditional Western sources for human rights. accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Renteln given: Alison Dundes citation-key: rentelnConceptHuman1988 container-title: Anthropos id: rentelnConceptHuman1988 ISSN: 0257-9774 issue: 4/6 issued: 1988 page: 343-364 publisher: Anthropos Institut source: JSTOR title: The Concept of Human Rights type: article-journal URL: "https://www.jstor.org/stable/40463371" volume: 83 - abstract: This article considers the initiative of UN Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) in criminalizing incitement to terrorist acts, in the light of criminal and international human rights law. The analysis is informed by the specific type of terrorism with which Resolution 1624 (2005) is concerned, namely "modern" terrorism. The article argues that the rationales for a prohibition on incitement to terrorist acts call for a relatively wide definition of potentially proscribed speech. This can be achieved without excessively infringing freedom of expression. However, the present interpretation of the proposed prohibition is so restrictive that the prohibition may fail to counter the phenomenon with which it grapples. The article also considers whether incitement to terrorist acts can be regarded as an international crime. It concludes that in some instances there may be an overlap between incitement to terrorist acts and certain international crimes, but classification of incitement to terrorist acts as an international crime requires a fragmented approach to terrorism, which is contrary to current trends. accessed: 2021-11-23 author: - family: Ronen given: Yaël citation-key: ronenIncitementTerrorist2010 container-title: Leiden Journal of International Law container-title-short: Leiden J. Int. Law DOI: 10.1017/S0922156510000269 id: ronenIncitementTerrorist2010 ISSN: 1478-9698, 0922-1565 issue: 3 issued: 2010-09 language: en page: 645-674 publisher: Cambridge University Press source: Cambridge University Press title: Incitement to Terrorist Acts and International Law type: article-journal URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/incitement-to-terrorist-acts-and-international-law/5D7D9C717E3E128F1C8C6E6BFFFAFE4D" volume: 23 - abstract: What are the rules on blocking websites and content -- and how can they be better implemented? accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - family: Sarkar given: Torsha - family: Grover given: Gurshabad citation-key: sarkarHowIndia2020 container-title: Scroll.in genre: Text id: sarkarHowIndia2020 issued: 2020-02-15 language: en_US publisher: "https://scroll.in" title: How India is using its Information Technology Act to arbitrarily take down online content type: webpage URL: "https://scroll.in/article/953146/how-india-is-using-its-information-technology-act-to-arbitrarily-take-down-online-content" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: SCHAUER given: FREDERICK citation-key: schauerFREESPEECH1983 container-title: Nomos id: schauerFREESPEECH1983 ISSN: 0078-0979 issued: 1983 page: 241-256 publisher: American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy source: JSTOR title: FREE SPEECH AND THE ARGUMENT FROM DEMOCRACY type: article-journal URL: "https://www.jstor.org/stable/24219368" volume: 25 - author: - family: Schauer given: Frederick citation-key: schauerFreeSpeech2017 container-title: SMU Law Review container-title-short: SMU Law Rev. id: schauerFreeSpeech2017 issue: 2 issued: 2017 language: en page: 231-251 source: Zotero title: Free Speech, the Search for Truth, and the Problem of Collective Knowledge type: article-journal volume: 70 - call-number: K3240 .T726 2006 citation-key: schutterTransnationalCorporations2006 collection-number: v.12 collection-title: Studies in international law editor: - dropping-particle: de family: Schutter given: Olivier event-place: Oxford ; Portland, Or id: schutterTransnationalCorporations2006 ISBN: 978-1-84113-653-0 issued: 2006 language: en number-of-pages: 430 publisher: Hart Pub publisher-place: Oxford ; Portland, Or source: Library of Congress ISBN title: Transnational corporations and human rights type: book volume: 12 - author: - family: Sehrawat given: Vivek citation-key: sehrawatImplementationInternational2021 container-title: Florida Journal of International Law container-title-short: Fla. J. Int. Law id: sehrawatImplementationInternational2021 ISSN: 1556-2670 issue: 1 issued: 2021-02-24 language: en page: 97-119 title: Implementation of International Law in Indian Legal System type: article-journal URL: "https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/fjil/vol31/iss1/4" volume: 31 - abstract: Critics of the notion that human rights are universal often assert that human rights originated in the West, reflect Western interests, and are a weapon of cultural hegemony or a new form of imperialism. accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Shaheed given: Ahmed - family: Richter given: Rose Parris citation-key: shaheedHumanRights2018 container-title: IPI Global Observatory id: shaheedHumanRights2018 issued: 2018-10-17 language: en-US section: Analysis title: Is "Human Rights" a Western Concept? type: post-weblog URL: "https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/10/are-human-rights-a-western-concept/" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Sharma given: Arvind citation-key: sharmaHinduNarratives2009 id: sharmaHinduNarratives2009 ISBN: 978-0-313-38161-4 issued: 2009 publisher: Praeger source: Library Genesis title: Hindu narratives on human rights type: book URL: "http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=a521dad5e7f5e7120931572cff5f89e6" - author: - family: Sharma given: Arvind call-number: BL1215.H84 S52 2010 citation-key: sharmaHinduNarratives2010 event-place: Santa Barbara, Calif id: sharmaHinduNarratives2010 ISBN: 978-0-313-38161-4 978-0-313-38162-1 issued: 2010 number-of-pages: 167 OCLC: ocn430839920 publisher: Praeger/ABC-CLIO publisher-place: Santa Barbara, Calif source: Library of Congress ISBN title: Hindu narratives on human rights type: book - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Sharma given: Arvind citation-key: sharmaProblematizingReligious2012 collection-number: 9 collection-title: Studies in Global Justice edition: 1 id: sharmaProblematizingReligious2012 ISBN: 978-90-481-8992-2 issued: 2012 publisher: Springer Netherlands source: Library Genesis title: Problematizing Religious Freedom type: book URL: "http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=a8e73c3b5de67d28c8ba032f53671e22" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Sharma given: Arvind citation-key: sharmaRulerGaze2017 id: sharmaRulerGaze2017 ISBN: 978-93-5264-103-1 issued: 2017 publisher: HarperCollins source: Library Genesis title: "The Ruler's Gaze: A Study of British Rule over India from a Saidian Perspective" title-short: The Ruler's Gaze type: book URL: "http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=CCCA5F1516C50729E8F04D0535CA170C" - author: - family: Sheeran given: Scott citation-key: sheeranRelationshipInternational2013 container-title: Routledge handbook of international human rights law id: sheeranRelationshipInternational2013 ISBN: 978-0-415-62073-4 issued: 2013 page: 79-108 publisher: Routledge title: The relationship of international human rights law and general international law type: chapter - abstract: "\"The Routledge Handbook of International Human Rights Law provides the definitive global survey of the discipline of international human rights law. Each chapter is written by a leading expert and provides a contemporary overview of a significant area within the field. As well covering topics integral to the theory and practice of international human rights law the volume offers a broader perspective though examinations of the ways in which human rights law interacts with other legal regimes and other international institutions, and by addressing the current and future challenges facing human rights. This highly topical collection of specially commissioned papers is split into four sections:The nature and evolution of international human rights law discussing the origins, theory and practice of the discipline. Interaction of human rights with other key regimes and bodies including the interaction of the discipline with international economic law, international humanitarian law, and development, as well as other legal regimes.Evolution and prospects of regional approaches to human rights discussing the systems of Europe, the Americas, Africa and South East Asia, and their relationship to the United Nations treaty bodies.Key contemporary challenges including non-State actors, religion and human rights, counter-terrorism, and enforcement and remedies. Providing up-to-date and authoritative articles covering key aspects of international human rights law, this reference work is an essential work of reference for scholars, practitioners and students alike\"\\--" call-number: K3240 .R699 2013 citation-key: sheeranRoutledgeHandbook2013 collection-title: Routledge handbooks editor: - family: Sheeran given: Scott - family: Rodley given: Nigel S. event-place: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY id: sheeranRoutledgeHandbook2013 ISBN: 978-0-415-62073-4 issued: 2013 language: en number-of-pages: 791 publisher: Routledge publisher-place: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY source: Library of Congress ISBN title: Routledge handbook of international human rights law type: book - call-number: K3240 .O96 2013 citation-key: sheltonOxfordHandbook2013 collection-title: Oxford handbooks edition: First edition editor: - family: Shelton given: Dinah event-place: Oxford, United Kingdom ; New York, NY id: sheltonOxfordHandbook2013 ISBN: 978-0-19-964013-3 issued: 2013 language: en number-of-pages: 1018 OCLC: ocn825557410 publisher: Oxford University Press publisher-place: Oxford, United Kingdom ; New York, NY source: Library of Congress ISBN title: The Oxford handbook of international human rights law type: book - accessed: 2021-12-08 citation-key: ShibuBaby2020 id: ShibuBaby2020 issued: 2020 note: on 22 December, 2020 number: WP(C) 25793 of 2020(S) title: Shibu Baby John v. State of Kerala type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115732174/" - author: - family: Shiryaev given: Yaroslav citation-key: shiryaevCyberterrorismContext2012 container-title: San Diego International Law Journal container-title-short: San Diego Int. Law J. id: shiryaevCyberterrorismContext2012 ISSN: 1539-7904 issue: 1 issued: 2012-11-01 page: 139 title: Cyberterrorism in the Context of Contemporary International Law type: article-journal URL: "https://digital.sandiego.edu/ilj/vol14/iss1/5" volume: 14 - accessed: 2021-12-08 citation-key: ShreyaSinghal container-title: AIR 2015 SC 1523 id: ShreyaSinghal note: O.I on 24 March, 2015 title: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/" - abstract: Paul Sieghart now brings together for the first time in one volume all the substantive international law of human rights. He first introduces the subject and then considers, one by one, the approximately forty rights, with full cross references. author: - family: Sieghart given: Paul citation-key: sieghartInternationalLaw1984 id: sieghartInternationalLaw1984 ISBN: 978-0-19-876097-9 issued: 1984-04-12 number-of-pages: 600 publisher: Oxford University Press source: Oxford University Press title: International Law of Human Rights type: book - abstract: The tag of the world's Internet shutdown capital stems from a lack of compliance with Supreme Court guidelines accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Singh given: Tanmay - family: Bapat given: Krishnesh - family: Mishra given: Anandita citation-key: singhGreatIndian2021 container-title: The Hindu id: singhGreatIndian2021 ISSN: 0971-751X issued: 2021-09-15 language: en-IN section: Comment source: www.thehindu.com title: Behind the great Indian Internet shutdown type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/behind-the-great-indian-internet-shutdown/article36462640.ece" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Sinha given: S.P. citation-key: sinhaReviewHuman1984 container-title: International Journal of Legal Information container-title-short: Int. J. Leg. Inf. DOI: 10.1017/S0731126500017236 id: sinhaReviewHuman1984 ISSN: 0731-1265, 2331-4117 issue: 3-4 issued: 1984-08 language: en page: 158-159 publisher: Cambridge University Press source: Cambridge University Press title: "Review of \"Human rights and the United Nations: A great adventure\"" title-short: Human Rights and The United Nations type: article-journal URL: "https://doi.org/10.1017/S0731126500017236" volume: 12 - abstract: The existing state of human beings, to which the present international movement for human rights addresses itself, is no reason for applause for the success of that movement. It is true that there are several reasons for the lack of success and not all blame is to be borne by the deficiencies in the present approach. True also is the fact that the struggle for protection of the human being from excesses of the state or powerful elements within society is a continuing saga of organized society with only the promise that the struggle and its causes have more of an enduring existence than the various efforts for seeking protection for the human being attempted in the history of mankind, of which human-rights is one instance. However, to the extent it is legitimate to explore if improvements in the present approach are possible, one might well be permitted to raise anew questions about the philosophical foundation for human rights and the pragmatic approach to their achievement. accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Sinha given: S. Prakash citation-key: sinhaWhyHow1982 container-title: International Journal of Legal Information container-title-short: Int. J. Leg. Inf. DOI: 10.1017/S073112650001444X id: sinhaWhyHow1982 ISSN: 0731-1265, 2331-4117 issue: 6 issued: 1982-12 language: en page: 308-319 publisher: Cambridge University Press source: Cambridge University Press title: Why and How Human Rights type: article-journal URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-legal-information/article/abs/why-and-how-human-rights/494F860E4A9B706A30CE5CFE5ADE178B" volume: 10 - abstract: India's exclusive internet shutdowns tracker, striving to keep India online since 2010 accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: Software Freedom Law Centre citation-key: softwarefreedomlawcentreInternetShutdowns2021 container-title: Internet Shutdowns Tracker by - SFLC.in id: softwarefreedomlawcentreInternetShutdowns2021 issued: 2021 title: Internet shutdowns tracker type: webpage URL: "https://internetshutdowns.in/" - abstract: India has seen numerous Internet shutdowns for various reasons in this year, all under the same provision of law - Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This section resides as the sole occupant under the chapter of "temporary measures to maintain public tranquility" and gives State Governments the power to issue orders for immediate remedy in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - literal: Software Freedom Law Centre citation-key: softwarefreedomlawcentreLegalityInternet2016 container-title: SFLC.in id: softwarefreedomlawcentreLegalityInternet2016 issued: 2016-10-02 language: en title: Legality of Internet shutdowns under Section 144 CrPC type: webpage URL: "https://sflc.in/legality-internet-shutdowns-under-section-144-crpc" - abstract: RTI application response from Rajasthan shows Procedural Lapses and Arbitrary Orders accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - literal: Software Freedom Law Centre citation-key: softwarefreedomlawcentreRTIApplication2022 container-title: SFLC.in id: softwarefreedomlawcentreRTIApplication2022 issued: 2022-01-17 language: en title: RTI application response from Rajasthan shows Procedural Lapses and Arbitrary Orders type: webpage URL: "https://sflc.in/rti-application-response-rajasthan-shows-procedural-lapses-and-arbitrary-orders" - abstract: "We at SFLC.in define Internet Shutdowns as \"a Government-imposed disablement of access to the Internet as a whole within a particular locality or localities for any duration of time\". To track instances of Internet Shutdowns in India, we built an interactive tracker that can be located at: www.internetshutdowns.in. This year, according to our tracker, India has witnessed 130 instances of Internet shutdowns -- the highest in the world." accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: Software Freedom Law Centre citation-key: softwarefreedomlawcentreSecondAppeal2018 container-title: SFLC.in id: softwarefreedomlawcentreSecondAppeal2018 issued: 2018-06-12 language: en title: "Second Appeal to the RTI Application revealed procedural lapses: only 11 review committee meetings despite 40 Internet Shutdowns in Rajasthan" title-short: Second Appeal to the RTI Application revealed procedural lapses type: webpage URL: "https://sflc.in/second-appeal-rti-application-revealed-procedural-lapses-only-11-review-committee-meetings-despite" - abstract: The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice to the Union of India on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) challenging the imposition of Internet Shutdowns to prevent cheating in examinations in the five states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and West Bengal today. It was The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue notice to the Union of India on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) challenging the imposition of Internet Shutdowns to prevent cheating in examinations in the five states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, and West Bengal today. It was accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610112710/sflc.in/sflcins-writ-petition-challenging-arbitrary-internet-shutdowns-during-examinations-supreme-court/" author: - literal: Software Freedom Law Centre citation-key: softwarefreedomlawcentreSFLCWrit2022 id: softwarefreedomlawcentreSFLCWrit2022 issued: 2022-09-14 language: en-US title: SFLC'S writ petition challenging arbitrary internet shutdowns during examinations in the supreme court of india type: post-weblog URL: "https://sflc.in/sflcins-writ-petition-challenging-arbitrary-internet-shutdowns-during-examinations-supreme-court/" - abstract: Freedom of speech is central to the liberal democratic tradition. It touches on every aspect of our social and political system and receives explicit and implicit protection in every modern democratic constitution. It is frequently referred to in public discourse and has inspired a wealth of legal and philosophical literature. The liberty to speak freely is often questioned; what is the relationship between this freedom and other rights and values, how far does this freedom extend, and how is it applied to contemporary challenges? The Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech seeks to answer these and other pressing questions. It provides a critical analysis of the foundations, rationales, and ideas that underpin freedom of speech as a political idea, and as a principle of positive constitutional law. In doing so, it examines freedom of speech in a variety of national and supra-national settings from an international perspective. Compiled by a team of renowned experts in the field, this handbook features original essays by leading scholars and theorists exploring the history, legal framework and controversies surrounding this tennet of the democratic constitution. author: - family: Stone given: Adrienne - family: Schauer given: Frederick citation-key: stoneOxfordHandbook2021 id: stoneOxfordHandbook2021 ISBN: 978-0-19-256263-0 issued: 2021-01-26 language: en number-of-pages: 609 publisher: Oxford University Press source: Google Books title: The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech type: book - accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Stone Sweet given: Alec - family: Mathews given: Jud citation-key: stonesweetProportionalityBalancing2019 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198841395.001.0001 edition: 1 id: stonesweetProportionalityBalancing2019 ISBN: 978-0-19-884139-5 978-0-19-187691-2 issued: 2019-05-16 language: en publisher: Oxford University Press source: Crossref title: "Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance: A Comparative and Global Approach" title-short: Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance type: book URL: "https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198841395.001.0001/oso-9780198841395" - abstract: Although the modem concept of human rights is claimed to be a Western concept, not all human rights principles have their roots in Western civilization nor are all human rights principles necessarily mere Western principles. Not every form of extreme individualism and excessive liberalism is part and parcel of universal human rights. Those who have claimed that the notion of human rights is the product of Western Christian civilization have sought to project the selective nineteenth-century values (values of the peak period of colonial domination) backwards into the past. They have not taken into full account the developments that took place prior to the colonization period. author: - family: Subedi given: Surya P citation-key: subediArePrinciples1999 id: subediArePrinciples1999 issued: 1999 language: en page: 26 source: Zotero title: Are the Principles of Human Rights "Western" Ideas? An Analysis of the Claim of the "Asian" Concept of Human Rights from the Perspectives of Hinduism type: article-journal - author: - family: Sullivan given: E. Thomas - family: Frase given: Richard S. call-number: K247 .S85 2009 citation-key: sullivanProportionalityPrinciples2009 event-place: Oxford ; New York id: sullivanProportionalityPrinciples2009 ISBN: 978-0-19-532493-8 issued: 2009 language: en number-of-pages: 284 OCLC: ocn212409998 publisher: Oxford University Press publisher-place: Oxford ; New York source: Library of Congress ISBN title: "Proportionality principles in American law: controlling excessive government actions" title-short: Proportionality principles in American law type: book - accessed: 2021-12-08 authority: ECHR (1979) citation-key: SundayTimes1979 container-title: \[1979\] ECHR 6538/74 container-title-short: 1979 ECHR 653874 id: SundayTimes1979 issued: 1979-04-26 title: The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom type: legal_case URL: "https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1979/1.html" - accessed: 2024-06-12 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240612181908/internetfreedom.in/sc-anuradha-bhasin-fmp-update/" citation-key: SupremeCourt id: SupremeCourt language: en-US title: Supreme Court refuses to hear Miscellaneous Application seeking compliance with internet shutdown guidelines laid out in the Anuradha Bhasin Judgement type: webpage URL: "https://internetfreedom.in/sc-anuradha-bhasin-fmp-update/" - abstract: The Supreme Court has held that review committee orders under the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017 must be published, while deliberations of the review committee need not necessarily be notified. accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610112403/internetfreedom.in/supreme-court-orders-publication-of-review-committee-orders-relating-to-internet-shutdowns/" citation-key: SupremeCourt2024 container-title: Internet Freedom Foundation id: SupremeCourt2024 issued: 2024-02-26 language: en-US title: Supreme Court Orders Publication of Review Committee Orders Relating to Internet Shutdowns type: webpage URL: "https://internetfreedom.in/supreme-court-orders-publication-of-review-committee-orders-relating-to-internet-shutdowns/" - accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: TemporarySuspension id: TemporarySuspension title: Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 type: legislation URL: "https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Suspension%20Rules.pdf" - abstract: Parliament wound up business on Tuesday as a divided House and passed eight laws, including one to give the victims of crime a voice and compensation, in 17 minutes flat. accessed: 2022-03-23 author: - family: Tikku given: Aloke citation-key: tikkuLegislations172008 container-title: Hindustan Times id: tikkuLegislations172008 issued: 2008-12-23 language: en title: 8 legislations in 17 mins type: article-newspaper URL: "https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/8-legislations-in-17-mins/story-MvsXEVwEHjFG6j626V6ZhJ.html" - abstract: "https://t.co/0DZQ3Ucqcl" accessed: 2021-09-23 citation-key: TikTokIndia container-title: Twitter id: TikTokIndia language: en title: TikTok India on Twitter type: webpage URL: "https://twitter.com/TikTok_IN/status/1277811841364668416" - abstract: "India News: On Tuesday afternoon during the storm created by Antulay, the chair quickly took up pending legislation which had swelled to nine from five listed at" accessed: 2022-03-23 author: - literal: Times News Network citation-key: timesnewsnetworkDinLS2008 container-title: The Times of India id: timesnewsnetworkDinLS2008 ISSN: 0971-8257 issued: 2008-12-24 source: The Economic Times - The Times of India title: Amid din, LS passes 8 bills in 17 minutes without debate type: article-newspaper URL: "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/amid-din-ls-passes-8-bills-in-17-minutes-without-debate/articleshow/3883245.cms" - abstract: "JODHPUR: Now on, there will be no suspension of internet in the state during examination." accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - literal: Times News Network citation-key: timesnewsnetworkNoMore2018 container-title: The Times of India id: timesnewsnetworkNoMore2018 ISSN: 0971-8257 issued: 2018-11-29 source: The Economic Times - The Times of India title: "\"No more internet ban during exam\"" type: article-newspaper URL: "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jodhpur/no-more-internet-ban-during-exam/articleshow/66855691.cms" - accessed: 2021-12-03 authority: ECHR citation-key: TolstoyMiloslavsky1995 container-title: \[1995\] ECHR 25 container-title-short: 1995 ECHR 25 id: TolstoyMiloslavsky1995 issued: 1995-07-13 title: Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. The United Kingdom type: legal_case URL: "https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1995/25.html" - accessed: 2021-10-06 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20231121115942/undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=CCPR%2FC%2FWG%2F103%2FDR%2F1838%2F2008&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False" authority: UN Human Rights Committee citation-key: TulzhenkovaBelarus2012 id: TulzhenkovaBelarus2012 issued: 2012-01-17 language: en number: CCPR/C/WG/103/DR/1838/2008 page: 870-887 title: Tulzhenkova v. Belarus title-short: United Nations type: legal_case URL: "https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/WG/103/DR/1838/2008" volume: 61 - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Committee citation-key: unhumanrightscommitteeConcludingObservations2017 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscommitteeConcludingObservations2017 issued: 2017-11-30 language: en number: CCPR /C/CMR/CO/5 publisher-place: Geneva title: Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of Cameroon type: report - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Committee citation-key: unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2004 DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-87911-0.50085-4 id: unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2004 issued: 2004-05-26 language: en number: CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 page: 327-332 publisher: UN Human Rights Committee source: Crossref title: "General comment no. 31: the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on states parties to the covenant" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Committee citation-key: unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2011 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2011 issued: 2011-09-12 language: en number: CCPR/C/GC/34 publisher: UN Human Rights Committee publisher-place: Geneva title: General comment No. 34 type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/GC/34" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Committee citation-key: unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2020 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2020 issued: 2020-09-17 language: en number: CCPR /C/GC/37 publisher-place: Geneva title: General comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (Article 21) type: report - accessed: 2024-06-10 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution122009 id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution122009 issued: 2009-10-12 language: en-US number: A/HRC/RES/12/16 publisher: Koninklijke Brill NV source: DOI.org (Crossref) title: "Resolution 12/16: Freedom of opinion and expression" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/12/16" - accessed: 2024-06-12 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240612173732/documents.un.org/doc/resolution/gen/g12/131/66/pdf/g1213166.pdf?token=IAeEgLCJLCwJUW96T8&fe=true" author: - literal: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution192012 id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution192012 issued: 2012-04-19 language: en-US number: A/HRC/RES/19/36 title: "Resolution 19/36: Human rights, democracy and the rule of law" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/19/36" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution202012 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution202012 issued: 2012-07-16 language: en number: A/HRC/RES/20/8 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva source: Crossref title: "Resolution 20/8: The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/20/8" - accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution232013 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution232013 issued: 2013-06-24 number: A/HRC/RES/23/2 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Resolution 23/2: The role of freedom of opinion and expression in women's empowerment" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/23/2" - accessed: 2021-12-08 author: - family: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution262014 DOI: 10.1163/2210-7975_HRD-9970-2016149 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution262014 issued: 2014-07-14 language: en number: A/HRC/RES/26/13 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Resolution 26/13: The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" type: dataset URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/26/13" - author: - literal: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution382018 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution382018 issued: 2018-07-17 number: A/HRC/RES/38/7 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Resolution 38/7: The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/RES/38/7" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: UN Human Rights Council citation-key: unhumanrightscouncilResolution472021 event-place: Geneva id: unhumanrightscouncilResolution472021 issued: 2021-07-13 number: A/HRC/RES/47/16 publisher-place: Geneva title: "Resolution 47/16: The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/HRC/RES/47/16" - accessed: 2021-10-07 authority: Delhi HC citation-key: UnionIndia2021 id: UnionIndia2021 issued: 2021-04-20 note: W.P.(CRL) 1082/2020 & Crl. M.A. Nos.9485/2020, 10986-87/2020 number: W.P.(CRL) 1082/2020 title: X v. Union of India type: legal_case URL: "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190535334/" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - literal: UN OHCHR citation-key: unohchrStatusRatification2021 id: unohchrStatusRatification2021 issued: 2021 title: Status of ratification type: webpage URL: "https://indicators.ohchr.org/" - accessed: 2021-11-23 author: - literal: UN Security Council citation-key: unsecuritycouncilResolution16242005 id: unsecuritycouncilResolution16242005 issued: 2005 publisher: UN Security Council title: Resolution 1624 type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/S/RES/1624(2005)" - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression - literal: OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media - literal: OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression - literal: ACHPR Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information citation-key: unsrJointDeclaration2015 event-place: Riga id: unsrJointDeclaration2015 issued: 2015-05-04 publisher-place: Riga title: Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and responses to conflict situations type: report URL: "https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15921&LangID=E" - abstract: "\"The principle of proportionality, which has become the standard test for adjudicating human and constitutional rights disputes in jurisdictions worldwide has had few critics. Proportionality is generally taken for granted or enthusiastically promoted or accepted with minor qualifications. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing presents a frontal challenge to this orthodoxy. It provides a comprehensive critique of the proportionality principle, and particularly of its most characteristic component, balancing. Divided into three parts, the book presents arguments against the proportionality test, critiques the view of rights entailed by it, and proposes an alternative understanding of fundamental rights and their limits\"\\--" author: - family: Urbina given: Francisco J. call-number: K247 .U73 2017 citation-key: urbinaCritiqueProportionality2017 id: urbinaCritiqueProportionality2017 ISBN: 978-1-107-17506-8 issued: 2017 language: en publisher: Cambridge University Press source: Library of Congress ISBN title: A critique of proportionality and balancing type: book - accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: Us2021 id: Us2021 issued: 2021 language: en-US title: About Us type: post-weblog URL: "https://in.one.un.org/page/about-us/" - accessed: 2022-03-22 author: - family: Van der Vyver given: Johan D. citation-key: vandervyverSovereignty2013 container-title: The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law DOI: 10.1093/law/9780199640133.003.0017 editor: - family: Shelton given: Dinah id: vandervyverSovereignty2013 ISBN: 978-0-19-964013-3 issued: 2013-10-24 language: en publisher: Oxford University Press source: Crossref title: Sovereignty type: chapter URL: "http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780199640133.001.0001/law-9780199640133-chapter-17" - author: - family: Verdirame given: Guglielmo citation-key: verdirameHumanRights2013 container-title: Routledge handbook of international human rights law id: verdirameHumanRights2013 ISBN: 978-0-415-62073-4 issued: 2013 page: 25-47 publisher: Routledge title: Human rights in political and legal theory type: chapter - accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - literal: Vice-Chair of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention - literal: Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances - literal: Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions - literal: Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression - literal: Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association - literal: Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders citation-key: vice-chairoftheworkinggrouponarbitrarydetentionLetterHuman2019 id: vice-chairoftheworkinggrouponarbitrarydetentionLetterHuman2019 issued: 2019-08-16 title: Letter from UN human rights experts to Indian government on situation in Kashmir type: personal_communication URL: "https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=24803" - abstract: The RajasthanHigh Court has issued notice on a public interest litigation challenging the validity of frequent "Internet Shutdown" orders being passed by the Divisional Commissioner of the area. accessed: 2024-06-10 archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240610113501/www.livelaw.in/news-updates/rajasthan-high-court-internet-shutdown-udaipur-199471" author: - family: VIJAY given: ANIRUDH citation-key: vijayInternetSuspended2022 id: vijayInternetSuspended2022 issued: 2022-05-18 language: en-US section: News Updates title: "Internet Suspended For 506 Hrs Through 26 Shutdown Orders In Udaipur: PIL In Rajasthan High Court, Notice Issued" title-short: Internet Suspended For 506 Hrs Through 26 Shutdown Orders In Udaipur type: webpage URL: "https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/rajasthan-high-court-internet-shutdown-udaipur-199471" - abstract: As a follow-up to his report on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the digital era, submitted to the Human Rights Council at its forty first session (A/HRC/41/41), the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément N. Voule, presents to the Human Rights Council a study of recent trends and the impact of Internet shutdowns in relation to peaceful protests, and makes recommendations to address this global phenomenon. author: - family: Voule given: Clément N. citation-key: vouleEndingInternet2021 event-place: Geneva id: vouleEndingInternet2021 issued: 2021-06-15 number: A/HRC/47/24/Add.2 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Ending Internet shutdowns: a path forward: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/47/24/Add.2" - abstract: In the present report, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, focuses on the opportunities and challenges facing the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the digital age. The Special Rapporteur seeks to provide guidance on how to best preserve and maximize these opportunities and address risks. The Special Rapporteur concludes that international law protects the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, whether exercised in person, through technologies of today, or through technologies that will be invented in the future. Existing international human rights norms and principles should not only dictate State conduct, but also be the framework that guides digital technology companies' design, control and governance of digital technologies. archive: "https://web.archive.org/web/20240612215422/undocs.org/Home/Mobile?FinalSymbol=A%252FHRC%252F41%252F41&Language=E&DeviceType=Desktop&LangRequested=False" author: - family: Voule given: Clément N. citation-key: vouleRightsFreedom2019 event-place: Geneva id: vouleRightsFreedom2019 issued: 2019-05-17 number: A/HRC/41/41 publisher: UN Human Rights Council publisher-place: Geneva title: "Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association" type: report URL: "https://undocs.org/A/HRC/41/41" - abstract: "\"Understanding Human Rights from an Eastern Perspective: A Discourse\" published on 22 Oct 2020 by Brill \\| Nijhoff." accessed: 2021-10-07 author: - family: Vyas given: Ravi Prakash - family: Murarka given: Rachit citation-key: vyasUnderstandingHuman2020 container-title: Asian Yearbook of International Law, Volume 24 (2018) container-title-short: Asian Yearb. Int. Law Vol. 24 2018 DOI: 10.1163/9789004437784_004 id: vyasUnderstandingHuman2020 issued: 2020-10-22 language: eng page: 41-59 publisher: Brill Nijhoff source: brill.com title: "Understanding Human Rights from an Eastern Perspective: A Discourse" title-short: Understanding Human Rights from an Eastern Perspective type: article-journal URL: "https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004437784/BP000013.xml" - accessed: 2021-09-23 author: - family: Xanthopoulou given: Ermioni citation-key: xanthopoulouFundamentalRights2020 DOI: 10.5040/9781509922284 id: xanthopoulouFundamentalRights2020 ISBN: 978-1-5099-2225-3 978-1-5099-2226-0 978-1-5099-2227-7 978-1-5099-2228-4 issued: 2020 language: en publisher: Hart Publishing source: Crossref title: "Fundamental rights and mutual trust in the area of freedom, security and justice: A role for proportionality?" title-short: Fundamental rights and mutual trust in the area of freedom, security and justice type: book URL: "https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/book/fundamental-rights-and-mutual-trust-in-the-area-of-freedom-security-and-justice-a-role-for-proportionality" - abstract: This is the first book that focusses on how proportionality analysis -- a legal transplant from the West -- is applied by courts around Asia, and it explores how a country's commitment to democracy and the rule of law is fundamental to the success of the doctrine's judicial enforcement. This book will appeal to lawyers, political scientists, and students of law and political science who seek to understand how proportionality analysis is blossoming and, in some cases, flourishing in Asia. accessed: 2021-10-06 citation-key: yapProportionalityAsia2020 DOI: 10.1017/9781108862950 editor: - family: Yap given: Po Jen event-place: Cambridge id: yapProportionalityAsia2020 ISBN: 978-1-108-49575-2 issued: 2020 publisher: Cambridge University Press publisher-place: Cambridge source: Cambridge University Press title: Proportionality in Asia type: book URL: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/proportionality-in-asia/D1456CABFA325D914D054EE2E8B70BE3" - accessed: 2021-10-06 author: - family: Yudof given: Mark G. citation-key: yudofSearchFree1984 container-title: Michigan Law Review container-title-short: Mich. Law Rev. DOI: 10.2307/1288664 editor: - family: Schauer given: Frederick id: yudofSearchFree1984 ISSN: 0026-2234 issue: 4 issued: 1984 page: 680-708 publisher: The Michigan Law Review Association source: JSTOR title: In Search of a Free Speech Principle type: article-journal URL: "https://www.jstor.org/stable/1288664" volume: 82 subject: Analysis of section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in light of international human rights law title: Internet blocking and shutdowns in India and international human rights law title-block-categories: true toc-title: Table of contents toccolor: black urlcolor: NavyBlue --- ## Introduction {#introduction number="1"} The advent of the Internet has allowed for the communication of speech and expression at an unprecedented scale and speed. In India, for instance, more people now have the opportunity to speak to a larger audience via the Internet than ever did via print, radio, television, and all other media combined in all the decades since Independence. Such rapid democratization of speech amplifies tensions that are inherent in freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to privacy. Restrictions on speech, especially in the form of social sanction, are as old as speech itself. However, in liberal democracies, limitations are placed by constitutional principles, as also by socio-cultural norms, on what restrictions may be placed on expressive freedoms. Through a few different laws, the Indian government and the courts have granted themselves---and through laws such as the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, the general public as well---the power to regulate online speech, which has often taken the form of shutting down of Internet access and blocking entire websites. International human rights law (IHRL), which has developed since World War II, seeks to restrict the principle of sovereignty to the extent that a country's domestic laws and practices fall afoul of international norms around human rights [^1]. This paper seeks to look at whether IHRL provides a valuable and usable framework for looking at the regime of Internet blocking and filtering in India. In order to do so, the paper first looks at the laws surrounding website blocking and Internet shutdowns in India, sketching out a brief history of website blocking and Internet shutdowns in India. After that, we explore the applicability of IHRL in India and the extent to which international norms can be applied to the domestic situation in India. Thereafter, we examine the IHRL related to Internet filtering and shutdowns and see where Indian courts have failed short of apply these standards. The paper concludes by noting the challenges in applying IHRL in relation to Internet filtering and shutdowns in India and proposes potential steps that could be taken. ### Laws Relating to Blocking and Internet Shutdowns in India {#laws-relating-to-blocking-and-internet-shutdowns-in-india number="1.1"} There are, and have been, several bases for Internet shutdowns in India, including: 1. Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code; 2. Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, read with the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017; 3. Sections 20 and 21 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 (yet to be notified); 4. State-level Police Acts. Similarly, multiple legal provisions have been claimed for website blocking in India: 1. Section 67 of the (unamended) IT Act, 2000, read with Gazette Notification no. GSR. 181(E), dated February 27, 2003; 2. Indian Copyright Act; 3. The Civil Procedure Code and courts' inherent powers; 4. Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008), read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009; 5. Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act; 6. State-level Police Acts. It is not always clear what each provision is meant to cover. For instance, while the Telegraph Act is legally used for Internet shutdowns, and Section 69A of the IT Act is legally used to block access to thousands of specific websites and hundreds of mobile apps, the plain reading of the provisions doesn't make it apparent why this should be so. Provisions relating to intermediary liability, thanks to some judgments, may also be used in conjunction with a court order to block websites. Thus, there's a lot of ambiguity in the way that the laws are interpreted and applied. Some of these legal bases have been created by legislatures specifically for the purposes of blocking websites and access to the Internet, while others were evolved by the higher judiciary, and yet others evolved by police and magistrates. #### History of Website Blocking in India {#history-of-website-blocking-in-india number="1.1.1"} ##### Blocking Before 69A {#blocking-before-69a number="1.1.1.1"} The Information Technology Act, as passed in 2000, did not contain any provisions relating to governmental blocking or filtering of the Internet. However, that did not prevent citizens from seeking blocking of Internet content, the government from blocking websites, nor the court from ordering website blocks [@chimaRegulationInternet2008]. During the Kargil War, the only Internet service provider (ISP) in India at that time---Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL)---blocked access to the website of the Pakistani newspaper *Dawn* [@chimaRegulationInternet2008, pp. 50-52], and had prior to that, blocked access by some subscribers to the Middle Eastern Socialist Network (MESN). When the blocking of the MESN was noticed and challenged in the Delhi High Court, VSNL did not deny it, but said they were empowered by the Telegraph Act. That writ petition seems to eventually have disappeared into judicial limbo, with circumstances having changed but no verdict having been pronounced [@chimaRegulationInternet2008, p.51]. Eventually, in 2003, a government notification was published by the Department of Information Technology, under section 88 read with section 67 (on obscenity), which enabled the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) to block websites "after verifying the authenticity of the complaint and after satisfying that action of blocking of website is absolutely essential" [@ministryofelectronicsandinformationtechnologygovernmentofindiaITAct2003]. Interestingly, section 67 of the IT Act did not provide for blocking of websites, nor did GSR 181(E) limit itself to the blocking of obscene material. Clearly, the government felt there was some inherent, unenumerated power to block websites, in addition to what powers had been delegated by Parliament.[^2] In August 2005, an expert committee constituted for this purpose, working in part on the recommendations of an "Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Cyber Laws & Cyber Forensics" [@ministryofcommunicationsanditDITSets2005], in turn recommended multiple amendments to to IT Act [@expertcommitteeonamendmentstotheitact2000ReportExpert2005]. However, there was no recommendation for a provision relating to blocking of websites or Internet shutdowns. Based on the recommendations of the expert committee, the Information Technology (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 15, 2006. While this did mention a source of international soft norms (the United Nations Commission on International Trade's Model Law on Electronic Commerce), it did not include section 69A, and the only reference to "remov\[ing\] or disabl\[ing\] access to \[\] material \[being used to commit an unlawful act\]" on a computer resource, was section 79(3)(b), which dealt with intermediary liability. The Parliamentary Standing Committee that studied the Bill and provided its recommendations did not raise the issue of Internet blocking or content removal. However, in the amendments that were introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 16, 2008, section 69A, in its current form, was present. Eventually, amidst din in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, was passed by voice vote, without any discussion.[^3] ##### Internet Shutdowns {#internet-shutdowns number="1.1.1.2"} It is unclear when the first Internet shutdown order was passed in India. However, on January 26, 2012, a news report noted that "Mobile phone and portable Internet services were shut down from 9 AM till noon to ensure that no electronically controlled remote control devices were operated by militants." [@ptiRDayMobile2012] That same report also seemed to suggest that this was a regular occurrence: "These services remain shut on Republic Day and Independence Day after militants used a mobile phone to trigger a bomb blast outside Bakshi Stadium in 2005." [@ptiRDayMobile2012] In August 2012, in multiple cities in India, including Bengaluru and Hyderabad, bulk SMS facilities (sending text messages to more than five people) were prohibited by the government when there was a mass panic amongst people from the North-East of India, based on rumours that circulated over SMS, Facebook, etc. At that time, a number of individual websites were blocked [@prakashAnalysingLatest2012a]. However, the government ruled out the option of blocking entire social media websites, despite requests by some members of parliament that they do so [@chaturvediFiveArrested2012]. Nor, importantly, did the government shut down the Internet. In the years since, especially after its use in 2015 during protests in Gujarat [@munjalIndiaAre2021], Internet shutdowns have become increasingly frequent and have been ordered for a variety of reasons, including in advance of protests and school/job examinations [@timesnewsnetworkNoMore2018]. There have also been prolonged shutdowns, as was the case in Jammu & Kashmir [@munjalIndiaAre2021]. #### Provisions under the IT Act, Telegraph Act, and Other Laws {#provisions-under-the-it-act-telegraph-act-and-other-laws number="1.1.2"} ##### Website Blocking {#website-blocking number="1.1.2.1"} It is worth quoting section 69A fully: > 69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.-- > > > (1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. > > > (2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed. > > > (3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine. The scope of Section 69A is very wide. The provision itself does not speak of the Internet; instead, it talks of government agencies or intermediaries being ordered to "block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource." However, the language does seem to suggest that it refers to specific information available over the Internet, since it has to be accessible to "the public"---which requirement a private network, even a large one, presumably, wouldn't satisfy. While some have argued that the power to block Internet access can be found within Section 69A [@hariharanLegalValidity2015], others have argued that it isn't clear whether Section 69A can cover Internet shutdowns [@softwarefreedomlawcentreInternetShutdowns2021]. The Rules drafted under Section 69A don't seem to contemplate Internet shutdowns since they require the Designated Officer to contact the person or intermediary who has *hosted* the contentious information, and not just transmitted it.[^4] In 2020, the Supreme Court of India held that "The aim of the section \[69A\] is not to restrict/block the internet as a whole, but only to block access to particular websites on the internet. Recourse cannot, therefore, be made by the Government to restrict the internet generally under this section." [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, para. 81]. In 2009, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information By Public) Rules ("Blocking Rules") were notified. The Blocking rules broadly modelled on the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL v. Union of India for phone tapping [@PUCLUnion1996], which were in turn incorporated into Rule 419A of the Telecom Rules in 1999, which was subsequently amended in 2007 and 2014. The Blocking Rules allow any person to make a request to a 'Nodal Officer', which if approved by the Chief Secretary of the state (or if the blocking request is made *suo motu* by the Nodal Officer), shall be forwarded to a "Designated Officer" ("DO", currently, the head of CERT-In). The DO places this before a committee. The DO also identifies the person/intermediary hosting the content, and issues notice for them to make a representation to committee within 48 hours regarding the content. The committee must then rule on whether the request is justifiable under Section 69A and give specific recommendations in writing, which in turn are to be reviewed by the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology. While Section 69A itself doesn't consider court orders, the Blocking Rules state that a court order for blocking shall be enforced by the DO. There are also procedures noted for emergency blocking, which would have to be placed before the committee for its consideration within 48 hours. The provisions that protect Internet intermediaries from liability have also, paradoxically, been used to block websites. Section 79(1) and (2) provide broad protections for Internet intermediaries from liability and list conditions they must satisfy for such protection to apply. Thereafter, Section 79(3) states: > 79(3): The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if--\ > ... (b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner.\ > ... It's quite clear that Section 79(3) doesn't by itself grant the government the power to block websites. It merely provides that the exemption from liability that is provided to intermediaries under Section 79(1) *would not apply* in case an intermediary fails to "expeditiously remove or disable access" to material "being used to commit the unlawful act" as notified by the government. Thus, one way to interpret the provision would be: if an intermediary fails to disable access to specific content as directed by the government under Section 69A, it will lose its protection from liability for that specific content. However, that interpretation was rejected when this provision was used as the basis for the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2011, which empowered members of the public to use the Rules to require intermediaries to remove content (which was partially struck down by the Supreme Court [@ShreyaSinghal]), and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2021 and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2023, both of which, again, empowered the public to require content removal, though on more limited grounds [@IntermediaryGuidelines2021, Rule 5]. The 2021 and 2023 Rules also have provisions for blocking of information "in case of emergency" (Rule 16), as well as provisions (Rule 15) for the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to impose content blocking orders upon online news and current affairs content publishers and online curated content publishers (which is meant to cover companies like Netflix and Hotstar), despite such powers not being granted explicitly under Section 79. The grounds for ordering the deletion or modification of content are the prevention of "incitement to the commission of a cognisable offence relating to public order", and the grounds for ordering the blocking of content are those laid down in Section 69A of the IT Act. The 2011 Rules allowed for a completely opaque system of content removal that in effect provided for "invisible censorship" [@prakashInvisibleCensorship2011]. Though the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the 2011 Rules that provided the ability for individuals to request that intermediaries remove or disable access to content, they still enabled the government to require intermediaries to remove or disable content under Section 79. The court didn't clarify the consequences of an intermediary failing to implement the Intermediary Guidelines Rules---which also require intermediaries to modify their terms of service. Though Section 69A remains the only provision that explicitly empowers the government to block content online, as per my analysis of informally collated ISP blocklists, the largest category among websites blocked in India is court-ordered blocking through interim 'John Doe' orders under the Copyright Act, even without formal findings of infringement. The Copyright Act doesn't by itself permit website blocking, and indeed scholars have argued that the courts have misused their powers in blocking websites in such a manner [@padmanabhanCanJudges2014a; @padmanabhanCanJudges2014b]. #### Internet Shutdowns {#internet-shutdowns-1 number="1.1.3"} Before 2017, there were no clear provisions for shutting down Internet access. When the government did so, it was usually done by District Magistrates using the powers under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code [@munjalIndiaAre2021], which enable a District Magistrate, a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, or an Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the state government in this behalf, to order a person to take an action "with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management", if the Magistrate "considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray." It is apparent that this provision doesn't enable Internet shutdowns, at least not for the reasons and in the manner that various governments were using them [@softwarefreedomlawcentreLegalityInternet2016; @bhardwajRisingInternet2020]. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 ("Suspension Rules", hereinafter)---which allow the union and state governments to order temporary shutdown of the Internet due to a public emergency or for public safety---derive their power from section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. These Rules empower only a Home Secretary to order Internet shutdowns, via orders that lay down clear reasons, and only in cases where "necessary" or "unavoidable" due to a "public emergency" or "in the interest of public safety". Any order passed by the Home Secretary must be sent to a Review Committee within 24 hours, and that committee must accept or revoke the Home Secretary's order within five days. Even the passing of the Suspension Rules has not prevented the misuse of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code for carrying out Internet shutdowns [@munjalIndiaAre2021]. Investigations have shown that a state had ordered an Internet shutdown without having constituted the necessary committee under the Suspension Rules [@softwarefreedomlawcentreRTIApplication2022], and even uncovered an instance where "during the citizenship law protests in December 2019, the order to cut off the internet in Delhi was issued by the deputy commissioner of police--who is neither a home secretary nor a district magistrate." [@munjalIndiaAre2021]. In *Faheema Shirin* [@FaheemaShirin2019, this case will be discussed in detail in Section 2.4.9 of this paper], which concerned restrictions put on Internet access within a girls' hostel, the Kerala High Court held the right to access the Internet to be a fundamental right. In 2020, in the case of *Anuradha Bhasin*, wherein a newspaper editor from Kashmir challenged the arbitrary shutdown of Internet, the Supreme Court held that any restriction on Internet access by the government must be temporary, limited in scope, lawful, necessary and proportionate, and transparent [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, this case will be discussed in greater detail in Section 2.4.4.3 of this paper]. In 2023, Parliament passed the Telecommunications Act, which repeals the Indian Telegraph Act, but saves existing rules including the Suspension Rules, unless they are superseded. Sections 20 and 21 of the Telecommunications Act provide for suspension of telecommunications services (including Internet services). Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act is largely similar to Section 5 of the Telegraph Act, though it even more clearly allows for suspension of Internet services. The Telecommunications Act hasn't yet been notified, and thus isn't yet in effect. ## International Human Rights Law {#international-human-rights-law number="2"} ### Applicability of IHRL in India {#applicability-of-ihrl-in-india number="2.1"} India was a founding member of the United Nations, having signed the Declaration by United Nations at Washington in January 1942 [@rajanIndiaMaking1973, 430], and having participated in the UN Conference of International Organization at San Francisco from 25 April to 26 June 1945 [@mohanIndiaUnited2013]. On June 26, 1945, India was among 50 countries to sign the UN Charter, which it joined after ratifying the Charter on October 30, 1945 [@rajanIndiaMaking1973, 430]. India participated actively in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified six of the nine key international human rights treaties,[^5] including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). India was also a member of the former UN Commission on Human Rights since its inception in 1947, and after the Commission was replaced by the Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006, India has been elected to UNHRC five times, with the latest stint being from 2019--2022 [@ministryofexternalaffairsindiaIndiaUnited2020]. Thus, it's clear that India has been a keen participant in and supporter of the international human rights regime. When it comes to the applicability of international human rights law, as with all international law, three important questions arise: (a) who has the power to bind India to international commitments: the Parliament or the executive?; (b) can international treaty obligations be enforced in India in the absence of a law specifically incorporating such obligations or of specific executive actions (such as ratification of a treaty); (c) can international human rights law be enforced even in the absence of a specific treaty? The Constitution of India refers to international law and treaties in Article 51, as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy.[^6] Under India's Constitution, specifically, Article 246 read with entries 10--14 of the Union List, the power to enter into international treaties and to implement them domestically, along with the power to implement decisions undertaken at international bodies, lies with the Parliament. Furthermore, Article 253 clarifies that this is the case even for matters that are domestically within the legislative competence of state governments. However, Article 73 of the Indian Constitution has been interpreted to mean that the executive has the same powers as Parliament in terms of entering into binding international obligations and enforcing them [@chandraIndiaInternational2017, pp. 32-34]. This has thus resulted in what one scholar terms "formal monism, functional dualism" [@chandraIndiaInternational2017]. Traditionally, this was understood by Indian jurists, as Justice Krishna Iyer put it in *Jolly George v. Bank of Cochin* (1980), that "until the municipal Law is changed to accommodate the \[treaty\], what binds the courts is the former not the latter." However, this understanding was upended by the Supreme Court engaging in judicial activism in the form of judicial interpretation, and granting itself the power to directly incorporate international law into domestic law, even from conventions that India is not a party to, as long as the law is not in contravention of any specific domestic law [@chandraIndiaInternational2017, part 4.2]. This expansion happened through series of cases: *Gramophone Company of India v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey* (1984), *M.V. Elisabeth v Harwan Investment and Trading* (1992), *Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India* (1996), *People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India* (1997), *Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan* (1998), *State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd* (2004), *Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India* (2006), and others [@chandraIndiaInternational2017, part 4.2]. Notably, some Indian human rights statutes themselves refer to international covenants. The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, for instance, provides an explicit reference to international covenants such as the ICCPR via its definition of the term "human rights"[^7] > 2(d) "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India; > > 2(f) "International Covenants" means the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 16th December, 1966 and such other Covenant or Convention adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as the Central Government may, by notification, specify. That a covenant like the ICCPR applies to all state parties is underscored by the UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 31, which states: "The obligations of the \[ICCPR\] in general and article 2 in particular are binding on every State party as a whole. All branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial), and other public or governmental authorities, at whatever level -- national, regional or local are in a position to engage the responsibility of the State party." [@unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2004, para. 4] While some scholars have seen the incorporation of international law and norms into Indian jurisprudence as a part of the "strategic choice for national courts determined to protect their own authority and to reclaim domestic democratic processes" [@benvenistiReclaimingDemocracy2008], it could also be seen as ad-hoc and haphazard.[^8] ### Sources of IHRL {#sources-of-ihrl number="2.2"} The sources of international human rights law, including as it relates to the freedoms of opinion, expression, assembly, and association, are varied and numerous [@jayawickramaJudicialApplication2002, chapters 21-22]. As Toby Mendel notes, "The office of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is the only specialised UN mandate that focuses exclusively or even primarily on the fundamental right to freedom of expression."[-@mendelSpecialRapporteur2015] Since 2011, successive UN Special Rapporteurs on freedom of expression have been focusing extensively on issues pertaining to digital censorship. Another source of international standards on freedom of expression is the Joint Declarations that have been adopted annually since 1999 by the (originally three, but now four) special international mandates: the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. Indian courts have also relied on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights [@AnujGarg2007], European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [@PuttaswamyUnion2017], along with national decisions of courts in the United Kingdom, United States of America, South Africa, and Canada. ### IHRL related to Website Blocking and Internet Shutdowns {#ihrl-related-to-website-blocking-and-internet-shutdowns number="2.3"} While website blocking and Internet shutdowns affect people's civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, there have not been any significant pronouncements in terms of international human rights law on economic, social, and cultural rights impacts of website blocking and Internet shutdowns. Hence, in this paper, I look mainly at the two aspects of civil and political rights that have been the subject of international human rights law pronouncements: freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, association, and public participation. #### Freedom of Expression {#freedom-of-expression number="2.3.1"} There are two main primary texts on the freedom of expression at the international level: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Other relevant texts include Article 9 of the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union; Article IV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; Articles 13 and 14 of the American Convention on Human Rights; and Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Commonwealth of Independent States [see, @martinInternationalHuman2006, pp. 750-753], Article 22 of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration; and Article 21 of the 2021 Cairo Declaration of the OIC on Human Rights. Article 19 of the UDHR,[^9] and Article 19 of the ICCPR[^10] provide for the freedom of opinion and expression. Article 29(2) of the UDHR,[^11] and Article 19(3) of the ICCPR[^12] provide for limitations on the freedom of expression. In 2011, the UNHRC underscored the applicability of the ICCPR for online expression by noting that: > Any restrictions on the operation of websites, blogs or any other internet-based, electronic or other such information dissemination system, including systems to support such communication, such as internet service providers or search engines, are only permissible to the extent that they are compatible with paragraph 3. Permissible restrictions generally should be content-specific; generic bans on the operation of certain sites and systems are not compatible with paragraph 3. It is also inconsistent with paragraph 3 to prohibit a site or an information dissemination system from publishing material solely on the basis that it may be critical of the government or the political social system espoused by the government [@unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2011, para. 43]. And since 2012, the UNHRC has held across multiple resolutions that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one's choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights." [@unhumanrightscouncilResolution202012] Any restriction on freedom of expression, must, under international law, fulfil the three criteria laid down in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR: legality, legitimate objective, and necessity and proportionality. #### Freedom of Assembly, Association, and Political Participation {#freedom-of-assembly-association-and-political-participation number="2.3.2"} The freedoms of assembly,[^13] association[^14] and political participation[^15] are closely linked to one another as well as to the freedom of expression, opinion, and thought. These rights apply online just as they do offline. In a recent report titled, "Ending Internet shutdowns: a path forward", the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Clément Nyaletsossi Voule, noted that, > The right to access and use internet and other digital technologies for the purposes of peaceful assembly is protected under article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As indicated in general comment No. 37 of the Human Rights Committee on Article 21: The Right to Peaceful Assembly, "\[a\]lthough the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly is normally understood to pertain to the physical gathering of persons, article 21 protection also extends to remote participation in, and organization of, assemblies, for example online." This protection covers those activities associated with peaceful assemblies that "happen online or otherwise rely upon digital services," including planning and organizing a gathering, mobilizing resources; disseminating information, preparing for and traveling to the event; communicating with other organizers and participants leading up to and during the assembly; monitoring or broadcasting the assembly. In turn, interference with such technologies can result in the violation of this fundamental freedom[@vouleEndingInternet2021, para. 8]. ### Application of IHRL Principles in the Indian Context {#application-of-ihrl-principles-in-the-indian-context number="2.4"} #### Legality {#legality number="2.4.1"} Article 19 of the ICCPR, as well as Articles 20, 21, and 22, all require that restrictions be provided by law. In this section, it will be mostly Article 19 that is examined, but the same principle applies to the other articles as well. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 34 notes the following requiresments for legality [@unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2011, paras. 24-25]: - Restrictions must be provided by law, which does not include restrictions enshrined in traditional, religious or other such customary law; - The law must be "formulated with sufficient precision to enable an individual to regulate his or her conduct accordingly"; - The law must be "made accessible to the public"; - The law may not "confer unfettered discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression on those charged with its execution"; - The law must "provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not"; - The law "be compatible with the provisions, aims and objectives" of the ICCPR, apart from complying with Art. 19(3) of the ICCPR (on legitimate aims); - The law must "not violate the non-discrimination provisions" of the ICCPR; - The law must "not provide for penalties that are incompatible with the Covenant, such as corporal punishment." Thus, the burden falls upon the legislature to lay down clear guidelines, which are not overly broad, for the executive as to when they may restrict freedom of expression. It is apparent that Section 5 of the Telegraph Act and Section 69A of the IT Act as well as Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act do not lay down clear guidelines, and indeed they confer upon the union government great discretion for the restriction of freedom of expression. In the Supreme Court case of *K.A. Abbas v. Union of India* [@AbbasUnion], this exact objection had been taken up by the petitioners, who based it additionally on the theory of separation of powers. The petitioners in that case argued that because Section 5B(1) of the Cinematograph Act copies the language of Article 19(2) and authorises the central government to issue directions to the film censorship board on that basis, it showed that the "legislature has not indicated any guidance to the Central Government" [@AbbasUnion, p. 468]. However, the five-judge bench did not examine the issue of the wholesale copying of the language of Article 19(2). They rejected the argument about delegated legislation, holding that "Of course, Parliament can adopt the directions and put them in schedule to the Act (and that may still be done), it cannot be said that there is any delegation of legislative function." [@AbbasUnion, p. 469] So unfortunately, this practice of copying the principles laid down in Article 19(2) of the Constitution and turning those principles into statutory law to guide the executive seems to be unobjectionable to the Supreme Court of India, though this would go against the IHRL requirements as stated by the UNHRC in General Comment 34. #### Legitimate Aims {#legitimate-aims number="2.4.2"} Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India allows the state to impose "reasonable restrictions" on the exercise of freedom of expression "in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.Under the UDHR and ICCPR, which allow for restrictions to be provided by law in cases of necessity"for respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals." Thus the legimate aims under the Indian Constitution are greater than those provided under IHRL. Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act reproduces five of the grounds under the Constitution: a) sovereignty and integrity of India; b) security of the State;[^16] c) friendly relations with foreign states; d) public order; and e) preventing incitement to the commission of an offence But it also mandates a prerequisite in the form of a) occurrence of any public emergency; or b) in the interest of the public safety. Section 69A too reproduces five of the constitutional grounds: a) sovereignty and integrity of India; b) security of the State; c) friendly relations with foreign States; d) public order; and e) preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.[^17] But it also adds: f) defence of India. Specifically, it *does not apply* to: a) Decency or morality; b) Contempt of court. Instead of clarifying what conditions qualify as breaches of "public order" or harm to "friendly relations with foreign States" or threats to "security of the State", the legislature has wrongly conferred all the discretion that it has under the Constitution on to the executive. It does not clarify what the distinction is between a restriction framed to safeguard the "sovereignty and integrity of India" and one framed to provide for the "defence of India". There are no guidelines provided by the legislature as to what may constitute a "public emergency" or what may be "in the interest of the public safety", nor broad phrases such as "public order" or "friendly relations with foreign States". This clearly goes against the UNHRC's General Comment 34's stated requirement that "laws must provide sufficient guidance to those charged with their execution to enable them to ascertain what sorts of expression are properly restricted and what sorts are not." [@unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2011, para. 26] Indeed, the Suspension Rules neither lay down the specific kinds of circumstances under which the Home Secretary may invoke the powers granted under the Rules; they merely require that the Review Committee ensure that the orders are in conformance with Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. Further, the history of website blocking and Internet shutdowns in India, recounted above, shows that district magistrates, ISPs, and even entities like the CERT-In, have engaged in website blocking and Internet shutdowns despite not having been granted the power to do so by Parliament. Moreover, Internet shutdowns have even been ordered during democratic non-violent protests [@internetfreedomfoundationStatementOngoing2024], to prevent cheating during exams [@softwarefreedomlawcentreSFLCWrit2022], and other such reasons that are clearly do not pertain to legitimate aims as laid down either under Art. 19(3) of the UDHR, Art. 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, nor Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act. This points to a deficit in the rule of law. #### Necessity {#necessity number="2.4.3"} The language used in Section 69A is that the central government should be satisfied that it is "necessary or expedient" to block or cause to be blocked. "Expedience"---the quality of being fit or suitable to cause some desired end [@Expedient2021]---is clearly a far lesser standard than "necessity". International law rules out expedience as a standard for restriction of the freedom of expression, given that it requires necessity be demonstrated. Special Rapporteur David Kaye elaborated on the meaning of "necessity" by stating: > The State must establish a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat said to exist. Restrictions must target a specific objective and not unduly intrude upon other rights of targeted persons, and the ensuing interference with third parties' rights must be limited and justified in the light of the interest supported by the intrusion. The restriction must be the least intrusive instrument among those which might achieve the desired result [@kayeReportSpecial2016a, para. 17, references omitted.]. In another report to the Human Rights Council, Kaye added "Network shutdowns invariably fail to meet the standard of necessity. Necessity requires a showing that shutdowns would achieve their stated purpose, which in fact they often jeopardize.... In Kashmir, police have reported on the positive role of mobile phones in locating people trapped during terrorist attacks." [@kayeReportSpecial2017, para. 14.] Interestingly, in the *Shreya Singhal* judgment, the Supreme Court didn't seem to notice the words "or expedient" in the text of the provision; while discussing Section 69A, they state, "First and foremost, blocking *can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do*" [@ShreyaSinghal, emphasis added.]. One might be tempted to argue that this is, in effect, a reading down of Section 69A. But given that this isn't explicitly noted by the court as a reading down of Section 69A, it is hard to justify that argument, tempting though it may be. Further, the court's wording suggests that what it considers important is the *satisfaction* of the union government as to "necessity", rather than a public *demonstration* to the citizenry by the union government of "necessity". Similarly, Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act also uses the phrase "necessary or expedient" while talking about the standard required for satisfaction of the central government before ordering the blocking or interception of telegraphs. Even academic commentators on the provision's constitutionality [See, e.g., @ramachandranPUCLUnion2014] don't seem to have highlighted the vast difference between necessity as a standard and expediency. The judiciary even seems to have read the phrase "necessary or expedient" into Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, even though that section doesn't mention either word [@MdGulam1977 {}, which holds that "It may however be noted that the Magistrate is not concerned with individual rights in performing his duty under Section 144 but he has to determine what may be reasonably necessary or expedient in a situation of which he is the best judge."]. Indeed, the phrase "necessary or expedient" is used in thousands of sections of Indian law [@NecessaryExpedient], including in other provisions relating to the restriction of speech, such as Sections 19 and 20 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, which allow the central government to ban specific TV programmes or even to ban entire cable networks [@CableTelevision1995]. The office of the UNHCHR put out a report on Internet shutdowns in 2022 [@officeoftheunitednationshighcommissionerforhumanrightsInternetShutdowns2022]. In that report, India was criticised for blocking Internet access during protests and exams [@officeoftheunitednationshighcommissionerforhumanrightsInternetShutdowns2022, para. 11, 13]. Further, the report notes that: > Network shutdowns invariably fail to meet the standard of necessity. Necessity requires a showing that shutdowns would achieve their stated purpose, which in fact they often jeopardize. Some governments argue that it is important to ban the spread of news about terrorist attacks, even accurate reporting, in order to prevent panic and copycat actions. Yet it has been found that maintaining network connectivity may mitigate public safety concerns and help restore public order. During public disturbances in London in 2011, for example, authorities used social media networks to identify perpetrators, disseminate accurate information and conduct clean-up operations. *In Kashmir, police have reported on the positive role of mobile phones in locating people trapped during terrorist attacks.* \[emphasis added\] It is also worth noting that courts in India very often pass *ex parte* orders for the blocking of all websites listed by a plaintiff, without scrutinising whether each of the websites listed actually violates any law, or the necessity of such blocking. This is how a website like Google Docs came to be ordered to be blocked by the Delhi High Court in 2014 in a copyright infringement case [@praneshprakashWhoBlame2014], an order that was thankfully reverted later. The UNHRC's General Comment 34 [@unhumanrightscommitteeGeneralComment2011, para. 34], as well as various human rights courts' judgments [@KonateBurkina2014, paras. 148-149; @SundayTimes1979, para. 62] hold that proportionality is implicit in the concept of "necessity". So even though Article 19 of the ICCPR only uses the term "necessity" and not "proportionality", the latter concept has been read into the former. #### Proportionality {#proportionality number="2.4.4"} As noted above, in IHRL, proportionality analysis has become central to analysis of permissible limitations or restrictions, even in circumstances where "proportionality" isn't explicitly mentioned in the text. Much of this has been driven by courts in Latin America and Europe. This has led to entire books devoted to the proportionality principle [@barakProportionalityConstitutional2012; @bradyProportionalityDeference2012; @hulsrojPrincipleProportionality2013; @huscroftProportionalityRule2014; @jacksonProportionalityNew2017; @klattConstitutionalStructure2012; @sullivanProportionalityPrinciples2009], including works that analyse it from a comparative perspective, [@kremnitzerProportionalityAction2020; @stonesweetProportionalityBalancing2019; @yapProportionalityAsia2020], as well as works that develop critiques of the principle [@duarteProportionalityLaw2018; @urbinaCritiqueProportionality2017]. ##### Proportionality Analysis in Indian Courts {#proportionality-analysis-in-indian-courts number="2.4.4.1"} Traditionally, "proportionality" analysis has been quite alien to Indian courts. Instead, Indian courts have been guided by UK common law, which follows the standard of 'reasonableness', which in the UK is guided by the doctrine of *Wednesbury* unreasonableness [@chughSupremeCourt2004; @chandrachudWednesburyReformulated2013, 192]. However, since the early 2000s, Indian courts have occasionally turned to the term "strict scrutiny" (borrowed from US judgments) [@khaitanReasonablenessRigorous2008, p.179], though it is unclear whether they have either followed the same standard as the US, nor how exactly this seemingly higher standard has been employed differently from "reasonableness" [@khaitanReasonablenessRigorous2008, p.179-181]. Additionally, at around the same time, Indian courts seem to also have increasingly turned to the term "proportionality" in their judgments, mirroring a similar shift in the UK since the 1980s. As Chandra [-@chandraProportionalityIndia2020] notes, "even at its lowest level of scrutiny, proportionality requires the court to determine that the measure was legitimate, suitable, necessary and balanced." This, she notes "implies a deeper level of scrutiny of the State's reasons as compared to Wednesbury and places a greater restriction on the scope of State power. At higher levels of scrutiny, the court signals that rights are extremely important, that rights-infringing State action is presumptively illegitimate, and that the State is tasked with justifying, based on clear and cogent evidence, that it infringed the right only in very exceptional circumstances." But, as Chandrachud [-@chandrachudWednesburyReformulated2013] convincingly argues, "the proportionality test in India, however, is merely *Wednesbury* unreasonableness in disguise. Though the Supreme Court of India has transplanted the language of 'proportionality' into its decisions, perhaps to borrow from the global legitimacy associated with the proportionality doctrine, the Court applies a veiled *Wednesbury* standard of review and calls it proportionality." Despite the explicit (apparent) adoption of proportionality as a limiting standard by both the majority and the minority in the *Puttaswamy* (Aadhaar) case, the judges seem to have applied the standard very differently. As correctly noted by Chandra [-@chandraProportionalityIndia2020], "On the one hand, the Court articulates a very high standard of substantive scrutiny, implying thereby that rights are of great normative significance and can be overcome only in exceptional circumstances. However, at the same time, the Court is highly deferential to the State and places minimal evidential burdens on it." ##### Proportionality and Blocking of Specific Content {#proportionality-and-blocking-of-specific-content number="2.4.4.2"} With respect to blocking of Internet content, in 2011, Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue noted that: > States' use of blocking or filtering technologies is frequently in violation of their obligation to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, as the criteria mentioned under chapter III are not met. Firstly, the specific conditions that justify blocking are not established in law, or are provided by law but in an overly broad and vague manner, which risks content being blocked arbitrarily and excessively. Secondly, blocking is not justified to pursue aims which are listed under article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and blocking lists are generally kept secret, which makes it difficult to assess whether access to content is being restricted for a legitimate purpose. *Thirdly, even where justification is provided, blocking measures constitute an unnecessary or disproportionate means to achieve the purported aim, as they are often not sufficiently targeted and render a wide range of content inaccessible beyond that which has been deemed illegal*. Lastly, content is frequently blocked without the intervention of or possibility for review by a judicial or independent body [@larueReportSpecial2011b]. Privacy-enhancing technologies are often censorship-resistance technologies as well, and make it more difficult for governments to target censorship more specifically (especially against uncooperative entities that lie outside their jurisdictions). For instance, secure protocols like HTTPS effectively prevent the government from ordering an ISP to block a particular page within a website rather than blocking the entire website, because they prevent the ISP from learning which particular page within a website a user is seeking access to. This consequence of security/privacy is not analysed in the commentary on proportionality. Another aspect of proportionality that only finds a little mention in IHRL analysis is that of time: how long is particular content to be blocked? This too is a necessary part of proportionality. I am yet to see a content-blocking order issued by any Indian court or executive that contains any instructions on how long that content is to be blocked. The Blocking Rules do not contain any time-limiting provisions either, and do not require the block orders to be reviewed to see if they are still relevant. In many cases, websites that have long disappeared off the face of the Web are still blocked by ISPs. This does not apply only to executive-initiated blocks: even courts block websites using ex-parte orders without any time limits. ##### Proportionality and Internet Shutdowns {#proportionality-and-internet-shutdowns number="2.4.4.3"} With respect to Internet shutdowns, in their 'Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Responses to Conflict Situations' [-@unsrJointDeclaration2015], four special rapporteurs on freedom of expression noted that "filtering of content on the Internet, using communications 'kill switches' (i.e. shutting down entire parts of communications systems) and the physical takeover of broadcasting stations are measures which can never be justified under human rights law." [@unsrJointDeclaration2015, para. 4(c)] This position seems to be based on the idea that shutting down of Internet access, even when provided for by law, can never be either "necessary"---being the only option available---nor proportionate in terms of being balanced with the state's interest. They continue: > We wish to express our concerns over the adverse effects that the shutting down of the internet and telecommunication networks, as well as landline and television channels, may have on these rights, especially on the right to disseminate and receive information and the right to peacefully assemble and associate, including online. With particular regard to internet access, we recall that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online... *The complete shutdown of the internet and telecommunication networks would appear to contravene the fundamental principles of necessity and proportionality that must be met by any restriction on freedom of expression. Shutdowns fail to reach the established test for restrictions to the right to freedom of opinion and expression under article 19(3) of the ICCPR, as well as for restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and of association under articles 21 and 22(2) ICCPR.* > > Access to the internet and telecommunications networks are crucial to prevent disinformation, and they are crucial to protect the rights to health, liberty and personal integrity, by allowing access to emergency help and other necessary assistance. Access to telecommunications networks is also crucial to ensure accountability of authorities for possible human rights violations, including the excessive use of force against peaceful protesters and others. We express our deep concern that the network disruptions will fuel chaos and unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, and that they contribute to a climate fear and uncertainty in the population [@vice-chairoftheworkinggrouponarbitrarydetentionLetterHuman2019]. \[emphases added\] This was reiterated by the Special Rapporteur David Kaye in 2016 when he noted that: > Service shutdowns and associated restrictions are a particularly pernicious means of enforcing content regulations. Such measures are frequently justified on the basis of national security, the maintenance of public order or the prevention of public unrest. In 2015, the Special Rapporteur, together with representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights condemned as unlawful Internet "kill switches". In one year alone, there were reports of shutdowns in Bangladesh, Brazil, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan [@kayeReportSpecial2016, para. 48]. In 2021, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association noted in his report to the Human Rights Council that > Shutdowns are thus inconsistent with proportionality requirements. They impose extreme burdens on those exercising expression and peaceful assembly rights and exert significant chilling effects on decisions regarding whether to participate in public assemblies [@vouleEndingInternet2021, para. 20]. In 2021, India voted in favour of a Human Rights Council resolution which > condemn\[ed\] unequivocally measures in violation of international human rights law that prevent or disrupt an individual's ability to seek, receive or impart information online, including Internet shutdowns and online censorship, call\[ed\] upon all States to refrain from and to cease such measures, and also call\[ed\] upon States to ensure that all domestic laws, policies and practices are consistent with their international human rights obligations with regard to freedom of opinion and expression, and of association and peaceful assembly, online [@unhumanrightscouncilResolution472021, para. 11]. Just a few years before, the Indian government strengthened its powers to engage in Internet shutdowns. Further, in 2023, the Telecommunications Act was passed which explicitly allows for Internet shutdowns. While they seemingly fall short of IHRL, are they in line with the Constitution of India? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not get a chance to examine the constitutionality of the Suspension Rules in the *Anuradha Bhasin* case, as none of the parties seem to have raised it [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, para. 84]. Thus, for the time being it has to be assumed that Indian law doesn't prohibit Internet shutdowns, and thus they can be seen as a necessary and proportionate executive action in exercise of legitimate state interests [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, paras. 86-100]. After a lengthy analysis of the powers under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court noted in 2017, with the passage of the Suspension rules, "the position has changed," and that "with the promulgation of the Suspension Rules, the States are using the aforesaid Rules to restrict telecom services including access to the internet." [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, para. 83]. However, the reality remains that despite the introduction of the Suspension Rules which in effect denude district magistrates of the power to suspend Internet access, district magistrates across India have continued to issue orders suspending Internet access [@internetfreedomfoundationAmendmentTelecom2020], displaying the problem with rule of law in India. Quite interestingly, some human rights courts have taken into account the lack of rule of law as a factor when engaging in necessity and proportionality analysis. For instance, in the case of *Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. The United Kingdom*, the European Court of Human rights held that the imposition of excessive penalties had a deterrent effect on the exercise of the freedom of expression and was of the view that the granting of excessive damages for defamation constituted a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights [@TolstoyMiloslavsky1995]. The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights crucially noted that even when specific restrictions were allowed (such as criminal damages for defamation), "they are not necessary in a democratic society, when there is no guarantee, given the magnitude of the combined lethargic state of the domestic rule of law at the time, a reasonable relationship of proportionality to the legitimate goal pursued" [@KonateBurkina2014, para. 154] Thus, there's an argument to be made that the weak rule of law in India only calls for heightened scrutiny by the judiciary, and a higher standard must be applied when proportionality analysis is required. #### Transparency {#transparency number="2.4.5"} The issue of transparency of law hasn't received much focus in IHRL, with a UN Human Rights Council resolution on 'Human rights, democracy and the rule of law'[@unhumanrightscouncilResolution192012] being a limited exception. In this section, I argue that transparency is a core part not only of rule of law but also IHRL due to the requirement under IHRL that any restrictions on freedom of expression by "promulgated by law". In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke notes that "whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any commonwealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees" [@lockeSecondTreatise1690, paras. 131]. Similarly, Lon Fuller in his book 'The Morality of Law', held that a law that is not publicly promulgated does not count as a genuine law [@fullerMoralityLaw1969]. In India, if a law is not published in the official gazette, it can be held not to be in force. Thus, publicity and transparency of a law is an inherent requirement of legality. One Special Rapporteur noted, "States should provide full details regarding the necessity and justification for blocking a particular website, and determination of what content should be blocked should be undertaken by a competent judicial authority or a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences to ensure that blocking is not used as a means of censorship" [@larueReportSpecial2011a, para. 70]. Another Special Rapporteur noted, "'a detailed and evidence-based public justification' is critical to enable transparent public debate over restrictions that implicate and possibly undermine freedom of expression." [@kayeReportSpecial2015, para. 35] Thus, any restriction of freedom of speech must provide adequate information to the public, as well as those whose speech is being restricted, to challenge it. Secret orders cannot be held to be "provided by law". Accordingly, the law must be clear, precise and publicly accessible in order to provide individuals with adequate guidance. This seeming requirement of transparency is in stark contrast to Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, which mandates that "strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof." It is notable that this rule has not been observed strictly by MEITY at all times, since they have in the past responded to RTI requests, even post-2009, asking for details of blocked websites, including how many of those requests came from the judiciary, and some details about the deliberations of the committee for the examination of requests [@prakashDITResponse2011]. Notably, in the case of *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*, the court seems not to have examined the implication of Rule 16, even though it was mentioned in paragraphs 107 and 108. In paragraph 109, however, the court notes that under Section 69A, "reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution." This seems to imply that the blocking order and the reasons therefor need to be available to the public such that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In his 2016 report, the UN Special Rapporteur specifically highlighted the harms of Rule 16 of the Blocking rules, when he noted: > Transparency can help ensure that subjects of Internet regulation are able to meaningfully predict their legal obligations and challenge them where appropriate. Gaps in compliance with these standards threaten the ability of individuals to understand the limits placed on their freedom of expression online and seek appropriate redress when their rights are violated. > > Despite multiple reform attempts, transparency concerning government requests is still lacking.... Several States prohibit disclosures concerning government requests for content removal or access to user data. India, for example, prohibits online intermediaries from disclosing details of government orders to block access to Internet content, as well as any action they take in response to such orders [@kayeReportSpecial2016, paras. 64-65]. In the *Anuradha Bhasin* case, which concerned Internet shutdown orders in Jammu & Kashmir, the government was notably frank and stated outright that it would not produce orders that had been used to block Internet and mobile access and claimed privilege. Eventually, the government provided the court with a few sample orders, claiming that it could not produce all the orders, as they kept changing. The court rejected this reasoning, citing two reasons: (1) a "democracy, which is sworn to transparency and accountability, necessarily mandates the production of orders as it is the right of an individual to know. Moreover, fundamental rights itself connote a qualitative requirement wherein the State has to act in a responsible manner to uphold Part III of the Constitution and not to take away these rights in an implied fashion or in casual and cavalier manner" [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, para. 16]; and (2) that "there is not only a normative expectation under the Constitution, but also a requirement under natural law, that no law should be passed in a clandestine manner." [@AnuradhaBhasin2020, para. 17] Despite the *Anuradha Bhasin* judgment, it has been noted that governments have been lax in actually publishing Internet shutdown orders, and thus on-ground compliance with the judgment remains low [@malhotraSupremeCourt2023; @mishraGreatIndian2021]. Further, it is worth noting that the *Anuradha Bhasin* judgment only applies to Internet shutdown orders, and not to website blocking orders. Thus, while the judiciary has ordered a limited amount of transparency, there is still far to go both in terms of compliance with that order, as well as with getting transparency for website blocking orders. #### Remedy for Violation of Rights {#remedy-for-violation-of-rights number="2.4.6"} Article 2(3) of the ICCPR requires state parties to ensure that persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated have an effective remedy [@iccpr, Art. 2(3)]. The idea of "an effective remedy" can be taken to be two-fold. First, there's the remedy of the speech restriction ceasing to be. Further, there is also the remedy of restitution for the wrongful deprivation of rights. In 2011, the Centre for Internet and Society documented how they misused the 2011 Intermediary Guidelines Rules (under Section 79 of the IT Act) to invisibly remove content from search engines, e-commerce platforms, etc., without any right-of-reply or right-to-reinstate content having been given to those whose right were violated [@daraIntermediaryLiability2011]. While the revised Intermediary Guidelines Rules have a provision that a significant social media intermediary provides an "adequate and reasonable opportunity to dispute the action being taken by such intermediary and request for the reinstatement of access to such information, data or communication link" [@IntermediaryGuidelines2021] None of the laws that provide Internet shutdowns or website blocking provide any means of restitution or damages for the loss suffered. Courts have often seen the existence of procedural remedies as a sufficient safeguard despite the existence of substantive infirmities. Thus, allowing affected parties to challenge a government ban has been seen as being a sufficient safeguard in both *Shreya Singhal* (in upholding 69A, on the basis of it having procedural safeguards that allow the orders to be challenged) and in *Anuradha Bhasin*. That however shifts the onus from the government having to justify a restriction of human rights by showing that its decision is proportionate to a petitioner having to display that the government's actions are not proportionate. This, thus, inverts the proportionality test. Rightfully, the existence of remedies ought to be seen as an independent requirement. The existence of procedural remedies such as a right of appeal (often to the same executive branch that passed the order) ought not be used to defeat proportionality analysis as they have been used in Indian cases. If that were to be allowed, then the Constitutional right (under Articles 32 and 226) to petition the higher judiciary for violation of rights would protect all laws from questions of procedural infirmity, since it could be argued the very existence of a right to petition a law provides a "sufficient safeguard". Further, even on purely procedural grounds, such procedural remedies cannot rightfully be said to exist as safeguards, since there is a lack of transparency. This lack of transparency often effectively prevents affected parties from challenging a ban, since even if they come to know of a ban, they have no clarity on which entity ordered the ban, when and on what grounds, who they have to approach for a remedy, and who has standing as an affected party. Thus, "invisible censorship" is effectively enabled by provisions such as Section 79 of the IT Act [@prakashInvisibleCensorship2011], and Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules [@groverContentTakedown2020]. #### Jurisdictional Spillover {#jurisdictional-spillover number="2.4.7"} In a report on online censorship, the Special Rapporteur noted that "Even if content regulations were validly enacted and enforced, users may still experience unnecessary access restrictions. For example, content filtering in one jurisdiction may affect the digital expression of users in other jurisdictions. While companies may configure filters to apply only to a particular jurisdiction or region, there have been instances where they were nevertheless passed on to other networks or areas of the platform. For instance, in 2013 State-mandated filtering carried out by Airtel India led to restrictions on the same content on several networks in Oman belonging to its partner, Omantel." [@kayeReportSpecial2016, para. 47]. The Airtel India example he cited was one of inadvertent spillover. However, there have been a number of cases where the courts have explicitly argued that geographically limited content removals or blocking would not suffice [@RamdevFacebook2019; @UnionIndia2021]/ These cases seek to apply geographically limited laws and geographically limited jurisdiction of Indian courts beyond such geographical limitations, setting the stage for conflict of laws. #### Mandatory Restrictions {#mandatory-restrictions number="2.4.8"} Apart from *allowing* certain restrictions, under international law states are also under an *obligation to prohibit* certain forms of speech. For instance, Article 20 of the ICCPR requires states to place specific prohibitions: > 1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law. > 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. In addition, Article 34 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states: > States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent: > > (a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity; > > (b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices; > > (c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials. The UN Security Council Resolution 1624 requires states to "Prohibit by law incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts." [@unsecuritycouncilResolution16242005; for analysis of the international law on free speech consequent to this resolution, see @shiryaevCyberterrorismContext2012; and @ronenIncitementTerrorist2010] The international law on what forms of speech are required to be be prohibited was summarised by UN Special Rapporteur Frank La Rue [@larueReportSpecial2011, para. 20-36] as: 1. Child pornography 2. Direct and public incitement to commit genocide 3. Advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence 4. Incitement to terrorism All the limitations discussed above---legality, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and remedies---continue to apply even when the restrictions are mandatory. #### Cases Applying IHRL on Freedom of Expression {#cases-applying-ihrl-on-freedom-of-expression number="2.4.9"} Most of the landmark Indian cases on Internet censorship---*MySpace v. Super Cassettes*, *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*, *Ramdev v. Facebook*, *Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India*---make no use of international human rights instruments or standards, nor do they refer to India's international human rights obligations. One notable exception is the case of *Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala* [-@FaheemaShirin2019], in which the Kerala High Court was adjudicating on restrictions applied by a public university on the usage of mobile phones and laptops by students staying in the university's hostels. The court refers quite extensively to international human rights standards, and in particular quotes two resolutions by the Human Rights Council (which the judge mistakenly attributes to the United Nations General Assembly): Resolution 26/13, which "affirms that the same rights that people have off-line must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression..." [@unhumanrightscouncilResolution262014], and Resolution 23/2 which calls upon states to "ensure that women and girls exercising their right to freedom of opinion and expression are not discriminated against" [@unhumanrightscouncilResolution232013]. But the judge also mistakenly holds that "the Human Rights Council of the United Nations have found that right to access to Internet is a fundamental freedom," whereas Human Rights Council has merely held that Internet facilitates freedom of expression, and that all rights such as freedom of expression must be protected online as well. Based on these, Justice P.V. Asha went on to hold that "... the international conventions and norms are to be read into the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India in the absence of enacted domestic law occupying the fields when there is no inconsistency between them. Going by the aforesaid dictum laid down in the said judgment, the right to have access to Internet becomes the part of right to education as well as right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Thus, the right to have access to the Internet was held to be a fundamental right under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution, and emphasis was placed on international covenants while doing so. A search on the legal search engine Indian Kanoon leads to only one case in which a UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression's report was cited by a high court [@NedunchezhianBar2015] and only one in which a petitioner invoked them [@ShibuBaby2020]. Is the general lack of reliance on IHRL because lawyers don't use them as part of their arguments or because the judges don't see them as being very relevant? This question is difficult to answer, since the writ petitions and amicus curiae briefs placed before the Supreme Court are not available in the public domain, so it is difficult to say whether it is the judges or the parties before the court that fail to use IHRL. ## Conclusion {#conclusion number="3"} International human rights law provides an interesting framework for analysis of where to strike the balance between competing claims of rights and permissible restrictions---albeit usually limited, though sometimes useful. While Internet shutdowns and blocking of websites affect people's civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR), there have not been any significant IHRL pronouncements on ESCR when it comes to Internet shutdowns, but there has been important IHRL analysis under civil and political rights frameworks. This paper establishes that Indian laws relating to Internet shutdowns and content blocking fall short of the requirements imposed by IHRL in terms of legality, legitimate aims, necessity, proportionality, transparency, and provision of remedies. 1. Internet shutdowns orders and content blocking orders are often promulgated in violation of existing laws; 2. Indian laws and delegated legislation do not provide precise guidance to the executive on the circumstances under which they may legally restrict speech; 3. Such laws do not conform to the standards of necessity and proportionality, do not set time limits on website blocks, and even allow completely disproportionate actions such as Internet shutdowns which, as multiple international authorities have noted [@larueReportSpecial2011b; @unsrJointDeclaration2015; @kayeReportSpecial2016], contravene IHRL; 4. They restrict transparency and do not make it known why any particular website is blocked nor allow ISPs and other intermediaries to make such information public; and 5. They do not provide remedies such as a right of reinstatement of content. In order to bring these laws into conformity with IHRL, some of them need to be completely rewritten and others amended. In many cases, it is judicial overreach that needs to be curbed. Thus, laws such as the Copyright Act and the Civil Procedure Code need to be amended to lay down grounds for when the judiciary may and may not order the blocking of websites. Given the serious human rights concerns raised by suppression of speech via blocking of websites, the IT Act should be amended to require that *ex parte* blocking should not be ordered either by the judiciary or by the executive. Instead, it could be achieved either with the state attorney general's office---or amicus curiae appointed by the court if the matter is before a court---being required to mount a defence against the blocking of websites, similar to the role performed by public defenders in criminal cases. Requirements of necessity and proportionality need to be embedded into the legal process---for instance, by requiring time limits placed for each website block along with periodic reviews of each blocked website. Internet shutdowns should be expressly prohibited by law. To further transparency, orders for the blocking of websites should be published online, along with the minutes of the meetings in which the blocking has been discussed as well as the evidence presented before the committee to substantiate the need for blocking. The orders should contain information on each website with a justification of how its blocking is compliant with constitutional and IHRL obligations: more specifically whether and how the block falls under the grounds provided for under Indian law, whether there are no other means of countering the harm from the speech expressed, whether a block is the least restrictive means to counter the harm, and whether this will have undesirable consequences outside of Indian jurisdiction. This should apply both to the original block orders, as well as the periodic reappraisals. The government should not only proactively make public the orders that the executive has passed but also the orders the judiciary has passed (and passed on to the executive for enforcement). Additionally, there need to be penalties for unlawful blocking of websites, apps, and internet access, which need to be enforced, along with remedies for those who have had their freedom to seek and impart information unlawfully denied, including monetary recompense. IHRL is only as useful as its use in both popular and political discourse and judicial pronouncements: if IHRL is widely used, it is useful; conversely, if it is not widely used, it is not useful. Currently, the application of IHRL in India has been haphazard. While NGOs are quite fond of quoting IHRL, it isn't clear whether lawyers are making arguments based on IHRL in the courtrooms. At any rate, it is apparent that courts aren't making much use of IHRL. Arguably, a more systematic engagement with IHRL would benefit Indian statutory and constitutional interpretation. [^1]: See, e.g., @vandervyverSovereignty2013, Part 3, "State sovereignty is thus no longer an absolute right. Even insofar as it remains a prominent principle in international relations, its implementation has, at least *de facto* if not *de jure*, become subordinate to the values embedded in the human rights doctrine."; @verdirameHumanRights2013, p. 33-34, "Human rights are conceived mainly as limits to the sovereignty of states which can be enforced by other states. Their violation is a matter of 'international concern' and a potential basis for interference."; @sheeranRelationshipInternational2013, section 4.5, "The growing influence of the inherent dignity of the human being has successfully eroded state sovereignty. It has developed human rights both as a constitutive principle within the UN Charter and arguably as a secondary foundation of the international legal order." [^2]: The use and misuse of this power are examined in depth in a monograph by Raman Jit Singh Chima [@chimaRegulationInternet2008]. [^3]: The author's personal recollection, watching the proceedings live on television [@timesnewsnetworkDinLS2008]. [^4]: Rule 8(1): "On receipt of request under rule 6, the Designated Officer shall make all reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary who has hosted the information or part thereof as well as the computer resource on which such information or part thereof is being hosted and where he is able to identify such person or intermediary and the computer resource hosting the information or part thereof which have been requested to be blocked for public access, he shall issue a notice by way of letters or fax or e-mail signed with electronic signatures to such person or intermediary in control of such computer resource to appear and submit their reply and clarifications, if any, before the committee referred to in rule 7, at a specified date and time, which shall not be less than forty-eight hours from the time of receipt of such notice by such person or intermediary." [^5]: These being: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). India has also signed, but not ratified, the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED); and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC). [^6]: Article 51 states: > Article 51.--- The State shall endeavour to > > > (a) promote international peace and security; > > > (b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations; > > > (c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of the organized peoples with one another; and > > > (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration. While first draft of that provision had stronger language, which said, "The State shall..." in place of "The State shall endeavour to..." [@hegdeIndianCourts2010, 58], the Article was passed with the weaker language and as part of the non-justiciable Directive Principles of State Policy. [^7]: The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: [^8]: Even Benvenisti [-@benvenistiReclaimingDemocracy2008, p. 261] admits that an Indian High Court once mistook the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, a mere declaration---and thus a soft norm---for an "agreement" that was "enacted". This demonstrates a lack of serious engagement with international law. [^9]: Article 19 of the UDHR states: > Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. [^10]: Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 19 of the ICCPR state: > 1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference. > 2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. [^11]: Clause 2 of Article 29 of the UDHR states: > 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. [^12]: Clause 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR allows for 'certain restrictions': > 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: > > (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; > > (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. [^13]: Article 20(1) of the UDHR states: > 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Article 21 of the ICCPR states: > Article 21. The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. [^14]: Article 22 of the ICCPR states: > 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests. > 2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right. [^15]: Article 21(2) of the UDHR states: > 2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country. Article 27(1) of the UDHR states: > 1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. [^16]: The Telecommunications Act 2023 changes this to "defence and security of the State". [^17]: It is to be noted that Section 69A doesn't speak of "incitement to the commission of an offence", but "incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above \[five grounds\]". This is an noteworthy and welcome difference from the wording of both Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, as well as Article 19(2) of the Constitution.