Information Technology Act: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Other sections, rules, clauses */

2025-05-20T20:18:29Z

‎Other sections, rules, clauses

Jyoti: /* Other sections, rules, clauses */

2024-12-28T18:22:30Z

‎Other sections, rules, clauses

Jyoti: /* Section 66A */

2021-09-26T05:58:28Z

‎Section 66A

Jyoti: /* Though struck down in 2015, police continues to use it in 2019 */

2021-07-21T20:49:02Z

‎Though struck down in 2015, police continues to use it in 2019

Pdewan: /* and in Jan 2021, too */

2021-07-07T03:44:29Z

‎and in Jan 2021, too

Jyoti: /* and in Jan 2021, too */

2021-06-21T19:13:06Z

‎and in Jan 2021, too

Jyoti at 19:12, 21 June 2021

2021-06-21T19:12:05Z

Jyoti: /* Though struck down in 2015, police continues to use it in 2019 */

2021-01-20T07:05:24Z

‎Though struck down in 2015, police continues to use it in 2019

Jyoti: /* Citizens can still be arrested for online posts */

2020-11-19T14:54:16Z

‎Citizens can still be arrested for online posts

Pdewan: /* Citizens can still be arrested for online posts */

2018-01-25T22:17:44Z

‎Citizens can still be arrested for online posts

@@ Line 136: / Line 136: @@
 A petition by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) raising an alarm over such cases is pending before the SC. A 2018 research paper by lawyers Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta found that despite the 2015 (Shreya Singhal) judgment police and trial courts continued to use the law due to a lack of an effective mechanism to communicate the illegality of the law. “The only effective way to ensure implementation of the order is long-term monitoring with the support of the court,” says Gupta.
 =Other sections, rules, clauses=
@@ Line 156: / Line 174: @@
 Prima facie there is substance that the oversight mechanism to control media by govt may rob it of its independence and the fourth pillar of democracy may not be there at all. By way of abundant caution, sub-rules 1 and 3 of Rule 9 of the said IT rules of 2021 will remain stayed — MADRAS HC
 =Fact check unit=

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2024
Line 156:		Line 156:

	Prima facie there is substance that the oversight mechanism to control media by govt may rob it of its independence and the fourth pillar of democracy may not be there at all. By way of abundant caution, sub-rules 1 and 3 of Rule 9 of the said IT rules of 2021 will remain stayed — MADRAS HC		Prima facie there is substance that the oversight mechanism to control media by govt may rob it of its independence and the fourth pillar of democracy may not be there at all. By way of abundant caution, sub-rules 1 and 3 of Rule 9 of the said IT rules of 2021 will remain stayed — MADRAS HC
		+
		+	=Fact check unit=
		+	==Bombay calls it unconstitutional, strikes it down==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=21_09_2024_001_014_cap_TOI Swati Deshpande, Sep 21, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	Mumbai : Describing it as an infringement on the right to equality and freedom of speech, Bombay high court on Friday quashed the amended Information Technology rules enabling the Centre to set up its own fact check unit (FCU) and flag social media content about its functioning as ‘fake, false or misleading’.
		+
		+	Holding the FCU to be unconstitutional, Justice A S Chandurkar of the Bombay high court – who served as ‘tie-breaker judge’ after a division bench in Jan 2024 deli- vered a split verdict – described the expression, ‘fake, false and misleading’ as ‘vague and overbroad’.
		+
		+	“The FCU in a sense is an arbiter in its own cause,” said Justice Chandurkar, echoing the view of Justice Patel who had on Jan 31, 2024, struck down the rule as unconstitutional for its vagueness and disproportionality. Justice Patel had differed with Justice Neela Gokhale, on the twojudge bench that heard the matter and arrived at a split verdict, thus bringing it before a third judge.
		+
		+	Justice Chandurkar said the FCU rule would have “a chilling effect” on individuals as well as intermediaries; the new rule could have led to loss of ‘safe harbour’ against legal action for social media platforms if FCU-flagged content was not acted upon. The FCU rule is sans safeguards to prevent its abuse, said Justice Chandurkar, rejecting the Centre’s stand that making the FCU’s findings subject to a legal challenge was a safeguard.

	[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 26 September 2021
Line 135:		Line 135:

	A petition by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) raising an alarm over such cases is pending before the SC. A 2018 research paper by lawyers Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta found that despite the 2015 (Shreya Singhal) judgment police and trial courts continued to use the law due to a lack of an effective mechanism to communicate the illegality of the law. “The only effective way to ensure implementation of the order is long-term monitoring with the support of the court,” says Gupta.		A petition by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) raising an alarm over such cases is pending before the SC. A 2018 research paper by lawyers Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta found that despite the 2015 (Shreya Singhal) judgment police and trial courts continued to use the law due to a lack of an effective mechanism to communicate the illegality of the law. “The only effective way to ensure implementation of the order is long-term monitoring with the support of the court,” says Gupta.
		+
		+
		+	=Other sections, rules, clauses=
		+	==HC stays 2 clauses that might rob media of independence==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/09/17&entity=Ar00519&sk=2E1E92F8&mode=text Sureshkumar k, Sep 17, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	The Madras high court stayed the operation of the oversight mechanism brought in through the new Information Technology Act Rules by the Centre, saying it may rob the media of its independence.
		+
		+	The HC said this while passing an interim order staying the operation of Rule 9 (1) and (3) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
		+
		+	Pointing out that a similar order has also been passed by the Bombay high court, the Madras HC said: “Indeed, there may have been no need to pass an independent order. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that notwithstanding the order passed by the Bombay high court, which ought to have a pan India effect, notices have been issued to the petitioners subsequently requiring them to adhere to the rules”.
		+
		+	The issue pertains to two separate pleas moved by vocalist T M Krishna and Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) challenging the rules.
		+
		+	''' Petitioner says IT rules offend his right as artist, affect right to privacy '''
		+
		+	Rule 9 (1) of the new IT rules states a publisher shall observe and adhere to the code of ethics and norms of conduct for journalists under the Press Council guidelines and Cable TV Code. Rule 9 (3) relates to a threetier structure to deal with complaints against publishers. Level III of this structure is an oversight mechanism by the Centre, while level I and II are self-regulation by publishers and self-regulating bodies of publishers.
		+
		+	Petitioner TM Krishna contended that the rule is ultra vires the parent Act – the IT Act — besides imposing arbitrary, vague and unreasonable restrictions on digital news media and social media intermediaries. “The code of ethics contained in Part II of the rules is likely to create a chilling effect on speech, where creators of content will self-censor themselves and produce art that is acceptable to the state, rather than art which, otherwise legitimate, pushes the boundaries of societal, religious, political and cultural norms,” Krishna said. He added the rules offend his right as an artist and a cultural/political commentator by imposing a chilling effect on free speech and by impinging on his right to privacy. Another petitioner DNPA said two provisions of the rules offended the association. It particularly questioned the legality of Rule 16, which is an omnibus provision giving power to the secretary of the Union ministry of information and broadcasting to block public access to any digital information.
		+
		+	Prima facie there is substance that the oversight mechanism to control media by govt may rob it of its independence and the fourth pillar of democracy may not be there at all. By way of abundant caution, sub-rules 1 and 3 of Rule 9 of the said IT rules of 2021 will remain stayed — MADRAS HC

	[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 21 July 2021
Line 111:		Line 111:

	[In July 2021,] Appearing for PUCL, advocate Sanjay Parikh said Maharashtra, which had registered 349 cases prior to the judgment, registered 381 more FIRs invoking Section 66A. UP had registered just 22 cases before 2015, but its police went on to file 245 more cases after the judgment. Jharkhand had just 43 FIRs prior to the judgment but went on to register 291 FIRs after March 2015.		[In July 2021,] Appearing for PUCL, advocate Sanjay Parikh said Maharashtra, which had registered 349 cases prior to the judgment, registered 381 more FIRs invoking Section 66A. UP had registered just 22 cases before 2015, but its police went on to file 245 more cases after the judgment. Jharkhand had just 43 FIRs prior to the judgment but went on to register 291 FIRs after March 2015.
		+
		+	===…and in July 2021 as well===
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/07/18&entity=Ar01714&sk=A10AD510&mode=text Himanshi Dhawan, July 18, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: Top 3 states with highest cases pending under 66A , 2015-21.jpg\|Top 3 states with highest cases pending under 66A , 2015-21 <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/07/18&entity=Ar01714&sk=A10AD510&mode=text Himanshi Dhawan, July 18, 2021: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+	It’s been over a year since his Facebook post invited the ire of an unruly mob and his subsequent arrest, and Souradeep Sengupta’s world has completely changed. He has all but quit social media, resigned from his job as lecturer at a Silchar college and moved cities. “It was no longer safe for me to stay there,” he says.
		+
		+	The 27-year-old — who spent three days in prison in March 2020 for a post against PM Narendra Modi — is among the 745 cases pending before courts across the country where the accused had been charged under Section 66A of the Information Technology act, a ‘zombie law,’ struck down in 2015. This week the Supreme Court expressed shock at its continued use to prosecute people.
		+
		+	Following the apex court’s intervention, the Union home ministry issued orders not to register any more cases under 66A and withdraw the ones that have been lodged at police stations. It had earlier sent similar missives in 2019. It is no wonder that Sengupta is less than hopeful. “There is a gap between these orders and what is happening on the ground. The section had already been struck down when I was charged with it in March last year but yet my cases are ongoing. It is very frustrating,” he says.
		+
		+	A morphed picture, a WhatsApp forward, sometimes even a ‘like’ became an excuse to slap the dead law on people.
		+	For the people it was used against, the process became the punishment. In May 2019 Kolkata resident Priyanka Sharma, was arrested for morphing a picture of West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee on one of actor Priyanka Chopra, while in May 2017, 22-year-old Rahat Khan, was arrested in Dankaur by the Greater Noida police for posting a morphed picture of the UP CM.
		+
		+	Muzaffarnagar’s Zakir Ali Tyagi, who posted a comment on Facebook questioning the Uttarakhand High Court orders on the Ganga river being a living entity, was detained for 42 days in prison in April 2017. “The police dropped the 66A provision in my case and put charges of sedition after they were questioned on its validity. I only understood later I had suffered in prison because of a law that did not exist,” he says.
		+
		+	Hyderabad resident PM Sai Prasad too was charged with 66A for posting videos alleging that the local legislator had falsified personal information in his election affidavit and had encroached on land. Busy watching a latenight show of the Rajinikanth-starrer Petta in January 2019, Prasad was hauled to prison and remained in custody for three days. He continues to fight the case of defamation and criminal conspiracy though 66A was dropped by the police as an afterthought. Later, the Telangana High Court sought an explanation from the police on the use of the act.
		+
		+	Prasad, who is a BJP youth wing officebearer, has plans to pursue the matter legally till he is exonerated. “I have the privilege of legal and financial support but this law that does not exist continues to be used against people who are far less fortunate,” he says.
		+
		+	And though he has parted ways with many friends and relatives, Sengupta has not been cowed down. “I regret that my family and friends have been dragged into a battle they did not pick. But in taking a stand, I know that I am not an isolated case,” he says.
		+
		+	A petition by People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) raising an alarm over such cases is pending before the SC. A 2018 research paper by lawyers Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta found that despite the 2015 (Shreya Singhal) judgment police and trial courts continued to use the law due to a lack of an effective mechanism to communicate the illegality of the law. “The only effective way to ensure implementation of the order is long-term monitoring with the support of the court,” says Gupta.

	[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA		[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:44, 7 July 2021
Line 109:		Line 109:

	According to the tracker, 1,988 cases were registered under Section 66A of IT Act across 11 states. Out of this, 1,189 cases were disposed, including 236 with verdicts.		According to the tracker, 1,988 cases were registered under Section 66A of IT Act across 11 states. Out of this, 1,189 cases were disposed, including 236 with verdicts.
		+
		+	[In July 2021,] Appearing for PUCL, advocate Sanjay Parikh said Maharashtra, which had registered 349 cases prior to the judgment, registered 381 more FIRs invoking Section 66A. UP had registered just 22 cases before 2015, but its police went on to file 245 more cases after the judgment. Jharkhand had just 43 FIRs prior to the judgment but went on to register 291 FIRs after March 2015.
		+
		+	[[Category:Crime\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
		+	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Government\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
		+	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
		+	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
		+	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
		+	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:S&T\|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIAINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
		+	INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]

	=Punitive action taken=		=Punitive action taken=

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 According to the tracker, 1,988 cases were registered under Section 66A of IT Act across 11 states. Out of this, 1,189 cases were disposed, including 236 with verdicts.
 =Punitive action taken=
 == URLs blocked: 2016> 19==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2019/11/21&entity=Ar01215&sk=2CE11DD0&mode=text  Anam Ajmal, Nov 21, 2019: ''The Times of India'']

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {| Class="wikitable"
 |-
@@ Line 7: / Line 6: @@
 |}
-[[Category:India |F ]]
-[[Category:Government |F ]]
-[[Category:Law |F ]]
-[[Category:Crime |F ]]
-[[Category:S&T |F ]]
 =Section 66A=
@@ Line 111: / Line 110: @@
 According to the tracker, 1,988 cases were registered under Section 66A of IT Act across 11 states. Out of this, 1,189 cases were disposed, including 236 with verdicts.
-[[Category:Crime|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
+=Punitive action taken=
-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
+== URLs blocked: 2016> 19==
-[[Category:Government|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
+[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2019/11/21&entity=Ar01215&sk=2CE11DD0&mode=text  Anam Ajmal, Nov 21, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
+There has been a 442% rise in the number of URLs blocked in India in 2019, compared to three years ago, a reply by ministry of information and technology in the Lok Sabha showed.
-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
+The government also clarified that there is no proposal to link Aadhaar with social media accounts. The linkage is a contentious subject currently heard in the Supreme Court.
-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
+According to the reply, while the government had blocked 633 URLs in 2016, the number climbed up to 3,433 in 2019 (till October 31), a jump of 442%.
-[[Category:S&T|F INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA
-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT: INDIA]]
+The question was raised by Congress MP Jothimani S from Tamil Nadu who had also asked IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad details of the removal of “objectionable online content posted on social media.”
 =See also=
@@ Line 126: / Line 131: @@
 [[Sedition and the law: India]]

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 “The challenge before the country now is the discretion provided to police in registering a case under IPC provisions branding a statement offensive under IPC Sections 153 and 505. The distinction between a pure free speech from offensive statements by the police is the challenge. It's this discretion with police that is often misused,“ he said.
 =See also=
 [[Freedom of speech: India]]
 [[Sedition and the law: India]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:17, 25 January 2018
Line 87:		Line 87:

	“The challenge before the country now is the discretion provided to police in registering a case under IPC provisions branding a statement offensive under IPC Sections 153 and 505. The distinction between a pure free speech from offensive statements by the police is the challenge. It's this discretion with police that is often misused,“ he said.		“The challenge before the country now is the discretion provided to police in registering a case under IPC provisions branding a statement offensive under IPC Sections 153 and 505. The distinction between a pure free speech from offensive statements by the police is the challenge. It's this discretion with police that is often misused,“ he said.
		+	=See also=
		+	[[Freedom of speech: India]]
		+
		+	[[Sedition and the law: India]]