Constitutional Law I

The InternetandtheRoleoftheCourts
Vidit Harsulkar
2015-021
Roll No.: 20

Table of Contents
Chapter I

Introduction

Chapter I.I

The Internet and the Role of Courts

Chapter I.II

TheEarlyInternetandJudicial

Chapter I.III

Perceptions
PrivateActorsandPublicInterest

10

Chapter I.IV

ShreyaSinghalandConstitutionalizing

14

theInternet
1

Chapter II

StudyingtheInternetDiscoursein

15

Chapter II.I

IndiathroughthePrismofRights
Section66AandFreedomofSpeech

17

Chapter II.II

andExpression
NetNeutralityandInternetAccess

18

Chapter II.III

Issue
RighttobeForgotteninEUand

19

Chapter II.IV

RepercussionsinIndia
InternetDiscourseinIndiaand

20

Chapter II.V

HumanRights
WayForward

22

Chapter II.VI

EmphasizingtheRightto

23

CommunicationinIndia
Endnotes

24

ChapterI-Introduction
OnthefourteenthofAugust,1995,theeveofthe48thanniversaryofIndianIndependence,
Indiastartedanother,andentirelyunforeseentrystwithpredetermination-VideshSanchar
NigamLimited(VSNL)dispatchedIndia'sfirstfullInternetadministrationforcommunity[1].
In1998,onlyacoupleofyearsafterVSNLpresenteddial-upInternet,around0.5%ofIndia's
populationhadInternetaccess.By2013,themostrecentevaluation,15%ofthenationwas
associatedwiththeInternet,andthenumberisincreasingexponentially[2].Astheimpactof
theInternetdeveloped,thelawandthecourtsstartedtopayheed.In1998,therewerefour
noticeoftheInternetintheJudiciary(theHighCourtsinStatesandtheSupremeCourtof
India),by2015,itwasalludedtoinmanyjudgementsandrequestsofthehighercourts[3].

TherevolutionarycapacityoftheInternetcannotbeunderstated.Ithasplayedacriticalpartin
displacing,creatingandenhancingsocialstructuresandinstitutionsfromthemarket,toideas
ofcommunityanditspotentialstillremainsunexplored.TheInternethasalsounsettledlegal
systemsaroundtheworld,becauseofitsmassivepotentialtocreateverynewformsofsocial
andlegalrelationshipsandparadigmswhichextantlawwasunequippedfor.Thedynamismof
theInternetmeansthatlegislationandstatutorylaw,beingstaticandrigid,isinherentlyill
suitedforthegovernanceoftheInternet,andmuchofthisroleisultimatelycededtothe
judiciary.Inawidelyunregulatedpolicybackground,theroleplayedbythisinstitutionin
identifyinganddealingwiththepeculiarnatureofregulatoryissuesontheInternetsuchas
thecentralroleofintermediaries,thechallengesofintellectualpropertyrightsconcerns,the
conflictsoflawbetweendifferentjurisdictions,andthecourtsownroleinbeingaregulator
istremendouslyimportant.Inthisarticle,anattemptismadetoweaveathreadthroughjudicial
decisionsaswellasjudicialobiter(orperipheraltext)regardingtheInternet,toexplainhow
thejudiciaryhascapturedanddefinedtheInternetanditscapacities,potentialsandactors,and
whateffectsthishasontheInternetandonsociety.Interalia,thisarticleexamineshow
judicialdisputeshaveshapedinternetpolicyinIndia.

ChapterI.I-TheInternetandtheRoleoftheCourts
Therelationshipbetweenthelawandtechnologyisreminiscentofthefamousparadoxposed
bythegreekphilosopherZenoAchillesandatortoiseagreetorace.Thetortoisehasahead
start,and,bythelogicoftheparadox,Achillesisneverabletocatchuptohim.Everytime
Achillescoversthedistancebetweenhimselfandthetortoiseatanypoint,thetortoisehas
movedaheadsomedistance,whichneedtobecoveredonceagain.AsAchillescoversthat
distance,thetortoisehasonceagainmovedadistanceaway,andsoon,toinfiniteprogression,
provingthatAchillescannevercatchuptothetortoise[4].

ThelegalregulationoftheInternetfollowsasimilarpath.TheInternetwasnotanimmediate
concernforlawandpolicy,whichmeantthatitsevolutionwaslargelydeterminedinaspace
freefromcentralizedgovernmentalregulation.Bythetimeparliamentsandcourtsbeganto
understandtheimplicationsofInternetregulation,itwasapparentthatsuchregulationwould
beconstrainedbytheveryfeaturesoftheInternet.ThecorefeatureoftheInternetis
decentralizationofcontrol,whichisnecessarilyantitheticaltocreatingacentralizedlegal
regulationwith.Moreover,theconstantmutationinthefunctionanduseofthetechnology
rendersstatutorylawincrediblyineffectiveinbeinganadequateregulator.Evenwhere
legislaturesdeterminedaneedtostepinanddrawspecialregulationsfortheInternet,they
needtobeeithersobroadorvaguethattheycedemuchoftheregulatoryspaceto
interpretersthecourtsorbesospecificthatmuchoftheregulationquicklybecomes
obsolete.Mostimportantly,thefinalauthoritytodeterminemattersofconstitutionalimport
suchasthecontentandscopeoffundamentalrightsrestswiththehigherjudiciary.Inthis
scenario,thecourtsbecomethedefactopolicymakersforregulatingtechnology.Inlightof
ourcurrentpoliticalandsocialcontext,wheretheleveloflegislativedebateonissuesof
publicimportanceandconstitutionalimportisnegligible,thejudiciarysanalysisofInternet
regulationbecomesevenmoreimportant[5].
ThejudiciaryisthusinauniquepositiontodecideInternetpolicyandgovernance.The
preliminaryquestioniswhetherthereisevenaneedtotalkabouttheInternetasaspecial
systemwithdistinctpolicyconcerns.TheregulationoftheInternetiscertainlyfundamentalto
thedevelopmentofknowledgeandeducationinsocieties,butdoitsuniquefeaturesmerita
departurefromtraditionallaw?Thesecondandconnectedquestioniswhetherthelawcan
actuallyplayaroleindetermininghowtheInternetisshaped,i.e.howdoestechnology
respondtothelaw?Thearchitectureofthesystemthatdefinesthefunctionalityofthe
InternetliketheTCP/IPprotocolhasembodiedcertainvaluessuchasdecentralization,
autonomy,opennessandprivacy[6],whichhavetoalargeextentunderlinedthesocialand
ethicalimplicationsoftheInternetthewayitisused,thewayitfunctionsandthewayit
grows.Thesewerethevaluesexplicitlyintroducedintothesystemsweusetodayto
communicateandinteractontheInternet[7].However,thereisnoapriori,fixednatureof
theInternet.TheformthetechnologiesthatmakeuptheInternettake,dependuponits
4

architectureanditsdesign,whicharemalleable,andtowhichlawscontributebyincentivizing
certainvaluesandencumberingothers.ThelegalregulationoftheInternet,therefore
criticallyaffectsthearchitectureofthesystem,andpromotesandsecurescertainvalues.
RecognizingtheeffectoflawuponthearchitectureoftheInternetiscriticaltoanybalancing
exercisethatthejudiciaryhastoconductwhenitdecidesdisputesabouttheInternet.The
Internetisauniquepublicresource,inthatitsparticipantsare(mostly)privateactorspursuinga
vareityofgoalsandinterests.Thevaluesoutlinedaboveemergedinthiscontext,where
controlwasdecetnralizedandregulationdependedtoalargeextentuponhowthesedisparate
partiesact.However,thesamevaluesalsodisturbexistingstructurestocontrolinformationfor
legitimatecauses-suchasprotectingintellectualpropertyrightsorpreventinghatespeech.
Adjudicatingthesevalues,oftenintheabsenceofanyexplicitsocialorpoliticalmoral
framework(withrespecttolackoflegislativeorconstitutionalguidanceonthesevalues),the
judicialresponsesendupaspolicydirectionsthatshapetheInternet.Seenoutsideabroader,
progressivesocialcontext,whichtakesintoaccounttheimpactofshapingtechnologiesto
reflectvalues,interestsontheInternetaregenerallyadjudicatedandenforcedasproprietary
rightsbetweenprivateactors,whichultimatelyresultsinchangingthedynamicsandrelative
distributionofcontroloverthetechnologiesthatmakeuptheInternet.Thisproprietory
conceptionofinterestsontheInternetishighlyinsular,andtendstounderminetheinterstsof
thepublicasastakeholderintheregulationoftheInternet.Thiscanplayoutinmanyways
fromregulationbeingoverwhelminglydeterminedaccordingtoprivateinterestslike
restrictingnewtechnologiesinordertoprotectintellectualproperty;orwithprivateactors
imputedasthefocalpointofregulation,andthereforegivenmassivecontroloverthe
Internet.However,thecourtscantakeadifferentapproachtoregulatingtheInternet.The
judiciary,especiallytheIndianSupremeCourt,hasagenerallyactivisttrend,especiallyin
environmentalmatters[8].Oneofthemostelegantprinciplesinvokedbythecourtsforthe
protectionofthecommonenvironment,hasbeenthepublictrustdoctrine,whichpostulates
thatcertain(environmental)resourcesexistforthepublicbenefitandcanonlybeeroded
upontoensurethattheydevelopinthemostbeneficialwayforthecommonresources[9].A
commonsapproachtotheInternetwouldrequireacomprehensiveevaluationoftheroles
playedbydifferentactorsacrossdifferentlayersoftheInternetandhowtoregulatethem
5

[10],butwouldbeprincipallysimilar,inthatrulesofprivatepropertywouldbeconstrainedby
potentialspillovereffectsonintellectualinformationresources.
AsapreludetoexaminingthejudicialanalysisoftheInternet,itisinterestingtoexaminethe
judiciarysownperceptionofitsroleinInternetregulation.Courtsareconstrainedintheir
exerciseofpowerbyrulesofjurisdiction,whichbecomeincrediblyconvolutedonthe
Internet.Abroadassertionofstatepoweroverthenetcanpotentiallyfragmentit,whichisan
obviousproblem.Atthesametime,statesovereigntyandprotectionoftheinterestsofits
citizensandlawshastobebalancedwiththeaboveconcerns[11].ThejudiciaryinIndiafirst
attemptedtograpplewiththeproblembyexercisinguniversaljurisdictionoverallactionson
theInternet,whichallowedtheCourttoclaimjurisdictionoveradefendantaslongasthe
websiteorservicecouldbeaccessedfromwithinitsjurisdiction[12].Thisbroad-reaching
standardwasantitheticaltothedevelopmentofaharmonized,unfragmentedInternetand
createdproblemsofjurisdictionalandsovereignconflict.Astheimplicationsofsucha
directionbecameclear,thecourtevolveddifferentstandardsforjurisdictionwhichwere
basedonwhethertheInternetservicehadsomeconnectionwiththeterritorialjurisdictionof
thecourtinquestion.Thejudiciarybegantodevelopcautioninitsapproachtowardsexercising
personaljurisdictioninInternetcases,firstapplyingtheinteractivitytestandthenthe
specifictargetingstandardsforquestionsofjurisdiction[13].However,thejudiciary
continuestoadheretoalong-armstandardforcopyrightandtrademarkviolations,which
allowsittoextenditsjurisdictionextra-territoriallyunderthoselaws,throughratherspecious
analogieswithpre-internettechnologies.Forexample,inWWEvReshma[14],theCourt
explicitlyanalogizedsaleofservicesorgoodsontheInternetwithcontractsconcludedover
thetelephone.Althoughanalogiesprovideacomfortableframeworkforanalysis,theyalso
shieldimportantdistinctionsbetweentechnologiesfromlegalanalysis.Problemsarisingfrom
Internetcaseswheremanyactorsacrossmanyjurisdictionsareinvolvedinvaryingdegrees
areuniquetoInternettechnologiesandsuchanalogiesignoretheseimportantdistinctions.
Morever,inalltheabovecases,thejudiciarysassertionsofpowerovertheInternetseemsto
berestrictedonlybypragmaticregulatoryconcerns(suchaswhetherpersonalobedienceof
thedefendantcanbesecured)anditsevolvingunderstandingofquestionsofjurisdictionare

explicitlylinkedtochangesintheuseandperceptionoftheInternetandanunderstandingof
interactivityandcommunicationontheInternet.

ChapterI.II-TheEarlyInternetandJudicialPerceptions
TheInternetcreptintothejudicialvocabularyin1996;ayearafterpublicaccesswasmade
available,whentheSupremeCourtfirsttookcognizanceofInternetasameansof
7

interlinkingcountriesandgatheringinformationinstantaneously[15].Severalothercasesin
theHighCourtsalsospokeoftheInformationHighway[16]andthevariousservicesthat
companieswereoffering,whichcouldbeavailedbyindividualsontheInternet[17].This
correspondedwiththepopularunderstandingofthefirstwaveoftheInternet,mostly
relatingtobusinessprovidingservicesandinformationtousersontheWorldWideWeborasa
spaceforlimitedpersonalinteraction(suchasthroughemail)[18].
SomeoftheearliestcaseswheretheCourtshadtheopportunitytoexaminethenatureofthe
InternetwererelatedtoIntellectualPropertyontheInternet,specificallytrademarkand
copyrightintheonlineworld.TheDomainNameSystem,whichservetoidentifydevices
accessibleontheInternet,wasoneofthefirstregulatorychallengesontheInternet.Domain
namedisputeswereunprecedentedintheanalogworldofintellectualproperty,sincedomain
nameswereuniquelyscarcegoodsduetothelimitationsoftheDNStechnology.InIndia,the
DelhiHighCourtinthecaseofYahoovAkashArorafirsttookcognizanceofregulatory
challengesoftheDNSsystemontheInternet,aspacewhichitconceptualizedasalarge
publicnetworkofcomputers,andheldthatdomainnamesservethesamefunctionsonthe
Internetastrademarks.ThiscasesawtherecognitionoftheInternetasaseparate,regulable
space,whichtheCourtdefinedasaglobalcollectionofcomputernetworkslinkingmillionsof
publicandprivatecomputersaroundtheworld.TheCourtrecognizedsomeofthecore,
democraticfeaturesoftheInternet:TheInternetisnowrecognizedasaninternational
system,acommunicationmediumthatallowsanyonefromanypartofthelobewithaccessto
theInternettofreelyexchangeinformationandsharedata.Inthiscase,theCourtupheld
traditionaltrademarkrightsinthecaseofuseofdomainnames.TheCourtsfirstrecognitionof
trademarkontheInternetheraldedtheimputationofproprietaryinterestsonthe
decentralized,sharednetworkthatwastheInternet,andwasaprecursortothemanysuch
cases,whichmostlyfocusedonprivatecommercialconcerns.EvenastheCourtunderstood
theimportanceoftheInternetcommons,i.e.theinformationandarchitecturethatmakesup
theInternet,itchosetoignoreconcernsofpublicinterestintheopennessofthosecommons,
initsbalancingofproprietaryrightsfortrademarkcases.Thecommercialsignificanceofthe
InternetwasechoedintheRediffcase,wheretheBombayHighCourtopinedthat
UndoubtedlytheInternetisoneoftheimportantfeaturesoftheInformationRevolution.Itis
8

increasinglyusedbycommercialorganisationstopromotethemselvesandtheirproductand
insomecasestobuyandsell[19].Moreover,intheseearlycases,thelawoftheanalogage
wasappliedwholesaletotheInternet,withoutexaminingin-depththepossibledifferencesin
principleandapproach,providingnoprecedentforthedevelopmentofaninternetlaw[20].
OverlyfocussedontheproprietarynatureofInternetinterests,theconceptionoftheInternet
asanon-commercialspaceforcollaborationatadecentralizedoranindividuallevelisabsent
fromthejudicialvocabularyatthisstage.

ChapterI.III-PrivateActorsandPublicInterest
9

TheInternetpermitsdecentralizationinthehandsofseveralprivateactors,whichmakes
controlofinformationoveritsodifficult.However,theinformationandtechnologythatmakes
uptheInternetarealsohighlycentralizedatcertainnodalpoints,suchastheserviceswhich
providethephysicalinfrastructureoftheInternet(likeISPs)orintermediarieswhichcreate
platformsfordistributionofinformation.SincetheInternethasnocentralizedarchitectureto
enablegovernmentalcontrol,theseprivateintermediariesfallsquarelyinthecrosshairsof
regulatoryconcerns,specificallyconcerningtheirliabilityasfacilitatorsofoffensiveorillegal
contentandactions.Facebook,Ebay,Twitter,Myspace,YouTubeandGoogleareexamplesof
privateactorsthathaveemergedasdominantserviceprovidersthathost,indexorotherwise
facilitateaccesstouser-generatedcontent.Otherformsofintermediaries,suchassoftware
likeNapsterortorrentdatabaseslikeThePirateBay,areresponsiblefordrivingthegrowthof
Internet-basedtechnologies,likenewmodesofinformationsharingandcommunication.
Theseserviceshaveemergedasthemostimportantplatformforsharingofinformationand
freespeechontheInternet.MostoftheinteractionandcommunicationontheInternettakes
placethroughtheseintermediariesandthereforetheyareinapositiontocontrolmuchofthe
speechthattakesplaceonline.Theimplicationsofregulatingsuchactorsarequiteenormous,
anditscontextisuniquetotheInternet.Theseprivateactorsnowcontrolthebulkofthe
informationthatissharedonline,andmanyofthemhavealmostmonopolisticcontrolover
certainuniqueformsofinformationsharingthinkGoogleinthecaseofsearchengines.
Developinganadequateregulatorymechanismforthemisthereforecriticaltothefutureof
thenet.Ifthelawsdonotadequatelyprotecttheirabilitytohostcontentwithoutbeingliable
forthesame,itislikelythattheseactorswillleantowardscollateralcensorshipofspeech
beyondthatwhichisprohibitedbylaw,simplytoprotectagainstliability.Secondly,such
liabilitywouldtendtodisincentivisethecreationofnewplatformsandservicesthatincrease
accesstoknowledge,whichhavebeenintegraltoinnovationontheInternet[21].Theissue
ofintermediaryliabilityatthisscaleisuniquetotheInternet.Thecourthastoadequately
framepolicyconsiderationswhichstrikeatthefundamentalnatureoftheInternet,suchas
intellectualpropertyandaccesstoinformation.Atthesametime,concernsaboutlegal
accountabilityneedtoalsobeaddressed.Theapproachthatcourtshavetakentowardstherole
ofintermediariesisthereforecriticaltowardsanyexaminationofInternetregulation[22].

10

InIndia,thefirstcourttoexplicitlyexaminethepublicimportanceinissuesofonline
intermediaryliabilitywasinthecontextofregulationofpornography,specificallychild
pornography,whichhasbeenamainstayofregulatoryconcernsontheInternet.Thecase
promptedlegislativeactionintheformofcreatingrulestosecureintermediaryimmunity.In
thiscasetheCourtimputedliabilityforthelistingsofcertainoffensivecontentuponthe
ownersofthewebsite,Bazzee.com.Hardcasesmakebadlaw,andthesamewastrueofthis
case.ReferringtothechallengesofregulatingcontentontheInternet,duetotheinabilityof
methodstoscreenandfiltersuchcontent,theCourtheldthatintermediariesmustbestrictly
liableforalloffensivecontentontheirsite.TheCourtheldthat:
Theproliferationoftheinternetandthepossibilityofawidespreadusethroughinstant
transmissionofpornographicmaterial,callsforastrictstandardhavingtobeinsistedupon.
Ownersoroperatorsofwebsitesthatofferspaceforlistingsmighthavetoemploycontent
filtersiftheywanttoprovethattheydidnotknowinglypermittheuseoftheirwebsiteforsale
ofpornographicmaterialevenifforsomereasonthefiltersfail,thepresumptionthatthe
ownerofthewebsitehadtheknowledgethattheproductbeingofferedforsalewasobscene
wouldgetattracted.
Intermediaries,therefore,wereimputedwiththeliabilityofcontrollingobscenespeecha
vagueandover-broadstandardwhichdidnotaccountfortherealitiesofonlinespeech[23].
Theaboveanalysisreflectsthejudiciarysrefusaltotakeintoaccountthetechnicalconcerns
ontheInternetwhichultimatelyshapeitsarchitectureandthelimitationsofthejudiciaryin
reflectingupontheirownroleinpolicymakingontheinternet.Ultimately,thedecisionwas
overturnedbyalegislativeact,whichinvokeddifferentstandardsofliabilityfor
intermediaries.
InConsimInfoPvt.LtdvsGoogleIndiaPvt.Ltd[24],theMadrasHighCourtconsidered
KeywordAdvertisingandtheliabilityofsearchenginesandcompetitorsformeta-tagsthat
resultedinsearchengineresultswhichmaydivertatrademarkholderstraffic.Googles
AdWordprogramme,whichallowspurchaseofcertainkeywordsforthesearchengine
results,andcanpotentiallyenablecertainformsoftrademarkinfringement,wasatissue[25].
TrademarksasAdWordsorsearchtermsfulfilandimportantsocialutilityofinformationaccess
11

[26].However,theCourtsreasoningwasconspicuouslymissingananalysisofthepublic
interestinprotectingandpromotingsearchengines,whichwereimportantconcernstakeninto
accountwhentheseissuesweredeliberatedinotherforums[27].TheCourtsawthisdispute
onlytakingintoaccountprivatepropertyinterestsandnotpublicinterestconsiderations,such
asthegeneralpublicbenefitoftechnologywhichenablesnewformsofsearchingand
indexing.Infact,anargumentbythedefendantbasedonthefundamentalrighttofree
(commercial)speechwasraisedandignoredbythecourt.TheCourtthereforeignoredthe
publicimportanceofsearchenginesinfavourofprotectingproprietaryinterestswhicharosein
adifferentcontext.
CopyrightlawalsohastremendousimplicationsontheInternet.AstheInternetbecamethe
primarymodeforthedistributionofdifferentkindsofinformationandcreativecontent,the
veryeaseofsharingthatcontributedtoitspopularitymadeitpronetoviolationsofcopyright,
andthiscreatedaconflictbetweentheinterestsoftraditionalrightsholdersandthe
developmentoftheInternetasameansofbettersharingofinformationandknowledge.The
problemofholdingintermediariesliableforconducthasbeencompoundedincaseswhere
theCourtorderedex-parteJohnDoeordersagainstunknowndefendantslikelytobe
infringingcopyright,andimputedtheliabilityforremovalofsuchcontentonthe
intermediariesorISPs,effectivelyissuingwideblockingorderswithoutconsideringtheir
implicationsorevenprovidingafairhearing[28].InRKProductions[29],forinstance,when
holdingthatISPscouldbeliableforfailuretofollowblockingordersagainstinfringingcontent,
theMadrasHighCourtdescribedtheroleofISPs,suchasAirtelandVSNL,asvesselsfor
otherstousetheirservicestoinfringethirdpartyworks.Onceagain,thecourttooka
particularlypessimisticviewoftheInternetscapabilities,limitingitsanalysistotheISPs
functioninfacilitatinginfringementandholdingthatWithouttheISPs,nopersonwouldbeina
positiontoaccessthepiratedcontentsnorwouldtheunknownpersonsbeinapositionto
uploadthepiratedversionofthefilm.InMyspace,theDelhiHighCourtheldthatnodifferent
standardforsecondaryinfringement(byintermediaries)appliedontheInternet,andimputed
thesamestandardasinthe1957CopyrightAct.(Infact,itexplicitlycomparedMyspaceto
brickandmortarshopssellinginfringingDVDsorCDs)[30].TheCourtheldthatthe
principlesofimmunityundertheITActwereoverriddenbytheprovisionsoftheCopyright
12

Act,andthenwentontoimputeastrictstandardforintermediariesseekingsafeharborfor
infringingmaterial,including,inexplicably,thatprovisionofsomemeanstotackle
infringementwouldbesufficientproofofknowledgeofactualinfringement,andtherefore
implicatingmerepassiveplatformsasinfringers.Further,theCourtexpresslyrejectedaposthocsolutionforthesame,andheldthattheintermediariesmustensurepriorrestraintof
infringingworkstoescapeliability.Theclaimsthatariseincasesofinfringementof
intellectualpropertyontheInternet,specificallyintheliabilityofintermediaries,areunique,
andhaveuniqueimplications.Theinabilityorrefusalofthejudiciarytoidentifyclaimsof
freedomofspeechandfreedomofinformationofthelargerpublicwithintheinternet
commons,inresponsetobroadcensorshipordersforpreventinginfringementmeansthat
implicitly,policytakesadirectionthatfavoursprivateinterests.
Ananalysisoftheabovecasesshowsthatimportantimplicationsofintermediaryliabilitysuch
astheeffectonthepublicsaccesstoinformationandthefreedomofspeechinthecontextof
theInternetdidnotplayaroleintheCourtsdecisions.Inparticular,theexaminationofcases
aboveshowsthatprivatedisputesarenowattheforefrontofissuesofpublicimportance.The
Courtshaveunfortunatelytakenaninsularviewofthesedisputes,adjudicatingthemasinterparty,withoutconsideringthepublicfunctionthatprivateplayersontheInternetprovide,and
howtheirdecisionsshouldfactorintheseconsiderations.
However,therecentcaseofShreyaSinghalvUnionofIndia[31],decidedbytheSupreme
CourtthisMarch,hopefullyannouncesadeparturefromthisinsularexaminationofthe
Internettowardsaconstitutionalanalysis,whereframinganappropriatepublicpolicyforthe
InternetisattheforefrontoftheCourtsanalysis.

13

ChapterI.IV-ShreyaSinghalandConstitutionalizingtheInternet
InMarch,2015,theSupremeCourtofIndiastruckdownthenotoriouslyabusedSection66Aof
theInformationTechnologyAct,whichcriminalizedcertainclassesofspeech,andhopefully
heraldedanewphaseofInternetjurisprudenceinIndia,whichimportsconstitutionalisminto
mattersofcyberspace.Section66A,premisedonthepervasivenessoftheInternet,
criminalizedonlinespeechonvaguegroundssuchasgrosslyoffensiveormenacing.The
CourtsexaminationofthenatureoftheInternetisparticularlyimportant.Whiledismissinga
challengethatspeechontheInternetshouldnotbetreatedasdistinctfromotherspeech,the
SupremeCourtopinedthattheinternetgivesanyindividualaplatformwhichrequiresvery
littleornopaymentthroughwhichtoairhisviews,andbythisreasoningconcludedthattoa
limitedextent,specificoffencescouldbedrawnforonlinespeech.However,this
understandingofthefeaturesoftheInternetthedemocratizationofknowledgesharingby
makingitcheapandexpansive,wasimplicitthroughouttheCourtsjudgement,whichupheld
theideaoftheInternetasamarketplaceofideasandaspaceforfreeanddemocratic
exchange,andstruckdowntheimpugnedrestrictiveprovisionsasunconstitutional,inpart
becauseoftheirvaguenessandlikelihoodtocensorlegitimatespeech,bearingnorelationto
theconstitutionalrestrictionsonfreespeechunderArticle19(2).Moreover,theCourt
understoodtheimportanceofcollateralcensorshipandintermediarysafeharbor,althoughonly
brieflyexamined,andreaddownexpansiveintermediaryliabilitytermsundertheITRules
toincludepriorjudicialreviewoftakedownnotices[32].
Hopefully,theShreyaSinghaljudgementmarksthebeginningofconstitutionalengagement
ofthejudiciarywiththeInternet.Atthismomentitself,theSupremeCourtisgrapplingwith
questionsoflimitationsofonlinepornography[33];searchengineliabilityforhatespeech
14

[34];intermediaryliabilityfordefamation[35];andliabilityformasssurveillance.Howthe
SupremeCourttakescognizanceofthesecases,howtheyultimatelyproceed,andhowthey
takeintoaccounttheprinciplessoundedbytheShreyaSinghalcourt,willhaveatremendous
impactontheinternetandsocietyinIndia.

ChapterII-StudyingtheInternetDiscourseinIndiathroughthePrismof
Rights
Introduction
ThesignificanceofInternetasanimportantelementandtoolinday-to-daylifeofmankindis
anestablishedexperientialfact.TheintrinsicvaluethatInternetbringstoourliveshas
transformedtheaccesstoInternetasanecessity.Internetsintrinsicvalueactsanenabling
toolforinformation,communicationandcommercetobeeffectivelyandexpeditiouslycarried
forward.ItistoduetothisenormousintrinsicvalueattachedwithInternetthatthereisan
emergingtrendofexploringInternetfromtheperspectiveofhumanrights.Moreover,
Internetasamediumalsohelpsinfurtheranceofhumanrights[1].Socialmovementshave
attainedanewleaseoflifewiththedigitalactivismoverInternet.Arabspringisanepitomeof
thisphenomenon.
Thereisanemergingpositivetrendoflinkingestablishednormsofhumanrightswith
Internet.TheReportoftheSpecialRapporteurontherighttofreedomofopinionand
expressionhasvividlyexplainedthepossibilityandfeasibilityofextendingandextrapolating
therightoffreedomofopinionandexpressiontoInternetmedium(Article19oftheUDHR
andtheICCPR)[2].TheSpecialRapporteuralsohighlightstheneedtohaveaccessto
Internetforeffectiveenjoymentofrighttofreedomofopinionandexpressioninthedigital
sphere.TheUNHighCommissioneronHumanRightsreportonTheRightToPrivacyInThe
DigitalAgealsoexplicitlyhighlightsthesignificanceofprotectingtherighttoprivacyinthe
internetmediuminlightofextensivesurveillanceandtheinterceptionofdigital
15

communicationsandthecollectionofpersonaldata[3].Theextensiveinterceptionand
blockingoftheonlinecommunicationisalsoapertinentreason,whichcallsforhumanright
protectiontobeextendedtoInternet.
TheWSISDeclarationforBuildingofInformationSociety[4]andtheCharterofHumanRights
andPrinciplesfortheInternet[5]alsohaveplayedasignificantroleinfurtheringtheinterlinkagebetweenhumanrightsandInternet.
TheInternetandhumanrightspolicydevelopmentshavegatheredsignificantrelevancein
internationalhumanrightslawandInternetpolicyfora.Butitisinterestingtonotethatthe
Indiangovernmentandstateinstitutionalmechanismshavenotyetpro-activelyaccepted
relevanceofapplyinghumanrightsnormtotheInternetmediuminIndia.
AsanessayintheStudyingInternetseries,itisimportanttohighlighthowhumanrightsactsas
underlyingfactorsinmanysocio-politicalissuespertainingtoInternetinIndia.Analysisof
theseissueshelpsustounderstandthat,eventhoughtheIndianstateturnsablindeyetothe
humanrightselementinthevarioussocio-politicalissuesrelatingtoInternet,thedigitally
consciousIndianshaverealizedtheirrightsandevenfoughttheirownbattleforexercising
theirrights.
Inrecentyears,theInternetdiscourseinIndiahaswitnessedmanysocio-politicalconcerns.
Thisessaywouldbeexploringthepertinentsocio-politicalissuesinIndiancontextandthe
underlyinglinktohumanrightsthread.Globally,exploringInternetfromtheperspectiveof
humanrightsbringsoutmultitudeofissues,whichrequiresapplicationofestablishedhuman
rightsnormsofrighttoprivacy,freedomofexpression,access.ThestoryinIndiaisno
different.Inthisregard,threesocio-politicalissuesrelatingtoInternet,whichgainedmuch
attentioninIndiaroughlyinlastoneyear,arebeinganalyzed.Interestingly,allthreeissues
haveanunderlyingthreadofhumanrightperspectiveconnectingthemandneedpertinent
deliberationfromhumanrightsperspective.

16

ChapterII.I-Section66AandFreedomofSpeechandExpression
ThelackoffreedomofexpressiononInternetandSection66AofInformationTechnology
Act,2000isaninterestingcasestudy.IndiangovernmentusedSection66Aasatoolfor
extensivesurveillanceandhadtakencriminallegalactionagainsttheInternetandsocial
mediausersforpostingtheoffensivecommentsandposts.ButSection66Awasbadlydrafted
allowingthegovernmenttoinitiatecriminallegalactioninanarbitraryandwhimsicalmanner.
Thussuchaprovisioncouldbemisusedbythestateforcurbingthefreedomofexpressionin
theInternetsphere.TherampantusageoftheIndianstatemachineryofSection66Ahadled
tosharpreactionamongsttheInternetandsocialmediausersinIndia.Thevaguenessin
languageandunconstitutionalityofSection66Awerecriticizedbylegalexperts.Theactionof
statemachineryinarrestingacartoonist,aprofessorandtwogirlsinMaharashtra[6](andmany
others)forcommentsandpostonsocialmediaagainstpoliticians,hadmadeitevidentthelack
ofrespectforfreedomforspeechandexpressiononInternetbytheIndianstatemachinery
(Mostoftheseincidentstookplaceduringtheyear2012).Theseincidentsledtowidespread
protestforviolationofhumanrighttofreedomofspeechandexpressionbythedigitalmedia
users.WhenthePublicInterestLitigation[7]filedbyShreyaSinghalledtotheSupreme
CourtstrikingdowntheSection66Aon24thMarch,2015forlackofdueprocessbeing
followed,itwasawatershedmomentforinternetdiscourseinIndia.Thesignificanceof
humanrights(especiallythefreedomofspeechandexpression)intheInternetmediumgot
asserted.
17

ChapterII.II-NetNeutralityandInternetAccessIssue
TherecentnetneutralitydebateinIndiahasalsoevokeddeliberationabouttherightofequal
accesstoInternetandtheneedtomaintainInternetasademocraticspace.Thenetneutrality
debateonkeepingInternetademocraticspacethatisequallyaccessibletoeveryonehasgot
muchvogueinIndia.Animportantpointthatneedstobeemphasizedinthedebateregarding
netneutralityinIndiaistheequalaccessquestionbeingraised.Theequalaccessquestionis
moreaproductofthelackofregulatoryclarityregardingTRAIs(TelecomRegulatory
AuthorityofIndia)capacitytoregulatetheOver-thetop(OTT)services;coupledwiththelack
ofwellstipulatedrighttointernetaccessintheIndiancontext.
ThenetneutralityridesonthepremisethattheentiredataavailableontheInternetshouldbe
equallyaccessibletoeveryone.Nodiscriminationshouldbeallowedregardingaccesstoa
particularwebsiteoranyparticularcontentontheInternet.TimWu,arenownedscholarin
Internetandcommunicationlawhasmentionedinhisseminalwork,NetworkNeutralityand
BroadbandDiscrimination,thatnetworkneutralitysignifiesanInternetthatdoesnotfavor
oneapplication[8].
Inthisregard,therehasbeenaconstructivedialoguebetweentheFederalCommunication
CommissioninUnitedStatesandthevariousstakeholders.Aninterestingdevelopmentwasa
proposition,whichattemptedtoclassifybroadbandinternetserviceaccessasapublicutility
[9].ThereismuchrelevanceforsuchdebatesintheIndiancontext.Indiaalsoneedspublic
18

participation(especiallystrongvoicesfrominternetusersperspective)tohighlightthese
accessconcernsregardingInternet.HumanrightsconcernsregardingInternetshouldbeproactivelybroughttotheattentionofregulatoryinstitutionssuchasTRAI.Thereisneedto
balancetheeconomicandfor-profitinterestofserviceproviderswiththelargerpublic
interestbasedonequalaccess.
ThepressurecreatedbypublicopinionthroughonlineactivismupontheTRAIsproposalto
regulatetheOTTserviceshelpsinunderstandingthepowerofpublicparticipationinthe
pertinenthumanrightsissuesrelatingtoInternet[10].Thebroaderdesigninwhichthe
principleofhumanrightsinthecontextofInternetmediumwouldhavetobeassertedinIndia
isalsovividlyseeninthecaseofprotestagainstOTTregulation.

ChapterII.III-RighttobeForgotteninEUandRepercussionsinIndia
TherepercussionsofRighttobeForgottenjudgmentofEuropeanUnionalsohadledto
debateofsimilarrightsinIndiancontext.TheGooglev.AEPDandMarioCosjeta[11]isan
interestingcasedecidedbytheCourtofJusticeofEuropeanUnion,wherethecourtheldthat
basedontherighttoprivacyanddataprotection,personscouldaskdatabases(thiscasewas
againstthesearchengineGoogle)onInternetmediumtocurtailfromreferringtocertain
aspectsoftheirpersonalinformation[12].Thisisbasicallyreferredtoasrighttobeforgotten.
ViktorMayorSchonberginhisbookDelete:TheVirtueofForgettinginDigitalAgehas
elaboratedtheproblemofhowthedigitalagecoupledwiththeInternethasledtostore,
disseminateandtrackinformationinasubstantiallyeasywayandadvocatesforthemore
informationalprivacyrights[13].Inthisjudgment,theCourtofJusticeofEuropeanUnionhas
furtheredtheinformationprivacyrightsintheEuropeanUnionwiththerighttobeforgotten.
IntheIndiancontext,itisimportanttonotethatinformationprivacyrightsareyettoevolveto
theextentthatofEuropeanUnionwithdefiniteprivacyanddataprotectionlaw.But
interestingly,therewasarequestmadetoamedianewswebsitebyapersonattemptingto
enforcetherighttobeforgotten[14].Eventhoughtheapplicationofrighttobeforgottenisnot
directlyapplicableintheIndiancontext,thiseventthrowslighttothefactthatInternetusers
inIndiaarebecomingconsciousoftheirrightsintheInternetspace.ThewayIndiannews
19

mediagaverelevancetotherighttobeforgottenrulingalsoisanexampleofhowthereisan
implicitrecognitionoftheinterlinkbetweenhumanrightsandInternetthatisslowlyseeping
intotheIndianmilieu.

ChapterII.IV-InternetDiscourseinIndiaandHumanRights
Discussionofthethreeissuesmentionedabovepointsouttoanimportantfactthathumanrights
arenotpro-activelyappliedtotheInternetmediumbytheIndianstatemachinery.Even
thoughtheinternationalhumanrightslawandvariousInternetpolicyorganizationsarepushing
theInternetandhumanrightsagenda,thesameisyettogainmomentuminIndia.
Butatthesametime,aninterestingdevelopmentthatcouldbewitnessedfromtheabove
discussionisthemannerinwhichtheInternetusersareassertingtheirrightsovertheInternet
andslowlypavingthepathforanenrichingviewtowardsapplyingthehumanrights
perspectivetoInternet.Inthefirstinstance,thefreedomofspeechandexpressionwasnot
pro-activelyappliedtothedigitalspaceandInternet.ThishashappenedwhenArticle19of
ConstitutionofIndiahasclearlyprovidedforfreedomofspeechandexpression.Thesecond
instanceofnetneutralityhasthrownwideopenthelackofclearpolicyregardingInternet
accessinIndiancontext.Thepublicopinionhaspointedouttothefactthatthereisapublic
interestdemandtoensurethatthereisnodiscriminationinthecaseofInternetaccess.The
thirdinstanceoflookingatrighttobeforgotteninIndianperspective,providesthe
understandingthattheusersofInternetarebecomingconsciousoftheirindividualrightsinthe
digitalspaceinamoreaffirmativemanner.
20

Further,theoperationalizationofhumanrightsinthesethreeinstancesalsoneedstobe
criticallylookedinto.TheassertionofthefreedomofspeechandexpressionintheInternet
mediumcouldbemadepossibleeffectivelyduetothefactthatArticle19oftheConstitution
ofIndia,1950,protectsfreedomofspeechandexpression.Thevastamountofprecedence
existinginthefieldoffreedomofspeechandexpressionrelatingtoconstitutionallitigation
andalliedjurisprudencehashelpedincraftingtheextensionoftherightoffreedomof
expressiontothedigitalmediumofInternet.Further,usingthesocialactiontoolofPublic
InterestLitigation,theunconstitutionalityofArticle19oftheConstitutionofIndia,1950could
bebroughtbeforetheSupremeCourt.
Butinterestingly,thenetneutralityissue,whichisconcerningtheaccesstoInternetinanondiscriminatorymanner,isyettobeperceivedinIndiancontextfromastronghumanrights
perspective.Internetaccessasapublicutilityconceptisyettobeevolvedandarticulatedin
concretemannerintheIndiancontext.Further,theIndiannetworkneutralitydiscourse
attemptstooperationalizethroughthefreemarketapproach.Inthefreemarketapproachthe
entirenon-discriminatoryaccesshastobeensuredbythemarketcompetitionwiththe
necessaryregulatorybodies.Inthissense,thehumanrightsangleofaccesstoInternetwill
havetobeensuredbyeffectivecompetitioninthemarketalongwiththeproperoversightof
regulatorybodiessuchasTRAIandCompetitionCommissionofIndia.Itisimportantforthe
regulatorybodiestohavebroadgoalsforfurtheringpublicinterestbyensuringnondiscriminatoryaccesstoInternet.Further,withthefinancialandinfrastructureledlimitationsof
governmentscapabilityofensuringaccesstoInternetforall,themarket-ledmodelwith
sufficientregulationmightbetherightwayforward.
Lookingattheissueoftherighttobeforgotten,itcouldbeeasilyperceivedthattheIndian
milieuisyettoarticulateprivacyrightstothathighstandard.Eventhoughtherighttoprivacyis
beingunderstoodintheconstitutionallawcontextthrougheffectiveinterpretationbythe
judiciary,theconceptofdigitalprivacyhasnotyetevolvedinIndia.Thereisnocollective
understanding,tillnow,thathasemergedregardingrighttobeforgotteninIndia.Eventhough
individualattemptstoasserttherightwaswitnessed,thereismuchroomforanevolved
collectiveunderstandinginIndiancontext.Civilsocietyorganizationswouldhaveacrucial
roletoplayinthisregard.
21

ThereisanemergingconsciousnessamongstasetofInternetusersinIndia,whovaluesand
givesimportancetotheInternetbeingademocraticspace,withoutunwantedrestrictionfrom
thegovernmentmachineryoreventheprivateentities.HencelookingattheInternet
discourseofIndiafromtheperspectiveofhumanrights,thereisanimplicitwayinwhichthe
humanrightsarebeingappliedtotheInternetspace.Thelackofastatespro-activeapproach
inassertinghumanrightstoInternetspaceishighlightedbytheassertionsbeingmadebythe
InternetusersinIndia.

ChapterII.V-WayForward
ForInternettoremainasademocraticspace,thereisneedforpro-activeapplicationofthese
humanrightsnormsandclearunderstandinginInternetgovernance.Atpresent,thestateof
affairsinIndiaregardingapplicationofhumanrightstoInternetisfarfromsatisfactory.
ThisessaywhichispartoftheStudyingInternetinIndiaseries,hastillnowdoneastock
takinganalysisofemergingdimensionofhumanrightsandInternetinIndia.Lackofinterest
fromgovernmentandstatemachinerytofurtherthehumanrightsandInternetdimension
needtobeseriouslyreconsidered.AttemptingtointerveneinInternetlawandpolicyinIndia
fromtherightsbasedapproachshouldbeanimportantagendaforfurtheringdigitalrightsin
India.Forthis,civilsocietyorganizationshaveanimportantroletoplay.Exploringthepublic
interestcouldbedoneeffectivelywithpublicparticipationofstakeholders.Herein,platforms
suchasIndiaInternetGovernanceForumcouldplayacrucialrole.

22

Apartfromthecivilsocietyorganizations,itisalsopertinentforstateandgovernmental
institutionalmechanismtoalsotakeapro-activestance.Forensuringthattherightsbased
approachtoInternethastobedulyincludedintheInternetlawandpolicy;andthereshouldbe
institutionalmechanism,whichcouldlookintoareaspertainingtohumanrightsandInternet.It
isawellknowfactthatIndialacksinstitutionalmechanismforlookingintocommunicationand
privacyissuesregulation.Further,theNationalHumanRightsCommission(NHRC)alsoneeds
tolookattherelevanceofhumanrightsforInternet.Inspirationcouldbedrawnfromthe
pioneeringworkofAustralianCommissionofHumanRightsonapplyinghumanrightsnorms
andstandardstoInternetmedium[15].Thisessayhasonlyflaggedtheneedtoapplythe
establishedhumanrightsnormstoInternetspace.MuchmoreissuessuchasaccesstoInternet
bydisabled,safetyofchildrenandInternetmediumarealsopertinentareas.Moreover,itis
importanttohavedigitalrightsofInternetusersinIndiatobeexplicitlyenshrinedinalegal
framework.Presently,agapinlawandpolicyframeworkregardinghumanrightsandInternet
isevident,ashighlightedinthisessay.Thepertinentquestionsregardingaccess,privacyand
freedomofexpressionaretobetakenseriouslybythegovernmentandstatemachineryfor
whichclearandwell-definedrightsrelatingtoInternetspacehavetobeframed.ForInternet
andhumanrightstobetakenseriously,itishightimethatlegalandinstitutionalframeworkto
exploretheseissuesalsoareevolved.

ChapterII.VI-EmphasizingtheRighttoCommunicationinIndia
Further,thepresentunderstandingofrighttocommunicationinIndia,whichisperceivedin
narrowmanner,couldbere-workedwiththehelpofapro-activeapplicationofhumanrights
normstotheInternetgovernance.Theintrusionintothefreedomofspeechandexpression
especiallyinthetelecommunicationcontexthastobehighlighted.Protectionofcommunal
harmonyhasbeenusedasrationaleforcappingthenumberoftheSMSmessagesthatcouldbe
sentperdayduringtheexodusofpeopleofNortheasternstatesoriginfromBangalore,Pune
andothermajorcitiesinIndia.
Thismovehasbeencriticizedforbeingunreasonableanduniversalityofcappingthenumber
ofSMSmessages[16].Further,thetelecommunicationandInternetservices(especially
FacebookandYouTube)wereblockedinKashmirforrestrictingtheprotest[17].The
23

telecommunicationandInternetserviceswereblockedonthegroundsofprotectionof
nationalsecurity.Thereasonablenessofrestrictionsthatcouldbeimposedonrightto
communicationisamajorconcernintheabove-mentionedinstances.Makingablanketban
applicableinauniversalmannerunderminestherighttocommunicationofvariousgenuine
usersofbulkmessagingandsocialmediasites.
Therighttocommunicationespeciallyinthedigitalandtelecommunicationmedianeedstobe
emphasized.ApplyinghumanrightsperspectiveandnormstoInternetgovernancewould
helpinarticulatingandevolvingtherighttocommunicationinIndia.Withadequateinstitutional
oversight,thehumanrightsnormscouldmakethedigitalrighttocommunicationaneffective
right.
Toconclude,theInternetdiscourseinIndiahasalreadypavedpathforhumanrightsnormsto
beappliedtoInternetspace.Theseriousnessthatcouldbeattributedtothoserightsisevident
bytheassertionsbytheInternetusersinIndia.Butthestateandgovernmentmachineryin
IndiaalsoshouldexplorethehumanrightsandInternetagendaseriously.

Endnotes
Chapter1
[1]VSNLStartsIndia'sFirstInternetServiceToday,TheIndianTechnomist,(14thAugust,
1995),availableathttp://dxm.org/techonomist/news/vsnlnow.html.
[2]InternetStatisticsbyCountry,InternationalTelecommunicationUnion,availableat
http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx.
[3]Source:http://manupatra.com/.

24

[4]NickHuggett,Zeno'sParadoxes,TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,EdwardN.Zalta
(ed.),availableathttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/paradox-zeno
[5]See:http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/a-little-reminder-no-one-inhouse-debated-section-66a-congress-brought-it-and-bjp-backed-it;Publiclyavailablerecords
ofLokSabhadebatesalsoshownomentionofthiscontroversiallaw.
[6]Itakevaluestomeancertaindesirablegoalsandmethods,whichcouldbebothintrinsically
goodtopursueandwhosepursuitallowsotherinstrumentalgoodstobeachieved.See
MichaelJ.Zimmerman,Intrinsicvs.ExtrinsicValue,TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,
EdwardN.Zalta(ed.),availableathttp://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/valueintrinsic-extrinsic/.
[7]HellenNissenbaum,HowComputerSystemsEmbodyValues,ComputerMagazine,118,
(March2001),availableat
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/embodyvalues.pdf.
[8]S.P.Sathe,JudicialActivism:TheIndianExperience,6WashingtonUniversityJournalof
Law&Policy,29,(2001).
[9]M.C.Mehtav.KamalNathandOrs.,2000(5)SCALE69.
[10]YochaiBenkler,FromConsumerstoUsers:ShiftingtheDeeperStructuresofRegulation
TowardSustainableCommonsandUserAccess,52(3)FederalCommunicationsLawJournal,
561,(2000).
[11]ThomasShultz,CarvinguptheInternet:Jurisdiction,LegalOrders,andthePrivate/Public
InternationalLawInterface,19(4)EuropeanJournalOfInternationalLaw,799,(2008);Wendy
A.Adams,IntellectualPropertyInfringementinGlobalNetworks:TheImplicationsof
ProtectionAheadoftheCurve,10IntlJ.L.&Info.Tech,71,(2002).
[12]CasioIndiaCo.Limitedv.AshitaTeleSystemsPvt.Limited,2003(27)P.T.C.265(Del.)
(India).
[13]BanyanTreeHolding(P)Ltd.v.A.MuraliKrishnaReddy&Anr.,CS(OS)894/2008.
25

[14]WorldWrestlingEntertainmentv.ReshmaCollection(FAO(OS)506/2013(Delhi).
[15]Dr.Ashokv.UnionofIndiaandOrs.,AIR1997SC2298.
[16]RajanJohnsonbhaiChristyvsStateOfGujarat,(1997)2GLR1077.
[17]UnionOfIndiaAndOrs.Vs.MotionPictureAssociationAndOrs,1999(3)SCR875;
Yahoo!,Inc.vsAkashArora&Anr.,1999IIADDelhi229TheInternetprovidesinformation
aboutvariouscorporations,productsasalsoonvarioussubjectslikeeducational,entertainment,
commercial,governmentactivitiesandservices.
[18]YochaiBenkler,TheWealthofNetworks.
[19]RediffCommunicationLimitedvsCyberbooth&Another,1999(4)BomCR278.
[20]EvenwhentheSupremeCourtfinallyrecognizedtheseconcernsafewyearslater,when
theInternethadmorphedintoamassivecommercialplatformandanimportantforumforfree
speech,intheSatyamInfotechcase(2004(3)AWC2366SC),itdiscussedtheuniqueproblem
ofdomainnameidentifiersandscarcityofdomainnames,yetwentontoholdthataneven
higherstandardofpassingofffortrademarksshouldapplyindomainnames,disregardingthe
priorstandardofanhonestconcurrentuser.
[21]JackBalkin,TheFutureofFreeExpressioninaDigitalAge,36PepperdineLawReview,
(2008)
[22]Id.
[23]AvnishBajajv.State(NCTofDelhi),3Comp.L.J.364(2005).
[24]2013(54)PTC578(Mad)
[25]ThejudgementalsorevealsthepredominanceofGooglessearchengineservice.The
CourtdefinestheoperationofsearchenginesassynonymouswithGooglesparticular
serviceincludingaddingelementsliketheImFeelingLuckyoptionasdefiningelements
ofsearchengines.

26

[26]DavidJ.Franklyn&DavidA.Hyman,TrademarksAsSearchEngineKeywords:Much
AdoAboutSomething?,26(2)HarvardJournalofLawandTechnology,540,(2013).
[27]Id.
[28]RelianceBigEntertainmentv.MultivisionNetworkandOrs,DelhiHighCourt,available
athttp://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/john-doe-order-reliance-entertainmentv-multivision-network-and-ors.-movie-singham;SagarikaMusicPvt.Ltd.v.DishnetWireless
Ltd.,C.S.No.23/2012,G.A.No.187/2012(CalcuttaHighCourtJan.27,2012)(order);See
Generally,AnanthPadmanabhan,GiveMeMySpaceandTakeDownHis,9IndianJournalof
LawandTechnology,(2013).
[29]R.K.Productionsv.BSNLLtdandOrs.O.A.No.230of2012,MadrasHighCourt.
[30]SuperCassetesIndustriesLtd.v.MyspaceInc.andAnr.,2011(47)P.T.C.49(Del.)
[31]ShreyaSinghalandOrs.VUnionofIndiaandOrs.,W.P.(Crl).No.167of2012,Supreme
Court,(2015).
[32]Thecourtsrefusaltoaddressimportantquestionsofintermediaryresponsibilityhasalso
beencriticized,seeJyotiPandey,TheSupremeCourtJudgmentinShreyaSinghalandWhat
ItDoesforIntermediaryLiabilityinIndia?,CentreforInternetandSociety,availableat
http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sc-judgment-in-shreya-singhal-what-it-meansfor-intermediary-liability.
[33]See:http://sflc.in/kamlesh-vaswani-v-uoi-w-p-c-no-177-of-2103/.
[34]See:http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/search-engine-and-prenatal-sexdetermination.
[35]See:https://indiancaselaws.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/google-india-pvt-ltd-vs-visakaindustries-limited/.

Chapter2

27

[1]FrankLaRue,ReportOfTheSpecialRapporteurOnThePromotionAndProtectionOf
TheRightToFreedomOfOpinionAndExpression,Available
athttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf
[2]Ibid,SpecialRapporteurintheReportpointsoutthatthelanguageofArticle19ofICCPRis
medianeutralandisapplicabletoonlinemediatechnologicaldevelopmentsalso.Para20and
21oftheReport.
[3]UNHighCommissioneronHumanRight,ReportonTheRightToPrivacyInTheDigital
Age,Available
athttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.2
7.37_en.pdf
[4]WSISDeclarationforBuildingofInformationSociety,Available
athttp://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html.Article58,WSISDeclarationreadsas
follows:TheuseofICTsandcontentcreationshouldrespecthumanrightsandfundamental
freedomsofothers,includingpersonalprivacy,andtherighttofreedomofthought,
conscience,andreligioninconformitywithrelevantinternationalinstruments.
[5]CharterofHumanRightsandPrinciplesfortheInternetAvailable
athttp://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/IRP_booklet_final1.pdf.
[6]SeeSection66A:SixCasesThatSparkedDebate,Available
athttp://www.livemint.com/Politics/xnoW0mizd6RYbuBPY2WDnM/Six-cases-where-thedraconian-Section-66A-was-applied.html.Alsosee,FacebookTrouble:10CasesofArrest
UnderSection66AofITAct,Availableathttp://www.hindustantimes.com/indianews/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx(Last
accessedon25/05/2015).
[7]ShreyaSinghalv.UnionofIndia,Availableathttp://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
[8]TimWu,NetworkNeutrality,BroadbandDiscrimination,Availableat
https://cdt.org/files/speech/net-neutrality/2005wu.pdf
28

[9]F.C.C.ApprovesNetNeutralityRules,ClassifyingBroadbandInternetServiceasaUtility,
Availableathttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internetutility.html.
[10]Theonlinecampaignbywww.savetheinternet.inandtheAIBvideohaveplayedacrucial
roleingatheringpublicsupport.
[11]CourtofJusticeofEuropeanUnion,CaseC-131/12.
[12]RisinglikeaPhoenix:TheRighttobeForgottenbeforetheECJ,Availableat
http://europeanlawblog.eu/?p=2351.
[13]ViktorMayorSchonberg,Delete:TheVirtueofForgettinginDigitalAge,Princeton
UniversityPress(2009).
[14]RighttobeForgottenPosesALegalDilemmainIndia,Available
athttp://www.livemint.com/Industry/5jmbcpuHqO7UwX3IBsiGCM/Right-to-be-forgottenposes-a-legal-dilemma-in-India.html.AlsoseeWereceivedaRighttobeForgottenrequest
fromanIndianuser,Availableathttp://www.medianama.com/2014/06/223-right-to-beforgotten-india/.
[15]HumanRightsandInternet,Availableathttps://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rightsand-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-internet.
[16]ChinmayiArun,SMSBlockasThreattoFreeSpeech,Availableathttp://cisindia.org/internet-governance/www-the-hindubusinessline-op-ed-sep-1-2012-chinmayi-arunsms-block-as-threat-to-free-speech.
[17]PamposhRainaandBetwaSharma,TelecomServicesBlockedtoCurbProtestsin
Kashmir,Availableathttp://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/telecom-services-blocked-tocurb-protests-in-kashmir/?_r=0.

29