June 1, 2017 - May 31, 2018
There was a staggering increase in the number of local internet shutdowns and new rules regulating connectivity restrictions were announced in August 2017 (see Restrictions on Connectivity).
Misinformation, rumors, and fake news online incited real-world violence and played a role in the May 2018 Karnataka state elections (see Media, Diversity, and Content Manipulation).
The Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right in August 2017, while also ruling in September 2018, following the reporting period, that the government’s controversial biometric Aadhaar project is constitutional (see Surveillance, Privacy, and Anonymity).
The Srikrishna committee was formed in August 2017 to develop a data protection framework, which was later published in July 2018 (see Surveillance, Privacy, and Anonymity).
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India proposed new net neutrality rules in November 2017, which were later passed after the coverage period in July 2018 (See Media, Diversity, and Content Manipulation).
Internet freedom declined in 2018 due to a staggering uptick in local internet shutdowns and the proliferation of misinformation and fake news across social media. In a positive development, the Supreme Court ruled in August 2017 that privacy is a fundamental right. However, a new data protection framework released after the coverage period elicited controversy from civil society and tech companies.
The number of internet subscribers and rate of internet penetration increased during the reporting period, as India consolidated its position as the world’s second largest internet consumer base after China. Both governmental and nongovernmental entities made efforts to bridge the digital divide between urban and rural areas.
Major restrictions on connectivity occurred during the reporting period, as the number of network shutdowns increased substantially. From January to mid-August 2018, local authorities ordered service providers to temporarily shut down internet access in at least 96 reported incidents in 19 states.1 In August 2017, the Department of Telecommunications of the Central Government issued new broad rules under the Telegraph Act to regulate the temporary suspension of telecom services.2 Certain ISPs also blocked the Russian social network VKontakte in September 2017.
The spread of misinformation, rumors, and fake news on social media led to real-world violence. At least 20 people have been killed due to child abduction rumors in the country.3 WhatsApp was also used to spread misinformation surrounding the May 2018 Karnataka state elections.4 The government has indicated that it is looking into regulating social media platforms ahead of the 2019 general elections.
Data protection and privacy remain important and timely issues in India, especially with recent reports of security breaches to the government’s controversial biometric Aadhaar project. The Supreme Court held in August 2017 that privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. In July 2018, the Srikrishna committee released a draft privacy bill “Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018,”5 which will be reviewed by the cabinet and parliament. Also following the reporting period, in September 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar was constitutional but set limits on the program’s use.6
Internet penetration in India continued to increase in 2018 with mobile penetration playing a significant role. Inadequate infrastructure remains a significant obstacle to access, especially in rural areas; however, various governmental and nongovernmental efforts to improve access nationwide are underway. The reporting period saw a major increase in the number of information and communication technology (ICT) shutdowns ordered by local authorities.
Availability and Ease of Access
Internet access and speeds improved during the reporting period. India continues to have the second largest number of internet subscribers in the world after China, having overtaken the United States in 2016.7 Official statistics recorded almost 430 million subscribers in March 2018,8 though only 21.24 million had fixed-line internet connections.9 There were an estimated 348.13 million internet users in urban India and 145.83 million in rural India in March 2018.10
Internet penetration remains low, reaching 38 percent in March 2018,11 up from 32.86 percent in March 2017.12 Mobile penetration was much higher, almost reaching 92 percent by September 2017,13 up from 82 percent the previous year.14 However, the net addition in telephone subscribers has been reducing consistently over the last year, from adding over 77 million subscribers between October-December 2016 to a net reduction of about four million subscribers between July-September 2017.15 The Broadband Commission in 2017 ranked India 78 out of 196 countries in terms of mobile broadband penetration,16 up from 156 out of 179 countries the previous year.17
While India’s average connection speed was one of the lowest in Asia,18 it is catching up to the global average documented at 7.2 Mbps in the first quarter of 2017 according to Akamai.19 The share of broadband subscribers has significantly increased from 57.33 percent in September 201620 to almost 76 percent in September 2017.21 Despite overall growth, India has a relatively low adoption rate for high-speed broadband (faster than 10 Mbps), at just 19 percent,22 though this rate grew by 285 percent during the course of 2016.23 The minimum speed required to qualify as broadband in India has been 512 Kbps since 2012,24 though the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended raising the threshold to 2 Mbps.25
The 2016 Global Information Technology Report by the World Economic Forum and INSEAD ranked India in eighth place out of 139 countries for affordable internet access.26 It was previously in first place,27 and per minute cellular and fixed broadband tariffs are still among the lowest in the world.28 While the cheapest internet plans might seem extremely affordable with respect to the average monthly income, India has significant income disparities and a high level of economic inequality.29
India ranked 66 out of 137 countries for infrastructure in 2017, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index.30 Though up from 68 the previous year,31 the results suggest poor infrastructure is still an obstacle to access. India ranked a low 88 for electricity supply32 and 110 for technological readiness, the capacity of a country to fully leverage ICTs in daily activities.33 Only 27 percent of all Indian schools had a computer in 2016.34 That increased to nearly 80 percent at the secondary level and above,35 but less than half were connected to the internet.36 A household survey of 14- to 18-year-olds, conducted by ASER Centre, in 28 districts across 24 states showed that almost 59 percent of youths had never used a computer and about 64 percent of them had never accessed the internet.37
Public and private sector initiatives to improve access are underway. The government is developing free public Wi-Fi zones in major cities.38 In January 2017, the Maharashtra government activated 500 Wi-Fi hotspots across the city of Mumbai,39 though further expansion fell short, and they were only free until August 2017.40 In 2016, the public sector company RailTel launched a project, with technical support from Google, to provide free Wi-Fi at train stations,41 connecting 100 by the end of 2016.42 The company now plans to provide free Wi-Fi at all 8,500 railway stations across India for INR 700 million by March 2019 by using fiber-optic cables laid down along railway tracks.43 The government also plans to provide 750,000 Wi-Fi hotspots across rural India by the end of 2018. However, India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has issued a “high” category warning against the use of free Wi-Fi hotspots due to their vulnerability to security breaches.44
The government’s Digital India Programme, launched in 2014,45 was expected to be implemented by 2018,46 but now expected in 2019. 47 In the 2018 Union Budget, the financial allocation for Digital India has been doubled from 2017.48 It aims to connect India’s gram panchayats, institutions of self-government in rural areas, via fiber-optic cables,49 ensuring universal broadband access with accompanying e-literacy programs. Internet-connected common service centers (CSCs) aim to cover all 250,000 gram panchayats;50 as of February 2018, 280,000 had been established, with 10 million people working in these CSCs.51 The program proposes to use satellites, balloons, or drones to push faster digital connections to remote parts of the country,52 as well as multiple system operators such as cable TV services, which already have last-mile connectivity.53
Such initiatives have taken on new significance over the past couple of years, which saw a major push to digitize financial transactions. The government demonetized currency notes in the denominations of INR 500 and INR 1000 (US$7.5 and $15) in November 2016; the notes made up over 85 percent of the total currency in circulation.54 A Digi Dhan Abhiyan program was designed to promote digital payments to more than 10 million people living in rural areas,55 reaching 2.5 million by the end of 2016.56 The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) also announced an alliance with Google to raise awareness of digital security surrounding payments.57 However, according to a recent report, use of digital platforms for financial transactions has remained limited with only 44 percent of urban internet users and 16 percent of rural internet users using the internet for financial transactions or e-commerce activities.58 According to the same report, even the use of CSCs in rural areas remains quite low in absence of surrounding critical infrastructure such as reliable electricity supply and quality cellular connectivity.59
Language remains a barrier to access. With 22 official languages, only about 12 percent of the population of India speaks English,60 yet more than half the content available online is in English,61 and over 100 languages were unrepresented online in 2013.62 Projects to encourage local language usage are underway. In 2014, the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), which operates and manages Indian domain names, launched the Dot Bharat domain for local language URLs.63 By April 2017, the number of local language users in India had overtaken the number who rely on English.64 One study showed that nearly 70 percent of Indian internet users consider local language content to be more reliable than English content.65 In April 2017, Google partnered with a local business federation to develop content in Indic languages.66
Studies have shown that economic and social conditions result in barriers to internet access for women, and only 30 percent of Indian internet users were female in 2017.67 According to a UNICEF report published in December 2017, internet in India remains a “male preserve.”68 Internet usage was lower among rural women, though it grew at a faster pace (14 percent) than the growth in users amongst urban women (nine percent).69 Internet Saathi, a partnership between Google and Tata Trusts to promote digital literacy among rural women, was active in 110,000 villages across ten states by December 2017, training about 400-500 participants a week. 70 So far, around 12,000 participants have been trained under the program.71 The initiative has been expanded to Tamil Nadu and plans to eventually cover 300,000 villages across India.72
Restrictions on Connectivity
The government does not routinely block the protocols or tools that allow for instant, person-to-person communication. However, the country currently leads the world in the number of shutdowns,73 and new broad rules regulating shutdowns were instituted in August 2017. In September 2017, Russian social network VKontakte was blocked in India by certain ISPs, allegedly for promoting the “Blue Whale Game,” which was a series of tasks that incited suicide among players of the game74 (see Blocking and Filtering).
Local authorities around India have restricted ICT connectivity and usage during times of perceived unrest since at least 2010.75 The frequency, geographic distribution, and duration of these shutdowns have increased significantly in the past four years. Authorities ordered providers to restrict local mobile phone, SMS, wireless, or occasionally fixed-line internet service in at least 70 reported incidents in 2017 across 19 states, and in 96 reported incidents from January to mid-August 2018 across 14 states, which lasted for hours, weeks, or even months at a stretch.76 Except for October 2017, there were instances of internet shutdowns in every month of the coverage period of this report. Shutdowns affected both mobile and fixed-line connections, most of which were implemented, according to government officials, only as precautionary measures.77
With at least 36 documented incidents in 2018, Jammu and Kashmir experiences more internet shutdowns compared to the rest of the country. A few shutdowns affecting Jammu and Kashmir include:
In June 2017, mobile internet services were suspended in the Kashmir Valley for about seven days to, according to authorities, prevent violence and the spread of rumors following the killing of a militant commander by security forces.78
In July 2017, Jammu and Kashmir police ordered all ISPs and mobile operators in the Kashmir Valley to suspend mobile and fixed-line broadband internet services for three and four days respectively as a precautionary measure for the anniversary of the death of militant commander Burhan Wani, who was killed in July 2016 by security forces, causing widespread protests.79 Even when mobile internet services were restored, only 2G services were permitted to function.80 The day after services were restored, they were suspended once more for a few hours in the Valley following calls by separatist leaders to launch a “Kashmir awareness” campaign.81 Further, mobile internet and broadband services were suspended as a precautionary measure in the Jammu region (which has a majority Hindu population) at the same time following an attack on pilgrims to a Hindu shrine in South Kashmir.82 Mobile and broadband services were suspended on at least three more occasions in July as precautionary measures following the killings of civilians and alleged militants by security forces.83
In August 2017, mobile internet and broadband services across the Kashmir Valley were suspended on seven occasions for one to three days, each time as a precautionary measure to prevent, according to the administration, rumormongering or violence. One of these incidences included suspension of mobile networks as well as mobile and broadband internet on India’s Independence Day.84
In January 2018, both mobile and fixed-line broadband internet services were suspended for a few days in the Kashmir Valley on four separate occasions, including on the eve of India’s Republic Day, on which cellular services were also suspended.85 In another instance, mobile internet services were suspended across four districts in Kashmir while speeds in the rest were reduced to 128 Kbps.86
Shutdowns were implemented in more than 10 other states, including Maharashtra,87 Bihar,88 West Bengal,89 Uttar Pradesh,90 and Haryana.91 Rajasthan saw at least 19 such incidents in 2017 and 27 from January to mid-August 2018.92 In Rajasthan, the internet was blocked as a precaution on multiple occasions to prevent the spread of rumors or an outbreak of violence following clashes between various community93 and religious groups,94 including an instance in which some Hindu organizations announced a rally in support of Shambhu Raigar, who murdered a Muslim man over “Love Jihad”95 and filmed the murder on his phone.96 On New Year’s Eve in 2017, mobile internet services, bulk SMS, and social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp were suspended in Bundi for three days to prevent any occurrence of communal violence.97
Local authorities have also shut off the internet to prevent cheating around exams. For example, in February 2018, internet services were suspended around exam centers across Rajasthan.98
Authorities have justified these orders under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), which permits broad state action to curb any violation of law and order.99 The Gujarat High Court upheld the use of this general law to order shutdowns in September 2015.100 The Supreme Court has yet to consider the matter substantively and refused a petition challenging it in early 2016.101
Other laws used to justify shutdowns lack specificity. Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which permits the central government to order website blocks (see Limits on Content), has been considered to apply to blocking of service. Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, which allows state and central authorities to order that any message not be transmitted in public emergencies, has also been cited in support of service disruptions.102
In August 2017, the Department of Telecommunications of the Central Government issued new rules under the Telegraph Act to regulate the temporary suspension of telecom services.103 The broad rules authorize national or state-level officials to issue temporary suspension orders to shut down telecommunications services in times of public emergency or threats to public safety.104
The government does not exert much control over the internet infrastructure. Thirteen submarine cables connect India to the global internet;105 ten are consortium owned, while the others are private.106 There are gateways to the international internet in Chennai, Mumbai,107 and Agartala in Tripura, which facilitate connectivity in northeastern states.108 There are at least five landing stations where the cables meet the mainland in Mumbai, and three in Chennai; Digha, Kochi, and Tuticorin also have one cable landing station each.109 BSNL, the state-owned telecom operator, owns two of them; the rest are privately owned. Major telecom operators Bharti Airtel and Tata Communications own three stations each.110 These cable landing stations imposed hefty fees on ISPs until regulators mandated a reduction in 2013.111 Tata Communications and Airtel challenged that reduction in the Madras High Court. A single judge dismissed it, and an appeal is pending. The judgment will be released after all arguments are heard.112
Over 80 percent of telecommunications towers are privately owned.113 As of 2015, market share was split between Indus Towers, a joint venture between Bharti Infratel, Vodafone, and Idea Cellular (31 percent); BSNL (18 percent); Reliance Infratel (12 percent); and Bharti Infratel (10 percent).114
There are 156 operational ISPs in India.115 While there is no monopoly, the top 10 ISPs control over 98 percent of the market.116 Thanks to inaugural and sustained promotional plans, Reliance Jio made massive gains to achieve the highest ISP market share of over 32 percent by September 2017,117 up from four percent in September 2016.118 Bharti Airtel had the second largest market share with almost 22 percent, followed by Vodafone (16 percent), Idea (nine percent), and state-owned BSNL (eight percent).119 There are 12 mobile operators,120 with Bharti Airtel controlling almost 24 percent of the market, followed by Vodafone (18 percent), Idea (16 percent), and Reliance Jio (12 percent).121
A universal license framework, for which guidelines were published in November 2014,122 reduced legal and regulatory obstacles by combining mobile phone and ISP licenses. Licensees pay a high one-time entry fee, a performance bank guarantee,123 and annual license fees adjusted for revenue.124
By 2017, the Cybercafe Association of India (CCAOI) said that over 70 percent of cybercafes had closed in the past year.125 In 2011, the Indian government introduced rules under Section 79 of the IT Act requiring cybercafes to obtain a government-issued ID number in addition to a license, as well as to register and monitor customers.126 Critics said the rules were “poorly framed.”127 Penalties for noncompliance are unclear and enforcement has reportedly been patchy. Common service centers are exempt and operate under separate guidelines.128
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) formulates policy relating to information technology, electronics, and the internet.129 The Department of Telecommunications (DoT), under the Ministry of Communications, manages the overall development of the telecommunications sector, licenses internet and mobile service providers, and also manages spectrum allocation.130
Internet protocol (IP) addresses are regulated by the Indian Registry for Internet Names and Numbers (IRINN).131 Since 2005, the registry has functioned as an autonomous body within the nonprofit National Internet Exchange of India.132
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), an independent regulator, was created in 1997 to regulate the telecommunications, broadcast, and cable TV sectors.133 The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act (TRAI Act) mandates transparency in the exercise of its operations, which includes monitoring licensing terms, compliance, and service quality.134 Its reports are published online, usually preceded by a multistakeholder consultation.135 An amendment to the TRAI Act in 2000 established a three-member Telecommunications Dispute Settlement and Appellate Tribunal chaired by a former senior judge.136
There are some reservations about TRAI’s independence.137 Appointment and salary decisions for members remain in the hands of the central government. The TRAI Act initially barred members who had previously held central or state government office, but 2014 amendments diluted that prohibition, allowing them to join the regulator two years after resigning from office or earlier with government permission. Members may undertake commercial employment, though not with telecom service providers.138 TRAI opinions, however, are generally perceived as free of official influence.139 In 2016, it was involved in framing net neutrality regulations prohibiting discriminatory tariffs for data services.140 It has also recommended a reduction in charges levied for use of cable landing stations141 and pitched for lower taxes on telecom services.142
Content blocking targeting pornography, terrorism, and copyright continued to affect legitimate political and social information during the coverage period, and some content removal by private companies caused controversy. The digital media landscape remained lively and citizens continued to use digital tools to mobilize around important social issues. In a troubling trend, misinformation and fake news proliferated across WhatsApp during the 2018 Karnataka state elections and also led to real-world violence toward the end of the reporting period.
Blocking and Filtering
Legitimate political and social information was blocked by court or government orders during the reporting period. Since some of those orders are not made public, the exact impact is hard to assess. Russian social networking platform VKontakte was also restricted, as were several social media platforms during internet shutdowns.
Blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act 2008 (IT Act) and a 2009 subordinate legislation called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules (“Blocking Rules”).143 The Blocking Rules empower the central government to direct any agency or intermediary to block access to information when satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient” in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defense 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.”144 Intermediaries failing to comply are punishable with fines and prison terms of up to seven years.145
The Blocking Rules apply to orders issued by government agencies, who must appoint a “nodal officer” to send in requests and demonstrate that they are necessary or expedient under Section 69A.146 These requests are reviewed by a committee, which includes senior representatives of the law, home affairs, and information ministries, and the nodal agency for cybersecurity, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN).147 The “designated officer,” who chairs the committee, issues approved orders to service providers; the committee must also notify the source or intermediary hosting the content, who may respond to defend it within 48 hours.148 In emergencies, the Secretary of MeitY may issue blocking orders directly under written instruction from the designated officer, but the content must be unblocked if the review committee does not approve them within 48 hours.149
Indian courts can order content blocks without government approval. The designated officer is required to implement the court order after submitting it to the Secretary of MeitY. Court orders can be challenged in a higher court, but internet users are not consistently notified of their implementation.150
ISPs are not legally required to inform the public of blocks and the Blocking Rules mandate that executive blocking orders be kept confidential.151 In the landmark Shreya Singhal case decided by the Supreme Court in 2015, the petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 69A citing opaque procedures among other issues.152 The Supreme Court upheld Section 69A and the Blocking Rules,153 saying safeguards were adequate, narrowly constructed, and constitutional.154 But the court read the Blocking Rules to include both the right to be heard and the right to appeal. Blocking orders must now provide a written explanation, allowing them to be challenged by writ petition, and allow for reasonable efforts to contact the originator of the content for a predecisional hearing.155 However, the rules continue to require that the orders and actions based on them be kept confidential;156 it is difficult to know the extent of compliance with the judgment.
In August 2017, the government reported blocking a total of 735 URLs on social media sites and 596 websites until June 2017 based on various court orders and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The government is said to have blocked objectionable content as per notifications under Section 69A and also on the recommendation of an expert committee for blocking URLs/websites. Some of the content said to be blocked includes social media networking groups and websites engaged in flaring up anti-India sentiments.157 The government also said that in a period from 2016 to November 2017, 1,791 websites/URLs were blocked by ISPs on the order of the Department of Telecommunications and 2,133 websites/URLs were blocked on the order of various courts.158
At least some blocks issued in the past year were disproportionate. In August 2017, access to the website of Maraa, a media and arts collective hosting information on their project titled UR/Unreserved, was blocked. The block came from the Department of Telecommunications. The founder of the website stated that there was nothing controversial about the project, which documented the journeys of 14 artists on trains within India and showcased the country’s diversity.159
Judges sought to improve the framework for blocking content under copyright injunctions in 2016, but broad restrictions continued to be observed in 2017. Since 2011, courts have blocked content relating to copyright violations through broad John Doe orders, which can be issued preemptively and do not name a defendant.160 ISPs have occasionally implemented such orders by blocking entire websites instead of individual URLs, irrespective of whether the websites were hosting pirated material.161 The judiciary has noted that John Doe orders can lead to over blocking,162 and activists have called for greater transparency.163
In August 2017, it was noticed that Internet Archive was blocked in India.164 Conversations between a digital news website and Internet Archive revealed that there was no intimation by the government to Internet Archive as to the reasons for the blocking.165 It was later found that a potential reason was John Doe orders that two media houses obtained from the Madras High Court before the release of their films in July166 and August.167 The orders named Internet Archive along with 2,560 other websites that should be blocked.168 Even after the release of the films, Internet Archive was still not accessible, which raised questions about over blocking of websites through John Doe orders. Although the orders were interim reliefs sought by the parties for a week, the website was blocked beyond the permissible time period.169
In July 2016, a ruling by the Bombay High Court laid down rules for seeking John Doe orders, limiting blocks to URLs, not entire domains, and allowing all affected content to be unblocked after 21 days if a court order is not obtained.170 The Court also dictated an unambiguous block message and suggested the appointment of an independent ombudsman to oversee implementation.171 Observers hailed this as a progressive and nuanced approach.172 However, the ruling did not resolve the issue.173 The same month, the Delhi High Court separately ruled that John Doe orders could continue to be used to block websites if more than one page on the site was identified as a potential source of copyright violations. 73 websites were involved in the judgment, not because they were proven to violate copyright, but because the plaintiff had preemptively identified them as possible violators of exclusive broadcast rights to cricket matches dating from 2014.174 Other John Doe orders continued to be issued.175
In September 2017, Russian social network VKontakte was blocked by certain ISPs allegedly for promoting the “Blue Whale Game,” which was a series of tasks that incited suicide among players of the game.176 The High Court in Madras also issued instructions to the government to block related materials following allegations that a person in Madurai, Tamil Nadu, had committed suicide while playing.177 In February 2018, the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology stated that there were adequate measures being taken to deal with the menace of the Blue Whale Game. The minister also stated that the union and state governments were educating the youth on safe practices online.178
The IT Act and the Indian Penal Code prohibit the production and transmission of “obscene material,”179 but there is no specific law against viewing pornography in India, except child pornography, which is prohibited under the IT Act (see Legal Environment).180 Extreme child sexual abuse is blocked based on guidance from INTERPOL,181 but other content restrictions threaten content that has not been found to break the law. The government, at the behest of the Central Bureau of Investigation, ordered blocks on more than 4,694 URLs containing material on child sexual abuse during the reporting period.182 In April 2017, MeitY also issued an order to block child pornography online based on a list maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation in the United Kingdom.183 In the case of Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India, the petitioner asked the Supreme Court to direct the government to block all online pornography.184 A judgment had not been issued in mid-2017, but the government has informed the Supreme Court that it is not feasible to block pornography entirely and that doing so would violate the constitution.185
Improvements to the framework for intermediary liability mean that less political and social content is subject to removal than in the past. However, takedowns and private censorship by companies still caused concern during the reporting period.
An interim order by the Supreme Court had implications for content removal by private companies. In late 2016, the court ordered search engines operated by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo to “auto-block” advertisements offering services to determine the sex of a child before birth, which contravened a 1994 law in an attempt to stop female feticide. The ruling went further than delisting specific content, asking search engines to block results for specific search terms and ordering the creation of a nodal agency to oversee the process.186 Critics fear the ruling would restrict related information and breach the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment.187 In a subsequent order in April 2017, the court also directed the search engines to set up an in-house expert body to monitor and block content that would contravene the law; however, this order was reversed in December 2017, with the court reaffirming its previous directions.188
A 2008 IT Act amendment protected technology companies from legal liability for content posted to their platforms, with reasonable exceptions to prevent criminal acts or privacy violations.189 Intermediary guidelines issued in 2011 under Section 79 of the IT Act required intermediaries to remove access to certain content within 36 hours of a user complaint.190 The government later clarified this rule.191 In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court read down Section 79 and the intermediary guidelines, and companies are no longer required to act on user complaints. Court and government takedown orders, furthermore, are only legitimate if they fall within the reasonable restrictions provided for under Article 19(2) of the constitution. Unlawful content beyond the ambit of Article 19(2) cannot be restricted.192
Based on the ruling, Facebook said it would require more formal notifications to restrict content.193 It restricted 1,914 items from July 2017 to December 2017, citing legal requests from the central government and local law enforcement agencies,194 up from 1,228 items from January to June 2017.195 Authorities claimed that the majority of content requested to be removed violated laws on hate speech and defamation of religion and the state.
Content removal based on alleged violations of Facebook’s community standards still attracted controversy. Critics have pointed out that Facebook seems to be blocking criticism of the Indian government, the ruling BJP party, and Hindutva groups propagating right-wing ideology.196 For example, Facebook has, on certain occasions, blocked posts of the popular anonymous political satire page Humans of Hindutva.197 In both June and July 2017, Facebook also blocked the page of the local Kannada newspaper Vartha Bharti. The newspaper’s editor alleged that Facebook was blocking anti-right-wing content, including Vartha Bharti because it reported on topics that were often ignored by mainstream outlets, such as news about Muslims, Dalits, and farmers.198 In September 2017, a user’s personal Facebook page was blocked for 30 days because of a photo of a cash memo featuring the slogan “kamal ka phool humari bhool.” The slogan translates to “we regret voting for the lotus flower,” which is the election symbol of the BJP party.199 In July 2017, Facebook blocked the page of Kashmir-based magazine Kashmir Ink on the grounds of terrorism-related content and also removed the image of the magazine’s cover depicting slain militant Burhan Wani.200
Other international companies reported receiving a high number of requests to remove content from Indian courts or government representatives. Google reported receiving 1,074 content removal requests affecting 3,172 items from July and December 2017. 60 percent of requests came from court orders while 23 percent were from government agencies and law enforcement. The most commonly cited reasons for removal requests were defamation and national security.201
Twitter received 144 requests for content removal from July to December 2017, two of which were court ordered, while 142 were ordered from police or government agencies. Twitter stated that it had complied with three percent of these requests.202 In September 2017, it was reported that the government requested Twitter to block Kashmir-related content and accounts.203 Twitter also blocked the accounts of spiritual leader Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insaan and his group Dera Sacha Sauda following his imprisonment for rape charges.204
Intermediaries can separately be held liable for infringing the Copyright Act 1957,205 under the law and licensing agreements.206 The Shreya Singhal decision has had no impact on the legal framework on intermediary liability for copyright infringement. A 2012 amendment limited liability for intermediaries such as search engines that link users to material copied illegally, but mandated that they disable public access for 21 days within 36 hours of receiving written notice from the copyright holder, pending a court order to remove the link.207 Rules clarifying the amendment in 2013 gave intermediaries power to assess the legitimacy of the notice from the copyright holder and refuse to comply.208 However, critics said the language was vague.209
Media, Diversity, and Content Manipulation
During the reporting period, fake news and doctored videos on WhatsApp incited real-world violence in which over 20 people were killed.210 Misinformation and fake news on WhatsApp were also prevalent around the May 2018 Karnataka state elections. As the country deals with these issues while also gearing up for the 2019 general elections, the government has indicated that it is looking into regulating social media platforms.
Rumors of child kidnappings proliferated across the internet in the spring of 2018 predominantly through WhatsApp groups. Some messages included descriptions of people plotting to kidnap children, while others included altered video clips of abductions.211 For example, in May, one transgender woman was killed in Hyderabad because a WhatsApp message claimed that transgender women were planning to kidnap children.212 In another case, a software engineer was killed after he gave candy to children.
The government has responded to lynchings with at least one internet shutdown213 and a number of arrests, some of which were directly related to WhatsApp content (See Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activity).214 WhatsApp has also taken action by restricting the number of times a message can be forwarded in the country.215
WhatsApp also played an important role in the May 2018 Karnataka state elections. False content in videos, audio clips, messages, and articles were distributed across the app, some with the intention to rile up Hindu-Muslim tensions.216 For example, right-wing Hindu groups spread a video of a lynching in Guatemala but described it as a Muslim mob attacking a Hindu woman. Another message was a fake BBC preelection poll predicting a massive win for the BJP. At least 50,000 election-related WhatsApp groups were supposedly created by the BJP and Congress parties.
The government has not shied away from discussing regulating and monitoring social media. In the lead-up to the 2019 general elections, the government has announced that it is looking to regulate hate speech and misinformation on social platforms.217 A panel was established by the Election Commission of India to look into Facebook, WhatsApp, and YouTube and to suggest ways to enforce and create regulations to help curb misinformation and fake news on social media. In June 2017, it was reported that the government was working on a social media policy to monitor the spread of antinationalist propaganda and accounts conspiring against India.218
Online media content is diverse and lively. The internet has given voice to people in remote areas, helping them become part of the public discourse. The Delhi-based company Gram Vaani operates a Mobile Vaani initiative, using an interactive voice response (IVR) system to disseminate reports by mobile phone users to different audiences and stakeholders. It enables over 80,000 households across 12 states to create their own media.219
In general, self-censorship is not widespread but instances of threats of violence have resulted in people as well as news outlets removing online content. In September 2017, news outlet Quint took down a video it had published criticizing a popular misogynist song after the reporter received numerous rape threats and the singer encouraged his supporters to troll the outlet.220 In December 2017, the administrator of the political satire Humans of Hindutva took down its Facebook page because right-wing trolls threatened him and his family.221 The administrator reactivated the Facebook page a few months later, claiming that he would not be intimidated by trolls.222
While the internet serves as a tool of empowerment for many Indians, some trends have caused concern, including allegations of politicized content manipulation. Aggressive online commentators who self-identify as Hindu nationalists routinely abuse their opponents. Recent research shows that employees of the ruling BJP party have orchestrated some of the abusive activity, including threats targeting women and journalists, in order to create a hostile online environment for people criticizing the government and its leaders.223
Trolling has appeared to align with the BJP agenda under the BJP administration, but there is limited evidence that government actors are directly involved. Rather, officials’ tacit support of online abuse—evidenced, for example, by the prime minister following known troll accounts on Twitter—contribute to a climate in which people who are perceived to oppose popular discourse face intimidation, even while robust political debate continues in many online forums. Online harassment remained widespread during the reporting period (see Digital Activism and Intimidation and Violence).
Prior to their successful 2014 election, BJP politicians had been accused of paying specialized companies to artificially boost their popularity on social media,224 and some party representatives were reported to have paid citizens to post messages of support.225 Rival parties have likewise been accused of secretly sponsoring online support.226
In July 2018, following the coverage period, India adopted new net neutrality rules that were originally proposed in November 2017 by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.227 Some reported that the new rules make India the strongest backer of net neutrality in the world.228 The rules, with only some exceptions, prevent internet providers from interfering with content, including prohibiting blocking, throttling, and zero-rating. Breaking of the rules could result in operators losing their licenses in the country. It was also reported that the government will establish a multistakeholder body to ensure that net neutrality rules are enforced.229
Digital activism is popular and has resulted in some proven successes on the national scale in the past. During the reporting period, however, there were no widespread changes resulting from the various campaigns and groups using social media.
In August 2016, a video documenting abuse of Dalits in a district of Gujarat launched major protests against discrimination. Dalits are marginalized in the traditional Hindu caste system. With the rise of nationalist politics, vigilante groups characterizing themselves as gau rakshaks (cow protectors) have attacked Dalits and other minorities that consume or handle beef.230 The assailants circulated a video of an attack targeting eight members of a Dalit community who skin cattle for a living as a warning, but protesters used it to ensure national media covered the incident, and subsequently organized demonstrations and a strike using social media and communication apps.231 However, few changes resulted.232
Several arrests for online speech were reported during the coverage period, including for content distributed on WhatsApp and Facebook. In a positive development, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling recognizing privacy as a fundamental right. However, controversies surrounding India’s Aadhaar project continued, and the Supreme Court ruled in September 2018 that the program is constitutional. In August 2017, the government established the Srikrishna committee to develop a data protection and privacy framework, which was released after the coverage period in July 2018.
The Constitution of India grants citizens the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression,233 including the right to gather information and exchange thoughts within and outside India.234 Press freedom has been read into the freedom of speech and expression.235 These freedoms are subject to certain restrictions in the interests of state security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency and morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offense, and the sovereignty and integrity of India. However, these restrictions may only be imposed under a law, not by executive action.236 In August 2017, a landmark Supreme Court ruling recognized privacy as a fundamental right embedded in the right to life, liberty, and freedom of expression (see Surveillance, Privacy, and Anonymity).237
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizes several kinds of speech and applies to online content. Individuals could be sentenced to two to seven years in prison for speech that is found to be seditious,238 obscene,239 defamatory,240 “promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language,”241 committing acts “prejudicial to maintenance of harmony,”242 or consisting of statements, rumors, or reports that may cause fear, alarm, disturb public tranquility, or promote enmity or ill will.243 Internet users are also subject to criminal punishment under the Official Secrets Act for wrongful communication of information that may have an adverse effect on the sovereignty and integrity of India.244
The IT Act criminalizes certain online activity such as the creation, transmission, or browsing of child pornography.245 Section 67 bans the publication or transmission of obscene or sexually explicit content in electronic form, and Section 66D punishes the use of computer resources to impersonate someone else to commit fraud.
Section 66A, a particularly problematic provision, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015. The provision criminalized information causing "annoyance,” “inconvenience,” or “danger,” among other ill-defined categories and led to several arrests for social media posts from 2012 through early 2015. The court in the Shreya Singhal judgment246 affirmed that freedom of speech online is equal to freedom of speech offline and held that Section 66A went beyond reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech specified in Article 19(2) of the constitution.247 Outstanding prosecutions under the section were dropped,248but similar complaints continue to be registered under Sections 67, 66D, or the IPC (see Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities).
A 2016 Supreme Court judgment upheld laws criminalizing defamation (Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and Section 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) as consistent with the Indian Constitution.249 The sections have been used against online speech in the past.250
Prosecutions and Detentions for Online Activities
More than 20 criminal complaints involving online content were filed during the coverage period, and over a dozen people were detained for sharing content that was considered politically or religiously insulting or misrepresentative. There were also additional cases surrounding the spread of fake news and rumors on social media. However, no convictions were documented in the reporting period. These arrests and cases continued the trend described in 2016; before that, the number of detentions for online activity fell off slightly following the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal ruling on the IT Act (see Content Removal).
As fake news, misinformation, and rumors continue to spread on social media, the government has responded in part by arresting ICT users. In February 2018, Junaid Khan, a 21-year-old student, was arrested and detained for at least five months for sedition under the IT Act and IPC Section 124A after a complaint against an “objectionable” message in a WhatsApp group, of which he was the administrator, was made to the police. Khan’s family claimed that he was only the default administrator, after the original admin who shared the content left the group.251
In June 2018, following the coverage period of this report, at least seven people were arrested in the Kozhikode district for spreading false information about the Nipah virus.252 Social media posts and audio messages that were shared or forwarded contained false statements such as who was undergoing treatment and how the Nipah virus could be transferred. The following month, in July 2018, two more people were arrested for spreading false rumors, one of whom was a WhatsApp group administrator. The arrests were in connection to a lynching caused largely by child abduction rumors on WhatsApp.253
Several additional cases regarding online activity prompted detentions, including:
In August 2017, Bashir Ahmed, a man from the Doda region of Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested for spreading “anti-national propaganda” on Facebook and WhatsApp.254
In September 2017, Maha Laxmi, an active social commentator from Vellore, Tamil Nadu, was arrested for criticizing a judge on Facebook.255
In October 2017, D. Sanjeev, a bus conductor with Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), was given a notice by the Telangana Vigilance Wing for posting content criticizing the chief minister and other TSRTC policies.256
In October 2017, Debajit Roy and Anupam Tarafdar were arrested in West Bengal for posting about traffic jams on Facebook. The High Court stepped in to say that no charge sheet would be filed against the two men without its permission, but the police were free to investigate the case. The men were released on bail.257
In November 2017, Thirumurugan, a 19-year-old engineer, was arrested in Srivilliputhur in Tamil Nadu and charged under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 505 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A BJP party worker alleged that Thirumurugan had sent abusive messages criticizing the recently introduced Goods and Services Tax and Prime Minister Modi in a private chat on Facebook.258
In November 2017, cartoonist G. Bala was arrested for making and sharing a cartoon of the Tamil Nadu chief minister and two other authorities under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 501 of the IPC.259
In November 2017, Afghan Soni, a journalist based in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, was arrested and charged with defamation and computer-related offenses under Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000.260
In November 2017, Haryana police arrested, under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 292A of the IPC, Mohammad Saqib, a tailor from Uttarakhand, for sharing morphed pictures of Prime Minister Modi on WhatsApp.261
In December 2017, five men were arrested in Rajasthan for supporting on social media the man accused of murdering a migrant Muslim man for “love-jihad.”262
In February 2018, two men were arrested in Ballia, Uttar Pradesh under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 and Section 295 of the IPC for criticizing Prime Minister Modi, UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, and certain Hindu deities on social media.263
In February 2018, Kamal, a man from Chennai, was arrested following his post on Facebook with marijuana, which is illegal in India.264 Sasikumar, Kamal’s friend who took the photo, also was arrested.
Surveillance, Privacy, and Anonymity
In August 2017, the Supreme Court recognized privacy as a fundamental right.265 Following the coverage period in July 2018, the Srikrishna committee, established in 2017 to create a data protection framework,266 submitted a draft privacy framework “Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018”267 and a report268 to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. India’s IT minister has stated that he would like consultations on the law,269 and cabinet and parliament will further review the recommendations.270
The 2017 Supreme Court ruling came in the context of Aadhaar, a unique identification project that collects and stores biometric and other data like fingerprints, iris scans, and photos of over one billion Indians. The scheme raises serious concerns regarding data privacy, security, and usage.271 The government uses Aadhaar enrollment for the provision of multiple public services including food stamps and cell phone connection.272 Controversies have also erupted around the relationship between the project and private companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, and Google.273 In 2017, it was reported that millions of Aadhaar records had been treated as publicly shareable data by different government departments.274 A national government-administered rural employment scheme was among several initiatives or agencies reported to have accidentally revealed Aadhaar numbers.275 Additional breaches were reported in 2018.276
In September 2018, following the reporting period, the Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar is constitutional, but set important limits on the program’s use.277 The ruling held that the program is mandatory for government welfare schemes and that Indians must link their Aadhaar number to income tax filings and permanent account numbers. The court also ruled that there were sufficient existing safeguards against security and data breaches. However, Aadhaar numbers cannot be made required for services such as obtaining a SIM card, opening a bank account, and receiving educational grants and admissions. The court also set new data retention requirements and called for the immediate passing of a “robust” data protection law.278 It is unclear how the government and private companies utilizing Aadhaar data will implement the ruling, and what they will do with the Aadhaar data they have on users.
The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, submitted to the government by the Srikrishna committee in July 2018, has raised controversy. Civil society and tech companies279 have critiqued the bill on issues280 such as the data localization requirement281 and its ability to facilitate invasive government surveillance.282The bill also supplies the central government with more powers through a range of provisions, such as creating new criminal liabilities and establishing a Data Protection Authority of India comprised of six government-appointed members, raising issues of independence, transparency, and accountability.283
There is limited opportunity for anonymity on the internet in India. Prepaid and postpaid mobile customers have their identification verified before connections are activated.284 There is a legal requirement to submit identification at cybercafes285 and while subscribing to internet connections. The effective implementation of privacy rights remains a significant issue. Communications surveillance may be conducted under the Telegraph Act,286 as well as the IT Act,287 to protect defense, national security, sovereignty, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and to prevent incitement to a cognizable offense. Section 69 of the IT Act appears to add another broad category, allowing surveillance for “the investigation of any offence.”288
The home secretary at the central or state level issues interception orders based on procedural safeguards established by the Supreme Court and rules under the Telegraph Act.289 These are reviewed by a committee of government officials of a certain rank, and carried out by intermediaries.290 A similar framework applies to the IT Act.291 Interception orders, which are not reviewed by a court, are limited to 60 days, renewable for up to 180 days.292 In emergencies, phone tapping may take place for up to 72 hours without clearance; records must be destroyed if the home secretary subsequently denies permission.293
Eight separate intelligence bodies are authorized to issue surveillance orders to service providers under these circumstances.294 Around 7,500 to 9,000 telephone interception orders are issued by the central government alone each month, according to a 2014 report citing information revealed in a right to information request.295
Online intermediaries are required by law to “intercept, monitor, or decrypt” or otherwise provide user information to officials.296 The Telegraph Act levies civil penalties or license revocation for noncompliance297 and the IT Act carries a possible seven-year jail term.298 Unlawful interception is punishable by just three years of imprisonment.299
Some improvements to the framework have been made. On January 2, 2014, the government issued “Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Lawful Interception and Monitoring of Telecom Service Providers,” which were viewed by journalists but not publicly available.300 The procedures restricted interception to a service provider’s “chief nodal officer,” and mandated that interception orders be in writing.301 Rules issued in 2011 under the IT Act increased protection of personal data handled by companies.302 However, they do not apply to the government; critics say they create a burden on multinational companies, particularly in the context of the outsourcing industry.303
These improvements failed to address the framework’s inconsistencies. In 2012, a government-appointed group of experts said the Telegraph and the IT Acts are inconsistent with regard to “permitted grounds,” “type of interception,” “granularity of information that can be intercepted,” the degree of assistance from service providers, and the “destruction and retention” of “intercepted material.” These differences, it concluded, “have created an unclear regulatory regime that is non-transparent, prone to misuse, and that does not provide remedy for aggrieved individuals.”304
License agreements require service providers to guarantee the designated security agency or licensor remote access to information for monitoring;305 ensure that their equipment contains necessary software and hardware for centralized interception and monitoring; and provide the geographical location, such as the nearest Base Transceiver Station, of any subscriber at a given point in time.306 Under a 2011 Equipment Security Agreement that did not appear on the DoT website, telecom operators were separately told to develop the capacity to pinpoint any customer’s physical location within 50 meters.307 “Customers specified by security agencies” were prioritized for location monitoring, with “all customers, irrespective of whether they are the subject of legal intercept or not,” to be monitored by June 2014.308 The agreement remains effective, though various GSM operators lobbied for the clause to be removed from the license agreement because of compliance issues.309 In 2014, an amendment to licensing conditions mandated government testing for all telecom equipment prior to use, effective in 2015.310 Cybercafe owners are required to photograph their customers, arrange computer screens in plain sight, keep copies of client IDs and their browsing histories for one year, and forward this data to the government each month.311
ISPs setting up cable landing stations are required to install infrastructure for surveillance and keyword scanning of all traffic passing through each gateway.312 The ISP license bars internet providers from deploying bulk encryption; restricts the level of encryption for individuals, groups, or organizations to a key length of 40 bits;313 and mandates prior approval from the DoT or a designated officer to install encryption equipment.314
The government also seeks user information from international web-based platforms. Google reported that the government made 4,508 user data requests and 8,589 requests to access accounts between July and December 2017. Google made disclosures in 58 percent of the cases.315 To Facebook, the government requested access to 17,262 accounts between July and December 2017 and data was produced by Facebook in 53 percent of cases.316 Twitter also reported that the government made 315 account information requests between June and December 2017. Twitter said it produced data in 15 percent of cases.317
Besides retrieving data from intermediaries, the government’s own surveillance equipment is becoming more sophisticated. The Central Monitoring System (CMS) allows government agencies to intercept any online activities directly, including phone calls, text messages, and VoIP communication, using Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) systems on intermediary premises.318 In May 2016, the Minister for Communications and IT stated that the monitoring centers were already operational in Delhi and Mumbai.319 More centers were due to be rolled out across the country, but no updates were available in mid-2018.
MeitY officials indicated that security agencies could access messaging services such as WhatsApp in 2017, though they are unable to view encrypted content. In response to a question in the Lower House of Parliament, the Minister of State for Information Technology stated that “security agencies are able to intercept these encrypted communication services through the lawful interception facilities provided by the Telecom Service Providers, but they are not able to decrypt some of encrypted intercepted communication to readable format.”320
Law enforcement agencies may proactively monitor social media for signs of wrongdoing, although the legal grounds for doing so is unclear. In March 2017, the Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology said that “social Networking sites hosted anywhere in the world are monitored by the law enforcement agencies.”321
Intimidation and Violence
Women, journalists, and political activists report frequent trolling and violent threats in response to their online posts.322 In September 2017, journalists across Delhi and the National Capital Region received targeted death threats on WhatsApp. Messages included references to Gauri Lankesh, a journalist who was killed in September 2017 in Bangalore.323
In July 2016, Minister of Women and Child Development Maneka Gandhi invited women facing harassment to report it to her directly by email after a journalist reported that one abusive post appeared to come from a popular singer.324 The government is also developing an app in response to the problem,325 but women continued to be silenced as a result of the harassment in the past year. Gurmehar Kaur, a 20-year-old student of Lady Sri Ram College, New Delhi, was subject to threats of rape and murder after she criticized a hardline right-wing student group in an online video in February 2017.326 She withdrew from a related protest campaign as a result of the harassment.327
India remained a frequent target of cyberattacks during the coverage period. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) reported over 53,000 cybersecurity incidents in 2017.328 The majority of these, over 29,000, were website defacements, while over 9,000 incidents related to a virus or malicious code and an additional 9,000 incidents occurred for probing or network scanning. CERT-In issues periodic advisories, and the government updates a crisis management plan for central and state governments to respond to cybercrime on an annual basis.329 According to Symantec’s 2018 Internet Security Threat Report, India received the second highest number of targeted attacks in the world between 2015 and 2017.330
In 2016, CERT-In reported a total of 3,347 website hacks during the year.331 Almost 200 central and state government sites were affected, including the site of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.332 However, attacks to suppress online speech are not known to be widespread; most have economic motives, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.333
1 SFLC.in project, https://www.internetshutdowns.in/; https://www.ifex.org/india/2018/07/18/internet_shutdown_worst/; Sarvjeet Singh, “Incidents of Internet Shutdowns in India (2010 onwards)”, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwkVG7IkYz7Ac0ZZMHhCeUc3Nkt0d0U4cURvY0h....
2 Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, August 7, 2017, http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Suspension%20Rules.pdf?download=1.
4 Vindu Goel, “In India, Facebook’s WhatsApp Plays Central Role in Elections,” New York Times, May 14, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/technology/whatsapp-india-elections.html
7 Ajai Sreevatsan, “EmTech 2018: India to account for half of new Internet users in few years: Akamai’s Beardsell”, Live Mint, March 8, 2018, http://www.livemint.com/Technology/gaxdxNnR3o72YkZXICk1JJ/EmTech-2018-India-to-account-for-half-of-new-Internet-users.html; Harriet Taylor, “Mary Meeker: India now has more internet users than US”, CNBC, June 1, 2016,http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/mary-meeker-india-now-has-more-internet-users-that-us.html; Vlad Savov, “India rises past the US to become the internet’s second biggest user,” The Verge, June 2, 2016, http://bit.ly/1Y3YnQx; “India Pips US in Number of Internet Users”, Huffington Post India, June 2, 2016, http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/06/02/india-internet-usage_n_10259450.html.
8 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators January – March 2018, June 27, 2018, p. ii, https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIReport27062018_0.pdf.
9 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators January – March 2018, June 27, 2018, p. ii, https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIReport27062018_0.pdf.
10 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators January – March 2018, June 27, 2018, p. ii, https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIReport27062018_0.pdf.
11 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators January – March 2018, June 27, 2018, p. ii, https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIReport27062018_0.pdf.
12 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators January - March 2017, July 5, 2017, p. ii, https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Indicator_Reports_05_Jul_2017.pdf.
13 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. i, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
14 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2016, December 30, 2016, p. i, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Indicator_Reports_Ending_Sep_....
15 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 7, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
16 Broadband Commission (ITU & UNESCO), The State of Broadband 2017: Broadband Catalyzing Sustainable Development, September 2017, p. 90, https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/pol/S-POL-BROADBAND.18-2017-PDF-E.pdf.
17 Broadband Commission (ITU & UNESCO), The State of Broadband 2017: Broadband Catalyzing Sustainable Development, September 2016, p. 93, http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/reports/bb-annualreport2016.pdf.
18 Akamai, The State of the Internet, Q1, 2017 Report, Vol. 10 No. 1, May 31, 2017, p. 12, https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf.
19 Akamai, The State of the Internet, Q1, 2017 Report, Vol. 10 No. 1, May 31, 2017, p. 28, https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf.
20 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2016, December 30, 2016, p. 29, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Indicator_Reports_Ending_Sep_30122016.pdf
21 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 38, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf
22 Akamai, The State of the Internet, Q1, 2017 Report, Vol. 10 No. 1, May 31, 2017, p. 29, https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf.
23 Akamai, The State of the Internet, Q1, 2017 Report, Vol. 10 No. 1, May 31, 2017, p. 29, https://www.akamai.com/us/en/multimedia/documents/state-of-the-internet/q1-2017-state-of-the-internet-connectivity-report.pdf.
24 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, “TRAI’s Recommendations on the National Broadband Plan”, May 4, 2011, http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Reply_DOT_Broadband_modified.pdf.
25 Report on Need for Reviewing Definition of Broadband, May 24th 2016, TRAI, http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/Letter_to_Secretary_DOT_24_may_2016.pdf.
26 Silja Baller, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin (Eds.), Global Information Technology Report 2016, World Economic Forum and INSEAD, p. 111, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf.
27 Thierry Geiger, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin (Eds.), Global Information Technology Report 2015, World Economic Forum and INSEAD, p. 172, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf.
28 Silja Baller, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin (Eds.), Global Information Technology Report 2016, World Economic Forum and INSEAD, p. 111, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GITR2016/WEF_GITR_Full_Report.pdf.
29 “Income Inequality Highest in India Since 1980s, Finds New Report”, The Wire, December 14, 2017, https://thewire.in/205013/income-inequality-highest-india-since-1980s-finds-new-report/; “Oxfam survey points India’s rising income inequality ahead of WEF”, Live Mint, January 22, 2018, http://www.livemint.com/Politics/RyU4Iw2NxwolMOp5SIfmVK/Oxfam-survey-points-Indias-rising-income-inequality-ahead-o.html.
30 Klaus Schwab, The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018, World Economic Forum, p. 146, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf.
31 Klaus Schwab, The Global Competitiveness Report 2016–2017, World Economic Forum, p. 202, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf.
32 Klaus Schwab, The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018, World Economic Forum, p. 147, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf.
33 Klaus Schwab, The Global Competitiveness Report 2017–2018, World Economic Forum, p. 147, http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2016-2017/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2016-2017_FINAL.pdf.
34 Flash Statistics: School Education in India 2015-16, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, p. 27, http://udise.in/Downloads/Publications/Documents/U-DISE-SchoolEducationInIndia-2015-16.pdf.
35 Flash Statistics: School Education in India 2015-16, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, p. 27, http://udise.in/Downloads/Publications/Documents/U-DISE-SchoolEducationInIndia-2015-16.pdf.
36 Flash Statistics: Secondary Education in India 2015-16, National University of Educational Planning and Administration, p. 13, http://udise.in/Downloads/Publications/Documents/Secondary_Flash_Statistics-2015-16.pdf.
37 Annual Status of Education Report 2017 ‘Beyond Basics’ (Rural), ASER Centre, p. 74, http://img.asercentre.org/docs/Publications/ASER%20Reports/ASER%202017/aser2017fullreportfinal.pdf.
38 Anirudh Vohra, “Free Wi-Fi: Digital Dilemma”, The Financial Express, February 21, 2015, http://www.financialexpress.com/article/economy/free-wi-fi-digital-dilemma/45804/; “25 Indian cities to get free public Wi-Fi by June 2015”, India Today, December 17, 2014, http://indiatoday.intoday.in/technology/story/25-indian-cities-to-get-free-public-wi-fi-by-june-2015/1/407214.html.
43 “Railways targets 100% Wi-Fi enabled tations across India by 2019 at a cost of Rs. 700 crore”, Business Today, January 8, 2018, https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/railways-targets-100-percent-wifi-enabled-stations-india-2019-cost-rs-700-crore/story/267546.html.
44 Mohul Ghosh, “CERT Issues Warning Against Public Wifi Even As Govt. Plans 7.5 lakh Rural Wifi Hotspots!”, Trak.in, October 23, 2017, http://trak.in/tags/business/2017/10/21/cert-issues-warning-free-wifi/.
45 “Digital India – A programme to transform India into digital empowered society and knowledge economy”, August 20, 2014, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=108926.
46 Digital India, DeitY, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Digital%20India.pdf.
48 Ananth Narayanan, “Budget 2018: Booster for Digital India plan; govt to install Wi-Fi hotspots”, Business Standard, February 2, 2018, http://www.business-standard.com/budget/article/budget-2018-booster-for-digital-india-plan-govt-to-install-wi-fi-hotspots-118020200040_1.html.
49 National Optic Fibre Network (NOFN), Bharat Broadband Network Limited, http://www.bbnl.nic.in/content/page/national-optical-fibre-networknofn.php.
50 CSC 2.0 Scheme, Common Service Centres Scheme, DeitY, Govt. of India, http://csc.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=174&Itemid=331.
51 “Technology used for public good can deliver lasting prosperity: Prime Minister Narendra Modi”, New Indian Express, February 20, 2018, http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2018/feb/20/technology-used-for-public-good-can-deliver-lasting-prosperity-prime-minister-narendra-modi-1775990.html.
52 “Centre ready to use satellites, drones to connect to rural India: Ravi Shankar Prasad”, Economic Times, February 4, 2015, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-02-04/news/58795885_1_digital-india-ravi-shankar-prasad-pilot-project.
55 “Digi Dhan Abhiyan: Over 25 Lakh Rural Citizens Adopt Digital Payments, Claims MeitY”, News18, December 20, 2016, http://www.news18.com/news/tech/digi-dhan-abhiyan-over-25-lakh-rural-citizens-adopt-digital-payments-claims-meity-1325527.html.
56 “Digi Dhan Abhiyan: Over 25 Lakh Rural Citizens Adopt Digital Payments, Claims MeitY”, News18, December 20, 2016, http://www.news18.com/news/tech/digi-dhan-abhiyan-over-25-lakh-rural-citizens-adopt-digital-payments-claims-meity-1325527.html.
57 “MeitY and Google launch ‘Digital Payments Security Alliance’”, Hindustan Times, March 24, 2017, http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/meity-and-google-launch-digital-payment-security-alliance/story-rxt78P5ncCU0aAaZQKGTtI.html.
58 Navadha Pandey, “Only 16% of rural users access Internet for digital payments: report”, Live Mint, February 20, 2018, http://www.livemint.com/Politics/PhY0kTxoJqq6U9GISIpSaK/Only-16-of-rural-users-access-Internet-for-digital-payments.html.
59 Navadha Pandey, “Only 16% of rural users access Internet for digital payments: report”, Live Mint, February 20, 2018, http://www.livemint.com/Politics/PhY0kTxoJqq6U9GISIpSaK/Only-16-of-rural-users-access-Internet-for-digital-payments.html.
60 IMRB-INT, IAMAI Internet in India 2014, October 2014, p. 14; “Local language content to boost India’s internet penetration: IAMAI”, August 4, 2015, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Local-language-content-to-boost-Indias-internet-penetration-IAMAI/articleshow/48346892.cms.
61 Usage of Content Languages for Websites, W3Techs, http://w3techs.com/technologies; http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/content_language/all.
63 Anoop Verma, “Internet domain names in Indian languages”, Financial Express, February 2, 2015, http://computer.financialexpress.com/magazine/internet-domain-names-in-indian-languages/8613/.
64 Indian Languages – Defining India’s Internet, KPMG and Google, April 2017, p. 7, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/04/Indian-languages-Defining-Indias-Internet.pdf; Pankaj Dovali, “90% of new net users non-English,” Times of India, April 26, 2017, http://bit.ly/2piaEV7.
65 Indian Languages – Defining India’s Internet, KPMG and Google, April 2017, p. 7, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/04/Indian-languages-Defining-Indias-Internet.pdf; Pankaj Dovali, “90% of new net users non-English,” Times of India, April 26, 2017, http://bit.ly/2piaEV7.
67 “only 30% of internet users in India are women: Report”, Economic Times, February 21, 2018, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/only-30-of-internet-users-in-india-are-women-report/articleshow/63008082.cms.
68 “Only One-Third of India’s Total Internet Users are Female: UNICEF Report”, The Wire, December 12, 2017, https://thewire.in/204143/one-third-indias-total-internet-users-female-unicef-report/.
69 “Only 30% internet users in India are women: IAMAI report”, BGR, February 21, 2018, http://www.bgr.in/news/only-30-percent-internet-users-in-india-are-women-iamai-report/.
70 “Google, Tata Trusts to expand Internet Saathi programme”, The Hindu Business Line, December 5, 2017, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/google-tata-trusts-to-expand-internet-saathi-programme/article9982611.ece; Nandini Rathi, “Google’s Internet Saathi programme: How rural women are transforming communities”, Indian Express, March 13, 2017, http://bit.ly/2mhpUyn.
71 “Google, Tata Trusts to expand Internet Saathi programme”, The Hindu Business Line, December 5, 2017, https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/google-tata-trusts-to-expand-internet-saathi-programme/article9982611.ece.
72 Surabhi Agarwal, “Google and Tata Trusts expand ‘Internet Saathi’ program in Tamil Nadu”, Economic Times, February 7, 2018, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/google-and-tata-trusts-expand-internet-saathi-program-in-tamil-nadu/articleshow/62819043.cms.
73 “Government data shows internet shutdowns in India could be the worst in the world,” IFEX, July 18, 2018, https://www.ifex.org/india/2018/07/18/internet_shutdown_worst/
74 Kim Aroral, “Russian social network VKontakte temporarily blocked in India for Blue Whale threat”, TOI, September 12, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/russian-social-network-vkontakte-temporarily-blocked-in-india-for-blue-whale-threat/articleshow/60478655.cms
75 Sarvjeet Singh, “Incidents of Internet Shutdowns in India (2010 onwards)”, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BycAZd9M5_7NOExCRnQ3Q1pqcm8/view.
76 SFLC.in project, https://www.internetshutdowns.in/; https://www.ifex.org/india/2018/07/18/internet_shutdown_worst/; Sarvjeet Singh, “Incidents of Internet Shutdowns in India (2010 onwards)”, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwkVG7IkYz7Ac0ZZMHhCeUc3Nkt0d0U4cURvY0hRTkxLY3pj/view.
77 Sarvjeet, Singh, “Incidents of Internet Shutdowns in India (2010 onwards)”, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi, https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BycAZd9M5_7NOExCRnQ3Q1pqcm8/view.
78 “Internet services restored in Valley after 7-day shutdown”, The North Times, June 20, 2017, https://www.thenorthlines.com/internet-services-restored-valley-7-day-shutdown/.
79 “Total Internet Shutdown In Kashmir From Tonight”, NDTV, June 6, 2017, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/internet-suspended-in-kashmir-ahead-of-burhan-wanis-death-anniversary-1721598; Sullivan, Tim, “In Death, a Kashmir Rebel becomes what India has long feared,” AP International News, September 6, 2016,https://apnews.com/c71679e2a82c44048384ea5e4219e86b/death-kashmir-rebel-becomes-what-india-has-long-feared.
80 “Mobile Internet Services restored in Kashmir Valley”, Economic Times, July 9, 2017, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/mobile-internet-services-restored-in-kashmir-valley/articleshow/59511364.cms.
81 “Internet services suspended in Kashmir”, News18, July 10, 2017, https://www.news18.com/news/india/internet-services-suspended-in-kashmir-1457457.html.
82 “internet services suspended in Jammu after killing of Amarnath Yatris in Kashmir”, Greater Kashmir, July 11, 2017, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/jammu/internet-services-suspended-in-jammu-after-killing-of-amarnath-yatris-in-kashmir/254426.html.
83 “High speed mobile internet, broadband services suspended in Anantnag in South Kashmir”, Greater Kashmir, July 19, 2017, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/high-speed-mobile-internet-broadband-services-suspended-in-anantnag-in-south-kashmir/255150.html; “Youth clash with forces in Beerwah; Internet suspended”, Greater Kashmir, July 22, 2017,http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/youth-clash-with-forces-in-beerwah-internet-suspended/255454.html; “Tahab gunfight: Internet services shut in Pulwama, clashes erupt”, Greater Kashmir, July 30, 2017, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/tahab-gunfight-internet-services-shut-in-pulwama-clashes-erupt/256187.html.
84 “Cellular, Internet services snappend in Kashmir on I-Day”, Greater Kashmir, August 15, 2017, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/cellular-internet-services-snapped-in-kashmir-on-i-day/257702.html.
85 “internet suspended in Kashmir on eve of R-Day”, Greater Kashmir, January 25, 2018, http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/kashmir/internet-suspended-in-kashmir-on-eve-of-r-day/273460.html.
86 “Shopian killings: Valley shuts in mourning”, Kashmir Monitor, January 29, 2018, https://www.kashmirmonitor.in/Details/142069/shopian-killings-valley-shuts-in-mourning.
87 Chennabasaveshwar, “Maharashtra bandh: Internet services suspended in Aurangabad”, OneIndia, January 3, 2018, https://www.oneindia.com/india/maharashtra-bandh-internet-services-suspe... “16 FIRs registered, over 300 detailed in Mumbai after Maharashtra bandh”, Asian Age, January 4, 2018,http://www.asianage.com/metros/mumbai/040118/16-firs-registered-over-300-detained-in-mumbai-after-maharashtra-bandh.html.
88 Ruchir Kumar and Aditya Nath Jha, “Internet services suspended in 7 districts after carcasses found floating in canal”, Hindustan Times, September 5, 2017, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/internet-services-suspended-in-7-districts-of-bihar-after-carcasses-found-floating-in-canal/story-QI1kptjbOc4fMA7gpeofwJ.html; “Internet services suspended in 7 districts”, Times of India, October 4, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/internet-services-suspend....
89 “Darjeeling Unrest: Internet services face complete shutdown”, DNA India, June 21, 2017, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-darjeeling-unrest-internet-services-face-complete-shutdown-2479227; “West Bengal communal violence: Internet services disrupted in Baduria following clashes in North 24 Parganas”, Financial Express, July 5, 2017,http://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/west-bengal-communal-violence-baduria-internet-services-disrupted-mamata-banerjee-facebook-post-north-24-parganas-protest/749676/.
90 “Kasganj: 49 Arrested, Borders Sealed and Internet Shut Down After Second Day of Violence”, News18, January 28, 2018, https://www.news18.com/news/india/kasganj-49-arrested-borders-sealed-and-internet-shut-down-after-second-day-of-violence-1643427.html; “Snapped for 2nd time in 2 weeks, Internet back in Saharanpur”, Economic Times, June 12, 2017,https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/snapped-for-2nd-time-in-2-weeks-internet-back-in-saharanpur/articleshow/59111754.cms.
91 “Dera Chief Sentencing: Mobile Internet Remains Suspended in ‘Sensitive’ Parts of Haryana”, NDTV, August 29, 2017, https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/dera-chief-sentencing-mobile-internet-remains-suspended-in-sensitive-parts-of-haryana-1743400; “Mobile Internet Services Suspended in 13 Districts in Haryana”, NDTV, November 25, 2017,https://www.ndtv.com/chandigarh-news/mobile-internet-services-suspended-in-13-districts-in-haryana-1779748.
93 “Anandpal encounter: Court orders fresh autopsy, Rajasthan bans Internet in Churu, Nagaur”, Hindustan Times, June 30, 2017, https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/anandpal-encounter-court-orders-fresh-autopsy-rajasthan-bans-internet-in-churu-nagaur/story-1aVMWm7sNCwWqaxblIFNlK.html; “Sec-144 Imposed in 4 Districts of Rajasthan After Violent Protest over Gangster Anandpal’s Encounter”, Huffington Post, July 13, 2017, https://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/07/13/sec-144-imposed-in-4-districts-of-rajasthan-after-violent-protes_a_23027445/; “Ram Rahim verdict: Violence in Sriganganagar, prohibitory orders imposed”, The Hindu, August 25, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/ram-rahim-verdict-violence-in-sriganganagar-prohibitory-orders-imposed/article19562071.ece.
94 “Tension grips Nimbahera on Eid-e-Milad, 2 cops hurt”, Times of India, December 3, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/udaipur/tension-grips-nimbahera-on-eid-e-milad-2-cops-hurt/articleshow/61899624.cms; “Raj: Mobile internet services suspended for 24 hrs after two communities clash”, Business Standard, February 18, 2018, http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/raj-mobile-internet-services-suspended-for-24-hrs-after-two-communities-clash-118021800622_1.html.
95 “Love Jihad” is the supposed, concerted attempt by Muslim men to deceive Hindu and Christian women into converting to Islam; See Charu Gupta, “Hindu Women, Muslim Men: Love Jihad and Conversions”, 44(51) Economic and Political Weekly, December 19, 2009.
96 “Internet services suspended after Hindu groups plan rally to support Rajsamand killer”, India Today, December 13, 2017, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rajsamand-murder-rajasthan-police-love-jihad-internet-services-1106814-2017-12-13.
97 “Tension in Bundi, net services banned for 2 days”, Times of India, December 31, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/tension-in-bundi-net-services-banned-for-2-days/articleshow/62311707.cms.
98 “Last year’s paper ‘leaked’ on social media as 9.34 lakh appear for REET”, Hindustan Times, February 11, 2018, https://www.hindustantimes.com/jaipur/last-year-s-paper-leaked-on-social-media-as-9-34-lakh-appear-for-reet/story-wY08KQuhlQ2Fwr3DFKYxMP.html.
99 Nakul Nayak, “The Anatomy of Internet Shutdowns – II (Gujarat & Constitutional Questions)”. CCG-NLU Blog, September 1, 2015, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/the-anatomy-of-internet-shutdowns-ii-gujarat-constitutional-questions/; Nakul Nayak, “The Anatomy of Internet Shutdowns – III (Post Script: Gujarat High Court Verdict)”, CCG-NLU Blog, September 19, 2015, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/the-anatomy-of-internet-shutdowns-iii-post-script-gujarat-high-court-verdict/; Chinmayi Arun, “Demarcating a safe threshold”, Indian Express, February 24, 2016 http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demarcating-a-safe-threshold/.
100 Nakul Nayak, “The Anatomy of Internet Shutdowns – III (Post Script: Gujarat High Court Verdict)”, CCG-NLU Blog, September 19, 2015, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/the-anatomy-of-internet-shutdowns-iii-post-script-gujarat-high-court-verdict/.
101 Chinmayi Arun, “Demarcating a safe threshold”, Indian Express, February 24, 2016 http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/demarcating-a-safe-threshold/; Apar Gupta and Raman Jit Singh Chima, “The cost of internet shutdowns”, Indian Express, October 26, 2016, http://bit.ly/2eHDj2Y.
102 Nakul Nayak, “The Anatomy of Internet Shutdowns – I (Of Kill Switches and Legal Vacuums)”. CCG-NLU Blog 29, 2015, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/the-anatomy-of-internet-shutdowns-i-of-kill-switches-and-legal-vacuums/; Apar Gupta, “Section 144 and the power to impose an internet curfew”, Economic Times, September 19, 2015,http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-19/news/66706176_1_mobile-internet-section-144-central-government.
103 Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, August 7, 2017, http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Suspension%20Rules.pdf?download=1.
104 Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, August 7, 2017, http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Suspension%20Rules.pdf?download=1.
105 “Undersea Connectivity: Key developments in Indian submarine cable systems”, Tele.net.in, October 6, 2017, http://bit.ly/2lAYsRe; Kalpana Pathak, “Relaince Jio launches 25,000-km-long submarine cable system”, Live Mint, June 29, 2017, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/Y7xREWxq844CdpBD9DsRQM/Reliance-Jio-launches-25000kmlong-submarine-cable-system.html.
106 The ten are: SeameWe-3; SeaMeWe-4; SeaMeWe-5; Asia-Africa Europe-1; Bay of Bengal Gateway; SAFE; Bharat Lanka Cable System; SEACOM/Tata TGN-Eurasia; IMEWE; and Europe India Gateway. See Submarine Cable Map, TeleGeography, http://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/country/india.
107 Tripura to become 3rd international internet gateway of India, July 4 2015, http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20150704/2634628.html; “Undersea Connectivity: Key developments in Indian submarine cable systems”, Tele.net.in, October 6, 2017, http://bit.ly/2lAYsRe.
108 India's new internet gateway via Cox’s Bazar to open late January, says minister, http://bit.ly/2xJp0kE; “Agartala Becomes India’s Third Internet Gateway”, NDTV Gadgets, March 23, 2016, http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/agartala-becomes-indias-third-internet-gateway-817331.
109 India, Submarine Cable Networks, http://www.submarinenetworks.com/stations/asia/india; Kalpana Pathak, “Relaince Jio launches 25,000-km-long submarine cable system”, Live Mint, June 29, 2017, http://www.livemint.com/Companies/Y7xREWxq844CdpBD9DsRQM/Reliance-Jio-launches-25000kmlong-submarine-cable-system.html.
110 India, Submarine Cable Networks, http://www.submarinenetworks.com/stations/asia/india.
111 “TRAI Specifies Access Facilitation Charges for Submarine Cable Landing Stations”, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, December 21, 2012, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=91106.
112 “HC Reserves Order On Petitions Challenging TRAI Regulations”, Business World, November 9, 2017, http://businessworld.in/article/Madras-High-Court-Reserves-Orders-On-Petitions-Challenging-TRAI-Regulations/09-11-2017-131167/; “HC refuses to stay TRAI order on cable landing charges”, Business Standard, March 16, 2017, http://bit.ly/2zq3Xbi.
115 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, pp. 104 - 108, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
116 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 40, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
117 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 40, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
118 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2016, December 30, 2016, p. 31, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Indicator_Reports_Ending_Sep_... Amrit Raj, “Reliance Jio plans to overtake Airtel, hit 50% market revenue in 4 years”, Live Mint, March 4, 2017, http://bit.ly/2gRxGPk.
119 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 40, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
120 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 13, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
121 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators July – September 2017, December 28, 2017, p. 15, http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/PIR_July_Sept_28122017.pdf.
122 Guidelines for Grant of Unified License, Department of Telecommunications, November 13, 2014, http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Amended%20UL%20Guidelines%2013112014.PDF. Guidelines and General Information for grant of licence for operating internet services, 24 August 2007, available at: http://www.dot.gov.in/data-services/internet-services.
123 Draft License Agreement for Unified License, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, page 22, available at: http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Unified%20Licence_0.pdf.
124 Draft License Agreement for Unified License, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and IT, page 22, available at: http://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Unified%20Licence_0.pdf. Guidelines and General Information for grant of licence for operating internet services, 24 August 2007, available at: http://www.dot.gov.in/data-services/internet-services; Guidelines and General Information for grant of licence for operating internet services, 24 August 2007, available at: http://www.dot.gov.in/data-services/internet-services; The TRAI has recommended steps so as to incentivise telecom operators to expand operations by suggesting that revenue generated by these companies from their non-telecom activities be excluded while calculating their AGR. This would help to reduce the revenue share that these companies would have to pay to the government as well as reduce their license fees and spectrum charges. Shauvik Ghosh, Trai recommends non-telecom activity be excluded from AGR, Live Mint, 7 January 2015, available at: http://bit.ly/2zY7jif.
125 Aritra Sarkhel, “The last cyber cafes of India”, ET Tech, October 25, 2017, https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/technology/the-last-cyber-cafes-of-india/61208031.
126 Department of Information Technology, Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511(1).pdf; Notification, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, March 16, 2012, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR153E_242012.pdf.
128 Department of Information Technology, Guidelines for the Implementation of the Common Service Centre Scheme in States, October 9, 2006, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/policiesandguidelines/csc/cscguidelines.pdf.
134 Section 11(4), The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.
135 “DTH operators should provide inter-operability of STBs, says TRAI Chairman”, The Economic Times, December 10, 2013, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-12-10/news/45035128_1_dth-operators-dth-licence-dth-service-providers; TRAI released the draft of: ‘The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference (Fifteenth Amendment) Regulations, 2014’ for comments from the Stakeholders, January 29, 2014, http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/draftTCCCP%2015%20AMEND%202014final.pdf.
136 Section 14, The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997; the tribunal was empowered to adjudicate between the licensor (DoT) and the licensee; between two or more service providers; between a service provider and a group of consumers; and to hear appeals against TRAI decisions.
139 “Trai wants Auction of 3G Spectrum after Formation of New Govt”, The Indian Express, February 12, 2014, http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/trai-wants-auction-of-3g-spectrum-after-formation-of-new-govt/1225198/.
140 TRAI Lays down Historic Order Protecting Net Neutrality, The Wire, February 8, 2016, http://thewire.in/2016/02/08/trai-lays-down-historic-order-protecting-net-neutrality-21090/.
141 “HC Reserves Order On Petitions Challenging TRAI Regulations”, Business World, November 9, 2017, http://businessworld.in/article/Madras-High-Court-Reserves-Orders-On-Petitions-Challenging-TRAI-Regulations/09-11-2017-131167/.
142 “TRAI pitches for lower GST”, The Hindu, June 30, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/business/trai-pitches-for-lower-gst/article19189088.ece.
144 Section 69A(1), The Information Technology Act, 2008.
145 Section 69A(3), The Information Technology Act, 2008.
146 Rule 6, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
147 Members must be of the rank of joint secretary or above, see Rule 7, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
148 Rule 8, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
149 Rule 9, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
150 Melody Patry, “Index on censorship digital freedom India: Digital freedom under threat?”, Xindex, November 2013, p. 9, http://bit.ly/2yma1S5; See also Jyoti Panday, The Internet Has a New Standard for Censorship, The Wire, 29 January 2016, http://thewire.in/20386/the-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship/.
151 Rule 16, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009
152 Common Cause v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 21 of 2013]; PUCL v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl) No. 199 of 2013].
153 Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
154 Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
155 Chinmayi Arun, “The Case of the Online Intermediary,” The Hindu, April 7, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/shreya-singhal-case-of-the-online-intermediary/article7074431.ece.
156 Rule 16, Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
157 Lok Sabha, Question No. 2829, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, accessed at: http://188.8.131.52/loksabhaquestions/annex/12/AU2829.pdf
158 Lok Sabha, Question no. 1535, Ministry of Communications, accessed at: http://184.108.40.206/loksabhaquestions/annex/13/AU1535.pdf
159 Nikhil Pahwa,” This arts project doesn't know why the Indian govt blocked its website”, Medianama, August 31, 2017, https://www.medianama.com/2017/08/223-unreserved-india-censorship-websit...
160 Kian Ganz, “Update: Bombay HC Passes First Anti-piracy John Doe Order, as Law Firms Commoditise the New Vertical”, Legally India, June 15, 2012, http://bit.ly/KIibkI. These orders are passed by virtue of the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code which deal with temporary injunctions.
161 Ananth Padmanabhan, “Can Judges Order ISPs to block websites for Copyright Infringement”, January 30, 2014, Center for Internet and Society, http://cis-india.org/a2k/blog/john-doe-orders-isp-blocking-websites-copyright-1.
163 Shamnad Basheer, “In Bollywood’s Battle Against Piracy, A Neutral Ombudsman Might Be the Answer”, The Wire, August 23, 2016, https://thewire.in/61034/of-bollywood-blocks-and-john-does-towards-a-neutral-ombudsman/.
164 The Wire Staff, “Access to Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine Blocked in India”, The Wire, August 08, 2017, https://thewire.in/165988/access-internet-archives-wayback-machine-blocked/
165 Nikhil Pahwa, “Update: Internet Archive contacted Indian govt regarding the block, but got no response”, Medianama, August 08, 2017, https://www.medianama.com/2017/08/223-india-blocks-access-internet-archive-wayback-machine/
166 C.S. No. 576, High Court of Madras
167 C.S. No. 601, High Court of Madras
169 Aroon Deep, “Internet Archive was blocked because of court orders obtained by Bollywood studios”, Medianama, August 10, 2017, https://www.medianama.com/2017/08/223-internet-archive-blocked-court-orders-obtained-bollywood-studios/
170 Eros International Media Ltd. & Another v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and 49 Others, SUIT (L) NO. 751 OF 2016 Order dated July 26, 2016.
171 Eros International Media Ltd. & Another v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and 49 Others, SUIT (L) NO. 751 OF 2016, accessed at: https://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bom-HC-order-in-Dishoom_-August-30.pdf.
172 Rajul Bajaj, “Bombay HC Effectively Transforms John Does from Swords to Shields – Delineates Most Robust Safeguards to Date,” SpicyIP, July 28, 2016,
http://bit.ly/2h3JvWm, Eros International and Another Vs BSNL & Others, Notice of Motion (L) No. 2147 Of 2016 in Suit (L) No. 751 OF 2016 avialble at: https://spicyip.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Bom-HC-order-in-Dishoom_-August-30.pdf, Balaji Subramanian, “Bombay HC pulls no punches, orders ISP to comply with John Doe,” SpicyIP, August 10, 2016, http://bit.ly/2hw1PnX, Swapnil Mathur, “Kickass torrent storm: In fight against global piracy, India sets the right examples,” Indian Express, August 3, 2016, http://bit.ly/2aTmg98, Kian Ganz, “The messy battle against online piracy,” LiveMint, August 02, 2016, http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/YtbRN9fv6ZgZCZOexcsWMI/The-messy-battle-against-online-piracy.html, Salman SH, “ISPs block torrents via a John Doe order; lapses in order compliance,” Medianama, August 22, 2016,
174 Prashant Reddy, “Delhi High Court takes ‘internet blocking’ jurisprudence back to the stone ages,” SpicyIP, August 03, 2016,https://spicyip.com/2016/08/delhi-high-court-takes-internet-blocking-jurisprudence-back-to-the-stone-ages.html, Aneesha Mathur, “Delhi High Court wants 73 websites banned for streaming pirated videos,” Indian Express, August 02, 2016,http://bit.ly/2h2R4wp. Department of electronics and information technology v.Star India Pvt. Ltd. R.P.No.131/2016, http://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/PNJ/judgement/29-07-2016/PNJ29072016REVIEWP....
175 Javed Anwar, “830 more websites blocked in India, many torrent links in list,” Hindustan Times, August 25, 2016,
http://bit.ly/2bC0DNT; Swati Deshpande, “Madras HC orders blocking of 830 sites to prevent online piracy of 'A Flying Jatt',” TOI, August 24, 2016,
176 Kim Aroral, “Russian social network VKontakte temporarily blocked in India for Blue Whale threat”, TOI, September 12, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/russian-social-network-vkontakte-temporarily-blocked-in-india-for-blue-whale-threat/articleshow/60478655.cms
177 L Saravanani, “Madras HC asks government to crack down on Blue Whale 'challenge'”, TOI, September 5, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/madurai/hc-asks-government-to-crack-down-on-blue-whale-challenge/articleshow/60368888.cms
178 Lok Sabha, Question No. 821, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, accessed at: http://220.127.116.11/loksabhaquestions/annex/14/AU821.pdf; Will Worley, “Blue Whale: Fears in India over 'viral suicide game' mount as 'government calls for internet giants to ban links to it'” Independent, September 19, 2017,http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/blue-whale-suicide-game-latest-news-india-online-viral-internet-google-ban-links-a7954786.html
179 Section 67, The Information Technology Act 2000.
180 Section 67(B), The Information Technology Act 2000.
181 Lok Sabha, Question no. 4468, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, accessed at: http://18.104.22.168/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU4468.pdf.
182 Lok Sabha, Question no. 1535, Ministry of Communications, accessed at: http://22.214.171.124/loksabhaquestions/annex/13/AU1535.pdf
183 Lok Sabha, Question no. 1535, Ministry of Communications, accessed at: http://126.96.36.199/loksabhaquestions/annex/13/AU1535.pdf
184 W.P.(C). No. 177 of 2013.
186 Arpita Biswas, “Roundup of Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India: Intermediary liability and the doctrine of auto-block”, February 3, 2017, CCG-NLUD Blog, http://bit.ly/2zmQ65C; Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 341 of 2008, Order dated 28 January, 2015, available at: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-01-28_1422446201.pdf; order dated September 18, 2016, http://www.sci.gov.in/jonew/ropor/rop/all/827774.pdf; Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 341 of 2008, Order dated 28 January, 2015, available at: http://bit.ly/2ilmLh5.
187 Kritika Bhardwaj, “The Supreme Court Hears Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India – Another Blow for Intermediary Liability”, February 16, 2017, CCG-NLUD Blog, http://bit.ly/2lB7AVK; Arpita Biswas, “Roundup of Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India: Intermediary liability and the doctrine of auto-block”, February 3, 2017, CCG-NLUD Blog, http://bit.ly/2zmQ65C; IFF “Statement of concern on the Sabu Mathew George Case: Don’t “auto-block” online expression”, accessed at: http://bit.ly/2zp4H0u.
188 Arpita Biswas, “Update from the Supreme Court – Aadhaar linking and Sabu Mathew George vs. Union of India”, December 13, 2017, CCG-NLUD Blog, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/update-from-the-supreme-court-aadhaar-linking-and-sabu-mathew-george-vs-union-of-india/.
189 Section 79, The IT (Amendment) Act 2008; Section 72A, IT (Amendment) Act, 2008.
190 Rule 3, Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011,; Pritika Rai Advavi, “Intermediary Liability in India”, http://www.epw.in/special-articles/intermediary-liability-india.html.
192 Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
193 [Facebook’s statement: “In 2016, informed by the decision of the Supreme Court of India last year amending the proper interpretation of the Information Technology Act 2000, we ceased acting upon legal requests to remove access to content unless received by way of a binding court order and/or a notification by an authorised agency which conforms to the constitutional safeguards as directed by the Supreme Court.”] https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/India/2016-H1/.
194 Facebook Government Requests Report, India Report: July 2017 – December 2017, https://transparency.facebook.com/content-restrictions/country/IN.
195 Facebook Transparency Report, January to June 2017, accessed at: https://transparency.facebook.com/content-restrictions/country/IN
196 Abhishek Dey, Is Facebook really blocking criticism of the Indian government, BJP and Hindutva groups?”, Scroll, October 03, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/852571/is-facebook-blocking-criticism-of-indian-government-bjp-and-right-wing-groups
197 Humans of Hindutva, “Humans of Hindutva blocked on Facebook: Admin writes a letter”, Quint, May 30, 2017, https://www.dailyo.in/voices/humans-of-hindutva-trolls-facebook-satire-community-standards/story/1/17524.html
198 TA Ameerudheen, “No clear explanation: Why Facebook blocked a Kannada newspaper twice in the last 30 days”, Scroll, July 7, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/843924/no-clear-explanation-why-facebook-block...
199 India Today Tech, “Man posts Kamal Ka Phool Hamari Bhool, Facebook blocks him for 30 days and deletes post”, India Today, September 27, 2017, https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/man-posts-kamal-ka-phool-hamari-bhool-facebook-blocks-him-for-30-days-and-deletes-post-1053316-2017-09-27
200 Abhishek Saha, “Burhan effect: Facebook blocks page of Kashmir magazine, deletes cover of issue”, HT, July 09, 2017, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/burhan-effect-facebook-blocks-page-of-kashmir-magazine-deletes-cover-of-issue/story-FWxU7PnATmZc52jClkkl0O.html
201 Google Transparency Report, July to December 2017, accessed at: https://transparencyreport.google.com/government-removals/by-country/IN?hl=en&country_request_amount=group_by:totals;period:Y2017H1;authority:IN&lu=country_request_explore&country_item_amount=group_by:totals;period:Y2017H1;authority:IN&country_request_explore=period:Y2017H1;authority:IN.
202 Twitter Transparency Report, July to December 2017, accessed at: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/removal-requests.html.
203 Abhishek Saha, “Citing official complaint, Twitter tells Kashmiri handles they are breaking laws”, HT, Septemeber 04, 2017, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/twitter-tells-kashmiri-handles-they-are-breaking-indian-laws-points-to-official-complaint/story-u33dt3gtkKvUjZtpId13fJ.html; Also see, Lumen accessed at:https://lumendatabase.org/file_uploads/files/4283220/004/283/220/original/August_24_14955219_Lumen_replacement.pdf?1510669237; https://lumendatabase.org/file_uploads/files/4283218/004/283/218/original/August_16_14959825_Lumen_replacement.pdf?151066855;https://lumendatabase.org/file_uploads/files/4287557/004/287/557/original/Lumen_India_November_27_2017.pdf?1512976336
205 In the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 51(a)(ii) read with Section 63 of Act the criminalizes use of any place for profit for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright, exempting only those who are unaware or have no reasonable grounds for believing that such communication would constitute infringement of copyright. Moreover, Section 51(b) read with Section 63 also prohibits sale, hire, or distribution to the prejudice of the copyright owner, as well as exhibition in public and import to India of infringing copies also amount to infringement of copyright, with no exemptions. See, Pritika Rai Advani , “Intermediary Liability in India”, Economic & Political Weekly, December 14, 2013, Vol. XLVIII No. 50, p. 122.
206 The guidelines and license requirements for intermediaries also prohibit the carrying of communication that infringes copyright or other intellectual property rights. Guideline 1.3(27), Guidelines and General Information for Grant of License for Operating internet Services, http://www.dot.gov.in/data-services/internet-services; Unified License Agreement, Rule 38,http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Amended percent20UL percent20Agreement_0.pdf.
207 Specifically, any providers offering “transient or incidental storage of a work or performance purely in the technical process of electronic transmission or communication to the public” through “links, access or integration.” See, Pranesh Prakash, “Analysis of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2012,” Center for Internet and Society, May 23, 2012, http://bit.ly/JSDMLg; Ministry of Law and Justice, “Copyright (Amendment) Act 2012”, June 7, 2012, http://bit.ly/Kt1vlQ.
212 “India WhatsApp rumors: Mob kills man in latest attack, 30 arrested,” by Sugam Pokharel and James Griffiths, CNN¸ July 16, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/asia/india-whatsapp-lynching-intl/index.html
213 “Indian state cuts internet after lynchings over online rumours,” The Guardian, June 29, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/29/indian-state-cuts-internet-after-lynchings-over-online-rumours
214 “India woman beaten to death over child abduction rumours,” BBC, May 11, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44079191; “Rumors of child-kidnapping gangs and other WhatsApp hoaxes are getting people killed in India,” by Shashank Bengali and Parth M.N., Los Angeles Times, May 30, 2018, http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-india-whatsapp-2018-story.html; “India WhatsApp rumors: Mob kills man in latest attack, 30 arrested,” by Sugam Pokharel and James Griffiths, CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/asia/india-whatsapp-lynching-intl/index.html
215 “WhatsApp to restrict message forwarding after India mob lynchings,” by Alex Hern, The Guardian, July 20, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/20/whatsapp-to-limit-message-forwarding-after-india-mob-lynchings
216 Vindu Goel, “In India, Facebook’s WhatsApp Plays Central Role in Elections,” New York Times, May 14, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/technology/whatsapp-india-elections.html
220 Parpi Das, Meghnad Bose, “‘Bol Na Aunty’ Taken Down; Fans Threaten Quint Reporter With Rape”, Quint, September 19, 2017, https://www.thequint.com/neon/debate-omprakash-bol-na-aunty-aau-kya-ban
221 Karnika Kohil, “No, Facebook Didn’t Take Down Humans of Hindutva”, The Wire, December 29, 2017, https://thewire.in/209016/humans-of-hindutva-facebook-death-threats-admin/
222 Humans of Hindutva post dated January 23, 2017, accessed at: https://www.facebook.com/humansofhindutva/posts/335705483600987
223 TCA Srinivasa Raghavan, “Mr Modi’s warrior trolls,” The Hoot, January 02, 2017, http://www.thehoot.org/research/books/mr-modis-warrior-trolls-9877.
224 Kunal Pradhan, “Election #2014: As Cyber War Rooms Get Battle Ready, BJP and Congress are Reaching Out to a New Constituency Spread Across Social Media”, India Today, February 8, 2013, http://bit.ly/16DM9Rv.
225 K Kohlil, “Congress vs BJP: The curious case of trolls and politics,” Times of India, October 11, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Congress‐vs‐BJP‐The‐curious‐case‐of‐trolls‐and‐politics/articleshow/23970818.cms
226 “Operation Blue Virus: Complete Story”, Cobrapost, November 28, 2013, http://www.cobrapost.com/index.php/news-detail?nid=4026&cid=23; K Kohlil, “Congress vs BJP: The curious case of trolls and politics,” Times of India, October 11, 2013, http://bit.ly/2z4YWVm.
230 Marci Marcel Thekaekara, “The Dalit Fightback at Una is India’s Rosa Parks Moment,” The Hoot, August 13, 2016, https://thewire.in/58820/the-dalit-fightback-at-una-is-indias-rosa-parks-moment/.
231 Ravikiran Shinde, “Social media helps Una dalits remain uncowed,” The Hoot, July 29, 2016, http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/digital-media/social-media-helps-una-dalits-remain-uncowed-9529.
233 Article 19(1)(a), The Constitution of India.
234 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
235 Report of the Press Commission, Part I, 1954, Government of India, p. 357.
236 Article 19(2), The Constitution of India; Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, (1986) 3 SCC 615.
237 Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 494/2012, August 24, 2917, Supreme Court of India, https://ccgnludelhi.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/all-wpc-no-494-of-2012-right-to-privacy.pdf; Chinmayi Arun, “The Implications of India’s Right to Privacy Decision”, Net Politics- Council on Foreign Relations, September 13, 2017,https://www.cfr.org/blog/implications-indias-right-privacy-decision.
238 Section 124A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
239 Section 292 and 293, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
240 Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
241 Section 153A, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
242 Section 153B, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
243 Section 505, The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
244 Section 5, Official Secrets Act, 1923.
245 Section 67, Section 67A, Section 67B The Information Technology Act, 2000.
246 (2015) 5 SCC 1.
247 Ujwala Uppaluri and Sarvjeet Singh, “Supreme Court ruling on Section 66A: As much online as offline,” The Economic Times, March 25 2015, http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-commentary/supreme-court-ruling-on-section-66a-as-much-online-as-offline/.
248 Shreya Singhal v Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012; What next: What happens to Section 66A now, The Indian Express, March 26 2015, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/what-next-what-happens-to-section-66a-now/.
249 Subramaniam Swamy v Union of India (2016), http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2016-05-13_1463126071.pdf; Nakul Nayak, “Supreme Court finds Criminal Defamation Constitutional”, CCG-NLU Blog, May 13, 2016, https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2016/05/13/supreme-court-finds-criminal-defamation-constitutional/; Nakul Nayak, “Criminal defamation survives: a blot on free speech”, Mint, May 22, 2016, http://bit.ly/2wnB7m6.
250 Chinmayi Arun, “A question of power”, Indian Express, May 25, 2016, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/criminal-defamation-law-supreme-court-2817406/; SC upholds law on criminal defamation, The Hindu, May 13 2016 , http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/criminal-defamation-does-not-have-chilling-effect-on-free-speech-sc/article8594163.ece;Freedom on the Net: India, 2016, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/india.
252 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kozhikode/fake-messages-7-held/articleshow/64436053.cms; https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/police-act-tough-stop-spread-of-fake-messages-on-nipah/article24125614.ece;
253 “India WhatsApp rumors: Mob kills man in latest attack, 30 arrested,” by Sugam Pokharel and James Griffiths, CNN¸ July 16, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/16/asia/india-whatsapp-lynching-intl/index.html
254 PTI, “Man held for 'spreading anti-national propaganda' in J&K”, DNA, August 20, 2017, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-man-held-for-spreading-anti-national-propaganda-in-jk-2536299
255 Arun Janardhana, “Housewife held for trolling Madras High Court judge on Facebook”, Indian Express, December 4, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/housewife-held-for-criticising-madras-high-court-judge-on-facebook-4948741/
256 Express News Service, “Telangana bus conductor faces probe for Facebook posts criticising RTC policies”, The New Indian Express, October 10, 2017, http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/telangana/2017/oct/10/telangana-bus-conductor-faces-probe-for-facebook-posts-criticising-rtc-policies-1669380.html
257 Legal Reporter, “HC sets term for FB duo charge sheet”, Telegraph, November 24, 2017, https://www.telegraphindia.com/states/west-bengal/hc-sets-term-for-fb-duo-chargesheetpolice-requirecourt-s-approval-188422
258 Vinita Govindarajan, “A TN man was arrested for posting abusive remarks about Modi in Facebook chat. Is this justified?”, Scroll, November 01, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/856214/a-tn-man-was-arrested-for-posting-abusive-remarks-about-modi-in-facebook-chat-is-this-justified
259 K Chandru, Tamil Nadu cartoonist’s arrest reflects a weak state government running scared of dissent”, Scroll, November 07, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/856925/tamil-nadu-cartoonists-arrest-betrays-an-infirm-government-running-scared-of-dissent
260 TNN, “How a WhatsApp Message Can Get you Arrested”, TOI, November 02, 2017, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/how-a-whatsapp-message-can-get-you-arrested/articleshow/61718967.cms
261 Kavita Upadhayay, ‘Indecent’ PM photo : BJP worker’s complaint in Haryana lands Uttarakhand tailor in jail”, Indian Express, November 23, 2017, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/indecent-pm-photo-bjp-workers-complaint-in-haryana-lands-uttarakhand-tailor-in-jail-4950395/
262 Moneycontrol, “Rajsamand labourer murder: Rajasthan police arrests social media supporters of killer”, Moneycontrol, December 15, 2017, https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/rajsamand-labourer-murder-rajasthan-police-arrests-social-media-supporters-of-killer-2462343.html
263 Wire Staff, “Two Arrested for Making ‘Derogatory’ Remarks Against Modi, Adityanath and Hindu Gods”, The Wire, February 26, 2018, https://thewire.in/227684/two-arrested-for-making-derogatory-remarks-against-pm-modi-up-cm-adityanath-and-hindu-gods/
264 News Desk, “Facebook Selfie With Marijuana Plant Lands Chennai Men in Jail”, India, February 05, 2018, http://www.india.com/news/india/chennai-two-men-arrested-after-posting-selfie-with-cannabis-on-facebook-2878709/
265 Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 494/2012, August 24, 2017, Supreme Court of India, https://ccgnludelhi.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/all-wpc-no-494-of-2012-right-to-privacy.pdf; Chinmayi Arun, “The Implications of India’s Right to Privacy Decision”, Net Politics- Council on Foreign Relations, September 13, 2017, http://on.cfr.org/2y0JR2V.
266 Office Memorandum, MeitY, July 31, 2017, http://bit.ly/2xK2DM5; Priyanka Mittal and Komal Gupta, “Amid right to privacy debate, new data protection law on the anvil, says govt”, LiveMint, August 2, 2017, http://www.livemint.com/Politics/qyHLWh2nVaVC5ilvyybAbI/Right-to-Privacy-Govt-sets-up-expert-panel-to-deliberate-da.html.
271 Sunil Abraham, “Surveillance project”, April 15, 2016, http://www.frontline.in/cover-story/surveillance-project/article8408866.ece; Kritika Bhardwaj, “The Mission Creep Behind the Aadhaar Project”, The Wire, September 2, 2016, http://bit.ly/2lFTJxp; Chinmayi Arun, “Towards a database nation”, The Hindu, September 27, 2016, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Towards-a-database-nation/article15000828.ece; Kritika Bhardwaj, “Explainer: Aadhaar is vulnerable to identity theft because of its design and the way it is used”, Scroll.in, April 2, 2017, http://bit.ly/2zYomAC.
272 Usha Ramanathan, “Without Supreme Court Interference, the Aadhaar Project is a Ticking Time Bomb”, The Wire, April 4, 2017, https://thewire.in/120922/aadhaar-supreme-court-uid/.
274 Srinivas Kodali and Amber Sinha, “(Updated) Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of Public Availability of Aadhaar Numbers with Sensitive personal Financial Information,” The Centre for Internet and Society, May 1, 2017, http://bit.ly/2v0lOiS.
275 Krishnadas Rajagopal, “Aadhaar data leaks not from UIDAI: Centre”, The Hindu, May 03, 2017, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/aadhaar-data-leaks-not-from-uidai-centre/article18379074.ece.
277 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/verdict-on-validity-of-aadhaar-reserved-by-supreme-court-1850334; https://qz.com/india/1402264/aadhaar-is-here-to-stay-indias-supreme-court-rules/; https://privacyinternational.org/feature/2299/initial-analysis-indian-supreme-court-decision-aadhaar
284 Press Release, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India, March 13, 2013, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=93584.
285 Rule 4, Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011, http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR315E_10511(1).pdf.
286 Section 5(2), Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
287 Section 69, Information Technology Act, 2000.
288 Section 69, Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
289 Rule 419A, The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
290 Rule 419A, The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951; S 69, Information Technology Act, 2000.
291 Chinmayi Arun, “Way to Watch”, The Indian Express, June 26, 2013, http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/way-to-watch/.
292 Rule 419A, The Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951; S 69, Information Technology Act, 2000.
293 Privacy International, “Chapter III: Privacy Issues,” in India Telecommunications Privacy Report, October 22, 2012, https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/india/iii-privacy-issues#footnoteref1_ni8ap74.
294 Research and Analysis Wing, the Intelligence Bureau, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the Enforcement Directorate, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the National Technical Research Organization and the state police. See, Privacy International, “Chapter iii: Privacy Issues,” in India Telecommunications Privacy Report, October 22, 2012,https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/india/iii-privacy-issues#footnoteref1_ni8ap74.
295 “India’s Surveillance State”, SFLC, http://sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/SFLC-FINAL-SURVEILLANCE-REPORT.pdf.
296 Section 69(4), Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
297 Sunil Abraham and Elonnai Hickok, “Government Access to Private Sector Data in India, International Data Privacy Law”, 2012, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 307, http://idpl.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/4/302.full.pdf+html.
298 Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 69(4).
299 Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Section 26.
300 Shalini Singh, “Centre issues new guidelines for phone interception”, The Hindu, January 10, 2014, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/centre-issues-new-guidelines-for-phone-interception/article5559460.ece.
301 Divij Joshi, “New Standard Operating Procedures for Lawful Interception and Monitoring”, Centre for Internet and Society, March 13, 2014, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-standard-operating-procedures-for-lawful-interception-and-monitoring.
302 Bhairav Acharya, “Comments on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011”, Centre for Internet and Society, March 31, 2013, http://bit.ly/RZC6EX.
303 Kochhar & Co., “2011 Indian Privacy Law”, Outsourcing.net, July 13, 2011, http://www.outsourcing-law.com/2011/07/2011-indian-privacy-law/.
304 “Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy”, Planning Commission of India, 7: 19, p. 60-61, October 16, 2012, http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf.
306 Guideline 8, Guidelines and General Information for Grant of License for Operating internet Services, Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information and Technology, Government of India, August 24, 2007.
307 Amendment to the Unified Access Service License Agreement for security related concerns or expansion of Telecom Services in various zones of the country, Item 9, Department of Telecom, September 7, 2011, http://www.dot.gov.in/access-services/amendments-access-service-licences; Nikhil Pahwa, “New Telecom Equipment Policy Mandates Location Based Services Accuracy Of 50Mtrs: COAI,” Medianama, June 17, 2011, http://bit.ly/keKNxY.
308 “Additional Cost Implication for the Telecom Industry as Government Mandates Location Based Services to Meet its Security Requirements,” Cellular Operators Association of India Press release, June 16, 2011, http://www.indiainfoline.com/article/print/news/additional-cost-implicat...; “Operators Implementing Location-based Services: Govt,” Press Trust of India via NDTV, August 9, 2012, http://bit.ly/S4zNcT. In June 2014, outside the coverage period of this report, the DoT issued a letter to all Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Licensees, Unified Access Licensees and Unified Licensees, asking them to submit the status of implementation of location based services within seven days of receipt. Department of Telecom, Implementation of Location Based Services with Time Frame and Accuracy as Mandated by License Amendment dated 31.05.2011 to UASL – Reg, June 19, 2014, http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/DOC240614-005.pdf.
310 Amendment to Unified Licending Guidelines, November 13 2014, http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/Amended%20UL%20Guidelines%2013...; Sandeep Dixit, “Testing of Telecom Equipment in India Mandatory from next year”, The Hindu, 11 August 2014, available at: http://bit.ly/2xK4Eb7.
311 Rule 4, Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011.
312 Guideline 42, Guidelines and General Information for Grant of License for Operating internet Services, Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information and Technology, Government of India, August 24, 2007.
313 Guideline 13(d)(vii), Guidelines and General Information for grant of License for Operating internet Services, Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information and Technology, Government of India, August 24, 2007.
314 Guidelines and General Information for grant of License for Operating internet Services, Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information and Technology, Government of India, August 24, 2007.
315 Google Transparency Report, July to December 2016, accessed at: https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/countries/.
316 Facebook Transparency Report, January to June 2016, accessed at: https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/India/2017-H1/.
317 Twitter Transparency Report, July to December 2016, accessed at: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/countries/in.html
318 Melody Party, “India: Digital freedom under threat? Surveillance, privacy and government’s access to individuals’ online data”, November 21, 2013, http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2013/11/india-online-report-freedom-expression-digital-freedom-3/.
319 Government setting up centralised monitoring system for lawful interception: Ravi Shankar Prasad, The Economic Times, May 4 2016, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2016-05-04/news/72832003_1_centralised-monitoring-system-rmc-ravi-shankar-prasad.
320 Lok Sabha, Question No. 1084, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, February 8, 2017, http://188.8.131.52/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU1084.pdf.
321 Lok Sabha, Question No. 4468, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, March 29, 2017, http://184.108.40.206/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU4468.pdf.
323 Abhishek Dey, “Journalists in Delhi-NCR receive identical messages threatening them with Gauri Lankesh’s fate”, Scroll, September 28, 2017, https://scroll.in/article/851462/journalists-in-delhi-ncr-receive-identical-messages-threatening-them-with-gauri-lankeshs-fate
325 Indo-Asian News Service, “Government to launch anti troll app for women,” Hindustan Times, March 03, 2017, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/government-to-launch-anti-troll-app-for-women/story-EKRi2JnS0j80dbC80sBZFK.html.
327 Rituparna Chatterjee, “'I Am Withdrawing From The Campaign', Says Gurmehar Kaur After Incessant Trolling,” Huffpost, February 28, 2017, http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2017/02/27/i-am-withdrawing-from-the-campaign-says-gurmehar-kaur-after-i/.
329Lok Sabha, Question no. 3652, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, http://220.127.116.11/loksabhaquestions/annex/10/AU3652.pdf.
330 https://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/internet-security-threat-report-india-vulnerable-country-cyber-threats-04201854013.html; Symantec “Internet Security Threat Report, 2018 https://resource.elq.symantec.com/LP=5840?cid=70138000000rm1eAAA
331 Lok Sabha, Question no. 1084, Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, http://18.104.22.168/loksabhaquestions/annex/11/AU1084.pdf.
332 Shaswati Das, “11,592 cases of cyber crime registered in India: NCRB”, Live Mint, April 6, 2017, http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ayV9OMPCiNs60cRD0Jv75I/11592-cases-of-cyber-crime-registered-in-India-in-2015-NCR.html.
333 Shaswati Das, “11,592 cases of cyber crime registered in India: NCRB”, Live Mint, April 6, 2017, http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ayV9OMPCiNs60cRD0Jv75I/11592-cases-of-cyber-crime-registered-in-India-in-2015-NCR.html.