Shreya Singhal | |
---|---|
Nationality | Indian |
Alma mater | University of Bristol, Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi |
Known for | Fight for Freedom of Speech on the Internet |
Relatives | Late Justice Sunanda Bhandare (Grandmother), MC Bhandare (Grandfather) |
Shreya Singhal is an Indian lawyer. Her fight against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in 2015 brought her to national prominence in India. [1]
She was born into a family of eminent lawyers. Her Great-grandfather, H. R. Gokhale, was veteran Congress leader and former Law Minister. [2] Her Grandmother, Justice Sunanda Bhandare, was a judge of the Delhi High Court and a distinguished lawyer. Her Grandfather, Shri M.C. Bhandare, is a Senior Advocate, former Member of Parliament and former Governor of Odisha. Her mother, Manali Bhandare, is a lawyer practicing at the Supreme Court of India.[ citation needed ]
She completed her schooling from the Vasant Valley School in New Delhi in 2009, after which she went to pursue Astrophysics at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.[ citation needed ] She subsequently enrolled at the Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law at Delhi University, where she graduated in 2016.[ citation needed ]
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 provided for punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device -
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Before 2015, Government of India restricted freedom of speech for avoiding self-harm and misuse. This allowed arrest of any person which the law per see as harmful or misuse.[ citation needed ]
In 2012, Shreya filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India against the Act. In 2015, a division bench of the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000. This was hailed as a major step in the country's quest for freedom of speech and expression. [3]
Soli Jehangir Sorabjee, AM was an Indian jurist who served as Attorney-General for India from 1989 to 1990, and again from 1998 to 2004. In 2002, he received the Padma Vibhushan for his defence of the freedom of expression and the protection of human rights.
Indira Jaising is an Indian lawyer and activist. Jaising also runs Lawyers' Collective, a non-governmental organization (NGO), the license of which was permanently cancelled by the Home Ministry for alleged violations of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act in 2019. The Bombay High Court later passed an order to de-freeze NGO's domestic accounts. The case is ongoing in the Supreme Court of India.
Internet censorship in India is done by both central and state governments. DNS filtering and educating service users in suggested usages is an active strategy and government policy to regulate and block access to Internet content on a large scale. Measures for removing content at the request of content creators through court orders have also become more common in recent years. Initiating a mass surveillance government project like Golden Shield Project is an alternative that has been discussed over the years by government bodies.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 is an Act of the Indian Parliament notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce.
The Constitution of India provides the right to freedom, given in article 19 with the view of guaranteeing individual rights that were considered vital by the framers of the constitution. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression, as one of its six freedoms.
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is an Indian law aimed at prevention of unlawful activities associations in India. Its main objective was to make powers available for dealing with activities directed against the integrity and sovereignty of India. The most recent amendment of the law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2019 has made it possible for the Union Government to designate individuals as terrorists without following any formal judicial process. UAPA is also known as the "Anti-terror law".
Information technology law(IT law) or information, communication and technology law (ICT law) (also called cyberlaw) concerns the juridical regulation of information technology, its possibilities and the consequences of its use, including computing, software coding, artificial intelligence, the internet and virtual worlds. The ICT field of law comprises elements of various branches of law, originating under various acts or statutes of parliaments, the common and continental law and international law. Some important areas it covers are information and data, communication, and information technology, both software and hardware and technical communications technology, including coding and protocols.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) is a domestic law enforcement agency and economic intelligence agency responsible for enforcing economic laws and fighting economic crime in India. It is part of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government Of India. The Enforcement Directorate focuses on investigating and prosecuting cases related to money laundering, foreign exchange violations, and economic offenses. Its primary objective is to curb the generation and circulation of black money and to ensure compliance with the laws concerning foreign exchange and prevention of money laundering. However, targets of the enforcement directorate have claimed that they misuse powers against activists, scholars, and political rivals.
Jasti Chelameswar is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. He retired on 22 June 2018 as the second most senior supreme court judge. He previously served as the chief justice of the Kerala High Court from 2010 to 2011 and the Gauhati High Court from 2007 to 2010. He was also one of the four judges who held a controversial press conference against Chief Justice Dipak Misra.
Aseem Trivedi is an Indian political cartoonist and activist, known for his anti corruption campaign Cartoons Against Corruption. He is a founder member of Save Your Voice, a movement against internet censorship in India. He is the recipient of "Courage in Editorial Cartooning Award 2012" of US based Cartoonists Rights Network International.
Rohinton Fali Nariman is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Before being elevated as a judge, he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. He was appointed the Solicitor General of India on 23 July 2011. He also served as a member of the Bar Council of India. He was designated as a Senior Counsel by Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah in 1993 at the early age of 37.
Save Your Voice is a movement against internet censorship in India. It was founded by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, journalist Alok Dixit, socialist Arpit Gupta and Chirag Joshi in January 2012. The movement was initially named "Raise Your Voice", before it was renamed. The movement started from Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, under the frontier-ship of the movement's four founders; with a "Langda March" at Ujjain. The movement opposes the Information Technology Act of India and demands democratic rules for the governance of Internet. The campaign is targeted at the rules framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
MouthShut.com versus Union of India was a writ petition filed by Mouthshut.com, a consumer review social media company, and its founder Faisal Farooqui, to protect freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. In this case, they challenged Sec. 66A and sought modifications or nullification of IT Rules and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of India. This case was pivotal in determining the responsibility of intermediaries for online speech in India. On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the petitioner(s) and nullified Sec. 66A, deeming it unconstitutional. It also ordered the reading down of various other sections of the IT Act, including section 79 and the IT Rules. Consequently, individuals are free to post anything online, and publishers cannot be compelled to remove content without a court order. This decision applies to all user-generated content on the Internet.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India.
Mishi Choudhary is a technology lawyer and online civil liberties activist working in the United States and India. She is the senior vice president and general counsel of Virtru, a role she started in 2022. Prior to that role, Mishi was the Legal Director of the Software Freedom Law Center as well as the Founder of SFLC.in. SFLC.in brings together lawyers, policy analysts and technologists to fight for digital rights, produces reports, and studies on the state of the Indian internet, also has a productive legal arm. Under her leadership, SFLC.in has conducted landmark litigation cases, petitioned the government of India on freedom of expression and internet issues, and campaigned for WhatsApp and Facebook to fix a feature of their platform that has been used to harass women in India.
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is an Indian digital rights organisation that advances liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice in the digital age. IFF has three verticals of work that include strategic litigation, policy engagement and civic literacy.
The Information Technology Rules, 2021 is secondary or subordinate legislation that suppresses India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011. The 2021 rules have stemmed from section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and are a combination of the draft Intermediaries Rules, 2018 and the OTT Regulation and Code of Ethics for Digital Media.
Apar Gupta is a lawyer and writer on democracy and technology from India. In 2019 he was elected as an Ashoka Fellow for, "creating a model for digital rights advocacy in the country that is driven by the public, for the public."
In India, the offence of contempt of court is committed when a person either disobeys a court order, or when a person says or does anything that scandalizes, prejudices, or interferes with judicial proceedings and the administration of justice. Contempt of court can be punished with imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Gopal Sankaranarayanan is an Indian lawyer practicing at the Supreme Court of India. He was designated as a senior advocate by the Supreme Court of India in March 2019. He is known for his specialization in Constitutional law. He served as the secretary of the Lodha Committee, appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2015 to bring about reforms in cricket administration in India. He has provided assistance to the Supreme Court as an Amicus curiae in numerous cases. In April 2022, the Supreme Court appointed him as Amicus curiae to assist in the finalization of the Constitution of the All India Football Federation (AIFF).