What's up with the #ITrules? Here's what ➡️ The UoI has asked the SC to transfer before itself 4 cases (pending in High Courts) questioning the constitutional validity of the rules. IFF is providing legal assistance to @LiveLawIndia in one of them. 1/n internetfreedom.in/union-of-india…
Today, submissions were made by the Ld. Solicitor General for a stay of the pending matters before High Courts. The Supreme Court refused such stay, and ordered the petitions to be tagged and listed before the appropriate bench on July 16.
2/n
The Kerala HC had earlier restrained UoI from taking coercive action against @LiveLawIndia, a respondent in today’s hearing. In an integral decision for the power of collaborative and strategic litigation, the Supreme Court didn’t disturb this order. 3/n
So, what's the problem with the Rules?
▶️ increasing govt. control over social media platforms & content.
▶️ regulating online content + digital news media
After the government notified the #ITRules, at least 15 petitioners have challenged the constitutionality of these rules before High Courts across the country.
IFF is providing legal assistance in ongoing petitions filed by @LiveLawIndia and @tmkrishna against these rules.
5/n
The present transfer petition sought a transfer of four amongst at least 15 petitions challenging the validity of #ITRules to the Supreme Court, asking to club these petitions with a case initiated long before the IT Rules, on grounds that they raise similar issues. 6/n
IFF will keep you similarly informed on the next date of hearing, and will also share today’s order once available.
We will continue to oppose the unconstitutional & undemocratic #ITRules before appropriate forums and provide the strongest possible legal challenge to them! 8/n
Support us in the fight for your rights! Fund IFF by becoming a member today - amplify, share, and contribute, as strategic litigation and long-term change requires YOUR sustained support! ✊
Electronics and IT: Withdrawing the unconstitutional and regressive IT Rules 2021, updating the IT Act 2000 to address the dynamic nature of our digital landscape, increasing transparency around content blocks, and addressing data breaches — these are some vital concerns.
3/n
Hearing update: Union of India’s transfer petition is listed as item 7 before Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Supreme Court. The petition seeks to transfer 4 cases that have challenged the validity of IT Rules, 2021 before the Supreme Court. (1/n)
One of these cases is @LiveLawIndia’s petition which is pending before the Kerala High Court. IFF has provided legal assistance to @LivelLawIndia. A blog post summarising the proceedings before Kerala High Court is available here - internetfreedom.in/kerala-hc-gran…
(2/n)
We have previously provided a deep dive analysis of IT Rules, 2021 where we have explained how they are unconstitutional, undemocratic and how they will fundamentally change an Indian user's experience on the internet. internetfreedom.in/intermediaries…
(3/n)
Hearing update: CCI had directed an investigation into WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy which WA challenged before a judge of the Delhi High Court. The judge did not stay the decision of CCI. WA’s appeal against that decision is listed as item 2 before a division bench of DHC.(1/n)
Competition Commission of India’s decision directing an investigation into WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy is available here - cci.gov.in/sites/default/…
(2/n)
The decision of the single judge refusing to stay the decision of CCI is available here - drive.google.com/file/d/1SGYJl8…
(3/n)
Facebook India head, Ajit Mohan's petition against the Delhi Legislative Assembly was listed before the Supreme Court today. The SC refused to quash the summons issued to Ajit Mohan by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in relation to the Delhi riots. (1/n)
Mr. Mohan had approached the SC under Art 32 of the Constitution challenging the summons issued by the “Peace and Harmony committee” of the Delhi Assembly to probe ‘the role of fake social media posts in creating communal riots in North East Delhi’ in February 2020.
(2/n)
The Court rejected the argument that the Delhi Assembly has no legislative competence to enquire into the Delhi riots, and held that legislative function is only one of its functions. Investigation of complicated social problems is another.
Here's a transparent thread on the RTI requests and appeals we filed with governmental authorities to protect your free speech, privacy, internet accessibility, and other constitutional rights in June 2021! 1/n internetfreedom.in/digital-transp…
We filed 21 RTI requests, 2 first appeals & 1 second appeal electronically, on various matters pertaining to the digital divide in the vaccination policy, privacy invasion through facial recognition, MoUs to digitalise agriculture in India, and takedowns on social media.
2/n
With @PanopticIndia, we enquired about facial recognition technology, from @NHAI_Official and @AyushmanNHA on GPS imaging at tolls and Aadhaar-based facial recognition for #CovidVaccine. We also filed a first appeal with @BARC_INDIA challenging their vague response on FRT.
3/n
You generate an enormous amount of data merely by engaging with social media. Platforms track every click! And in the absence of data protection regulation, your data may most likely end up with anyone — from a researcher to an advertiser to a foreign intelligence agency. (2/n)
Although the incoming data law is a step in the right direction, rights-based data protection means that users are given certain essential rights against data fiduciaries.
As it stands, your rights to be forgotten, correction, erasure, & data portability can all be denied! (3/n)