[Manila Principles] Fwd: Shreya Singhal judgment - for Manila Indian expats

[Jyoti Cis]

Dear All, 

Please see the link to the Indian judgement on the IT Act which came out today. Civil society from India will be issuing a statement which I will share when ready. 

Regards, 

Jyoti 

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Raman Chima <ramanchima at gmail.com>
> Date: 24 March 2015 16:33:34 GMT+8
> To: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>, Pranesh Prakash <the.solipsist at gmail.com>,  Chinmayi Arun <chinmayi.arun at nludelhi.ac.in>, Ujwala Uppaluri <ujwala.uppaluri at gmail.com>,  Sarvjeet Singh <sarvjeet.singh at nludelhi.ac.in>, Karuna Nundy <karuna.nundy at gmail.com>,  shagun <shagun at sflc.in>, Prasanth Sugathan <prasanth at softwarefreedom.in>,  Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>, jyoti at cis-india.org
> Subject: Re: Shreya Singhal judgment - for Manila Indian expats
> Link to judgment here: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf (PDF attachment mailing is taking too long). Also attached
> 
>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:10, Raman Chima <ramanchima at gmail.com> wrote:
>> + Anja, Jyothi
>> 
>>> On 24 March 2015 at 16:09, Raman Chima <ramanchima at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Summary points from Rohington's court pronouncement here. Full judgment to follow in a few minutes as a PDF attachment.
>>> 
>>> To exercise the value under the preamble, free speech is critical. He comes to the 19(1)(a) argument and mentions that public order is the only ground that the state can raise there.
>>> He goes into a discussion on incitement of an offence, advocacy and discussion of an idea. Quotes precedent of Ram Manohar Lohia on public order and says it will go against the precedent since 66A is imprecise. Then holds it to be unconstitutional.
>>> 
>>> Says no bright lines have been established thus far for exercise of 66A. Example that persistently has not been defined. He counters the arguments by the ASG who attempts to cite the gambling judgment and says that this applies to 19(g) not this case and says 19(2) is the standard to go by.
>>> ASG is not asking him to read it down, they are asking him to save the section entirely. Therefore given the state’s arguments and the precedent cited, the entire provision must go. 
>>> Arguments under Art 14 and procedural fairness are not __ and are therefore academic given his ruling.
>>> Rejects the Art 14 argument. Says there is a possible differentiation between the internet and other media which would allow the penal provisions to vary from offline to online medium. By way of illustration, by criminalising content under 66A.  All the other provisions under IT Act are specific to internet and can continue to exist given the diff between offline and online media
>>> Goes to intermediary rules but does not read out discussion on them. His statement is with respect to the principal provision as well as the rules.
>>> Firstly private parties cant directly send notice to intermediaries. Must be through judicial process or government orders. Any substantive restriction by court orers or govt authories must be in line with Art 19(2) restrictions. 
>>> Thirdly he rejects all arguments regarding website blocking, both the parent provision and the subordinate rules.
>>> On the intermediaries rules and parent provision, the court said clearly that it has read it down in the judgment.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150324/f5749993/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 459743 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150324/f5749993/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.eff.org/pipermail/manilaprinciples/attachments/20150324/f5749993/attachment-0003.html>