<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Dear All, </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>Regards, </div><div><br></div><div>Jyoti <br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div><div><br>Begin forwarded message:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><b>From:</b> Raman Chima <<a href="mailto:ramanchima@gmail.com">ramanchima@gmail.com</a>><br><b>Date:</b> 24 March 2015 16:33:34 GMT+8<br><b>To:</b> Pranesh Prakash <<a href="mailto:pranesh@cis-india.org">pranesh@cis-india.org</a>>, Pranesh Prakash <<a href="mailto:the.solipsist@gmail.com">the.solipsist@gmail.com</a>>, Chinmayi Arun <<a href="mailto:chinmayi.arun@nludelhi.ac.in">chinmayi.arun@nludelhi.ac.in</a>>, Ujwala Uppaluri <<a href="mailto:ujwala.uppaluri@gmail.com">ujwala.uppaluri@gmail.com</a>>, Sarvjeet Singh <<a href="mailto:sarvjeet.singh@nludelhi.ac.in">sarvjeet.singh@nludelhi.ac.in</a>>, Karuna Nundy <<a href="mailto:karuna.nundy@gmail.com">karuna.nundy@gmail.com</a>>, shagun <<a href="mailto:shagun@sflc.in">shagun@sflc.in</a>>, Prasanth Sugathan <<a href="mailto:prasanth@softwarefreedom.in">prasanth@softwarefreedom.in</a>>, Anja Kovacs <<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>>, <a href="mailto:jyoti@cis-india.org">jyoti@cis-india.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> <b>Re: Shreya Singhal judgment - for Manila Indian expats</b><br><br></div></blockquote><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Link to judgment here: <a href="http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf">http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf</a> (PDF attachment mailing is taking too long). Also attached</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 March 2015 at 16:10, Raman Chima <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ramanchima@gmail.com" target="_blank">ramanchima@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">+ Anja, Jyothi</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 24 March 2015 at 16:09, Raman Chima <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ramanchima@gmail.com" target="_blank">ramanchima@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Summary points from Rohington's court pronouncement here. Full judgment to follow in a few minutes as a PDF attachment.<div><br></div><div><span><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Arguments under Art 14 and procedural fairness are not __ and are therefore academic given his ruling.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">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. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">Thirdly he rejects all arguments regarding website blocking, both the parent provision and the subordinate rules.</span></p><span style="font-size:15px;font-family:Arial;color:rgb(0,0,0);vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap;background-color:rgb(255,255,0)">On the intermediaries rules and parent provision, the court said clearly that it has read it down in the judgment.</span></span><br></div><div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div></div></blockquote></body></html>