essay on internet censorship in india

Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship

Living reference work entry
First Online: 08 May 2020
Cite this living reference work entry

Md Nurul Momen 4

278 Accesses

Freedom of expression includes freedom to hold opinions and ideas and to receive and impart information without restrictions by state authorities.

Introduction

Internet is regarded as an important issue that shapes free expression in today’s volatile nature of human rights world (Momen 2020 ). In the digital age, authoritarian governments in the world always attempt to undermine political and social movement through the complete shutdown of the Internet or providing partial access to it. It is also found that the restrictions on freedom of expression on the Internet are through surveillance and monitoring the online activities. In response to any kind of political and social movement, authoritarian governments across the border occasionally shut down many websites, along with the arrest of several anti-government bloggers and political activists. However, under the international legal instruments, for instance, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), denial of the...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Ariffin, L. J. (2012). Rais backs Dr M call for curbs to Internet freedom . https://www.malaysia-today.net/2012/06/05/rais-backs-dr-m-call-for-curbs-to-internet-freedom/ . Accessed 10 June 2018.

Arnaudo, D., Alva, A., Wood, P., & Whittington, J. (2013). Political and economic implications of authoritarian control of the internet. In J. Butts & S. Shenoi (Eds.), Critical infrastructure protection VII (IFIP AICT) (Vol. 417, pp. 3–19). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Google Scholar

Cristiano, F. (2019). Internet access as human right: A dystopian critique from the occupied Palestinian territory. In G. Blouin-Genest, M. C. Doran, & S. Paquerot (Eds.), Human rights as battlefields (Human rights interventions). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91770-2_12 .

Chapter Google Scholar

Diamond, L. (2010). Liberation technology. Journal of Democracy, 21 (3), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0190 .

Article Google Scholar

Freedom House. (2019). Freedom on the Net . Washington DC/New York, Retrieved from https://www.freedomonthenet.org/countries-in-detail

Hill, D. T. (2002). East Timor and the Internet: Global political leverage in/on Indonesia. Indonesia, 73 , 25–51.

Kee, J. S. (2012). Bad laws won’t stop cyber crime . https://www.loyarburok.com/2012/05/28/bad-laws-stop-cyber-crime/?doing_wp_cron . Accessed 10 June 2019.

Momen, M. N. (2020). Myth and reality of freedom of expression on the Internet. International Journal of Public Administration, 43 (3), 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1628055 .

Nocetti, J. (2015). Contest and conquest: Russia and global Internet governance. International Affairs, 91 (1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12189 .

Randall, J. (1996). Of cracks and crackdown: Five translations of recent Internet postings. Indonesia, 62 , 37–51.

Rodan, G. (1998). The Internet and political control in Singapore. Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1), 63–89.

Shirokanova, A., & Silyutina, O. (2018). Internet regulation: A text-based approach to media coverage. In D. A. Alexandrov et al. (Eds.), Digital Transformation and Global Society (DTGS) 2018 (Communications in computer and information science (CCIS)) (Vol. 858, pp. 181–194). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_15 .

Ziccardi, G. (2013). Digital activism, internet control, transparency, censorship, surveillance and human rights: An international perspective. In Resistance, liberation technology and human rights in the digital age (Law, governance and technology series) (Vol. 7). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5276-4_6 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Public Administration, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

Md Nurul Momen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Nurul Momen .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Alberta, Alberta, AB, Canada

Scott Romaniuk

University for Peace, San Jose, Costa Rica

Manish Thapa

Nemzetkozi Tanulmanyok Intezet, Rm 503, Corvinus Univ, Inst of Intl Studies, Budapest, Hungary

Péter Marton

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Momen, M.N. (2019). Freedom of expression in the Digital Age: Internet Censorship. In: Romaniuk, S., Thapa, M., Marton, P. (eds) The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74336-3_31-1

Received : 15 March 2018

Accepted : 29 June 2019

Published : 08 May 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-74336-3

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Political Science and International Studies Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

India And Tech Companies Clash Over Censorship, Privacy And 'Digital Colonialism'

Lauren Frayer

Shannon Bond

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in a standoff with social media companies over what content gets investigated or blocked online, and who gets to decide. Bikas Das/AP hide caption

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is in a standoff with social media companies over what content gets investigated or blocked online, and who gets to decide.

MUMBAI AND SAN FRANCISCO — One night last month, police crowded into the lobby of Twitter's offices in India's capital New Delhi. They were from an elite squad that normally investigates terrorism and organized crime, and said they were trying to deliver a notice alerting Twitter to misinformation allegedly tweeted by opposition politicians.

But they arrived at 8 p.m. And Twitter's offices were closed anyway, under a coronavirus lockdown. It's unclear if they ever managed to deliver their notice. They released video of their raid afterward to Indian TV channels and footage shows them negotiating with security guards in the lobby.

Twitter In Standoff With India's Government Over Free Speech And Local Law

The May 24 police raid — which Twitter later called an "intimidation tactic" — was one of the latest salvos in a confrontation between the Indian government and social media companies over what online content gets investigated or blocked, and who gets to decide.

While the Indian constitution includes the right to freedom of speech, it also bans expression or publication of anything that risks India's security, public order or "decency." But the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has introduced a long list of new IT rules going beyond this. They require social media platforms to warn users not to post anything that's defamatory, obscene, invasive of someone else's privacy, encouraging of gambling, harmful to a child or "patently false or misleading" — among other things.

If the government orders it, platforms are required to take down such material. The rules also require platforms to identify the original source of information that's shared online or, in the case of messaging apps, forwarded among users. Company executives can be held criminally liable if the platforms don't comply.

Many tech companies are aghast. They say these rules violate their users' freedom of expression and privacy, and amount to censorship. Free speech advocates warn that such rules are prone to politicization and could be used to target government critics.

India's Information Technology Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad (left) and Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar announce new regulations for social media companies and streaming websites in New Delhi in February. India's government has warned Twitter to comply with the country's new social media regulations, which critics say give the government more power to police online content. Manish Swarup/AP hide caption

But India — with nearly 1.4 billion people — is one of the tech companies' biggest markets. The country's hundreds of millions of internet users present a ripe business opportunity for companies such as Twitter and Facebook, especially since they're banned from operating in China.

And India's government — like others around the world — knows this, says Jason Pielemeier, policy and strategy director at the Global Network Initiative, a coalition of tech companies and other groups supporting free expression online.

"Over time, the governments have become more and more sophisticated in terms of their understanding of the pressure points that large internet companies have and are sensitive to," he says. "Those companies have also, to some extent, become more sensitive as they have increased the revenue that they generate in markets all around the world. And so where you see companies having large user bases and governments increasingly dissatisfied with those companies' responsiveness, we tend to see situations like the one that is currently flaring up in India."

Some companies, including Google, Facebook and LinkedIn, have reportedly complied , at least partially, with the new rules, which took effect May 25. Others are lobbying for changes. Twitter says it's "making every effort to comply" but has asked for an extension to do so. WhatsApp, owned by Facebook, has sued the Indian government.

"Intimidation tactics" by Indian police

The police raid last month on Twitter's offices in New Delhi came amid squabbles between India's two biggest political parties, accusing each other of spreading misinformation.

Politicians from Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, had been tweeting screenshots of what they claimed was a "media toolkit" used by their main rival, the Indian National Congress party, to amplify online complaints about Modi's handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Twitter's rules about platform manipulation prohibit users from "artificially amplifying" messages.

But the screenshot BJP politicians were tweeting of this alleged "toolkit" was fake. Some of India's most reputable fact-checkers concluded it was a forgery. After its own investigation, Twitter slapped a " manipulated media " label on those tweets by BJP politicians.

The government then asked Twitter to remove that label. Twitter did not. Police raided its offices three days later.

The Coronavirus Crisis

'this government has failed us': anger rises in india over pm modi's covid response.

"We, alongside many in civil society in India and around the world, have concerns with regards to the use of intimidation tactics by the police in response to enforcement of our global Terms of Service, as well as with core elements of the new IT Rules," a Twitter spokesperson wrote in a statement emailed May 27 to NPR and other news organizations.

To many observers, it looked like the Indian government was trying to drag Twitter publicly into a dispute between rival political parties , by sending the police to serve Twitter executives with a notice that could have been sent electronically — especially during the pandemic.

"Serving a notice of that kind, in the form that played out, just confirms the idea that this is just theater," said Mishi Choudhary, a technology lawyer and founder of India's Software Freedom Law Center.

India's Government Is Telling Facebook, Twitter To Remove Critical Posts

Choudhary says the optics are troubling. It looks like the Indian government has rewritten the country's IT rules to endow itself with extraordinary powers to silence its critics online. In February, on orders from the Indian government, Twitter blocked more than 500 accounts — but then reversed course when it realized many belonged to journalists, opposition politicians and activists.

More recently, the Indian government demanded that social media companies remove news articles or posts referring to the B.1.617 coronavirus variant as the "Indian variant." (The WHO has since renamed this variant, which was first identified in India, as "Delta").

Coronavirus Updates

Alpha, beta instead of britain, south africa. why the who is renaming covid variants.

"The government has been trying to either block handles or curb dissent," Choudhary says. "Both the government and [social media] companies are claiming they're protecting users, when it's convenient for them, but users are really the ones left without much power."

A "double standard" for India?

Modi's government published its new IT rules on Feb. 25 and gave social media companies three months to comply. So the rules took effect May 25. Twitter is asking for another three-month extension.

"We will strive to comply with applicable law in India. But, just as we do around the world, we will continue to be strictly guided by principles of transparency, a commitment to empowering every voice on the service, and protecting freedom of expression and privacy under the rule of law," a Twitter spokesperson said in the May 27 statement.

One of the requirements Twitter finds most onerous is that it name an India-based chief compliance officer who would be criminally liable for content on the platform. The company says it's worried about its employees in that situation.

Indian government officials say Twitter has already had three months to comply with this and the rest of the requirements.

"You are a giant, earning billions of dollars globally! You can't find a technological solution?" India's IT minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, recently said on India's CNN-News18 channel.

Prasad acknowledged that India's social media rules might be more onerous than what tech companies are used to in the United States. But India is a place where mob violence has erupted over rumors shared on social media . The government needs to take extra precautions, he said. And big tech companies could comply with these rules, he insisted, if they really wanted to.

Untangling Disinformation

How india is confronting disinformation on social media ahead of elections.

"The same Twitter and social media companies are complying with all the requirements in America! In Australia! In Canada! In England!" Prasad said. "But when it comes to India, they have a double standard."

Tech executives have been grilled about misinformation by members of the U.S. Congress. But when India summons them, they often don't show up. Choudhary says this has fueled anger among Indian politicians, who fume that they're not taken seriously.

"The companies say, 'Our servers are in California. So we don't have this information.' Or, 'We can't come and talk to you,'" she says. "That gives the government justification to say, 'How can you monetize our users, but when we want to have a discussion with you, you claim you're only a sales office?'"

India has reason to be sensitive to the threat of being taken advantage of by foreign powers. It has a colonial past. Even before Great Britain ruled India, a foreign corporation, the East India Company, pillaged it for centuries.

Choudhary calls what big tech companies are doing in India "digital colonialism."

"It's now the Silicon Valley 'bros' who think they can tell us what to do and what not to do," Choudhary says.

In a particularly harshly worded statement issued May 27 , the Indian government called Twitter a "private, for-profit, foreign entity" that needs to "stop beating around the bush and comply with the laws of the land." It accused Twitter of "seek[ing] to undermine India's legal system" and blamed the company for what it called "rampant proliferation of fake and harmful content against India."

Growing demands to restrict online speech

Last weekend, the Indian government appeared to reject Twitter's request for an extension. It sent the company what it called " one final notice " as a "gesture of goodwill," urging the tech giant to comply with the new social media rules. The government warned of "unintended consequences" if Twitter refuses to comply.

Nigeria's government recently banned Twitter after the company took down a tweet from President Muhammadu Buhari that appeared to threaten separatists. There are fears that India could do the same.

For Twitter, that would be a blow not just to its business interests, but to its avowed commitment to fostering public conversation.

"As much as these kinds of centralized corporate platforms can be frustrating in a number of ways, they are, when it comes down to it, the place where the majority of the world interacts," says Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Nigeria Suspends Twitter After It Deleted A Tweet By The President

"Years ago, I would have said that companies should stand up to authoritarian governments to tell them, 'Hey, block us if you want to, but we're not going to comply with these restrictions,'" she says. "But as time has gone on, that's become less and less of a viable option. ... For some people, these are really vital channels for accessing a global audience, for reaching people outside of their normal space, especially during the pandemic."

In India, for example, people took to Twitter to source medical supplies and raise money during a devastating COVID-19 resurgence.

On Monday, a Twitter spokesperson told NPR that the company remains "deeply committed to India," has been "making every effort to comply" with the new IT rules and has been sharing its progress with the Indian government.

The same day, Twitter also disclosed to a Harvard University database that it had restricted access within India to four accounts — including those of a hip-hop artist and a singer/songwriter — that had criticized the Modi government online. To comply with Indian law, Twitter sometimes blocks content in India but allows it to remain visible outside the country.

Twitter and other companies face pressure from other governments too. Around the world, free speech advocates say, there are increasing demands to restrict certain types of speech and for governments to play a greater role in regulating online platforms.

Germany, for example, has a law requiring social media platforms to act quickly to take down illegal speech or face financial penalties.

In the U.S., Democrats are pushing companies to curb misinformation, while Republicans have turned their own complaints about social media censorship into laws like one passed in Florida last month that bars platforms from banning politicians.

States Fight Over How Our Data Is Tracked And Sold Online, As Congress Stalls

A new form of mass surveillance.

Another part of the showdown between India's government and tech companies hinges on privacy.

The government wants to be able to trace misinformation that's shared online. So as part of its new IT rules, it's asking social media companies to be able to identify the "first originator" of any piece of information. It says it will ask for that information only in rare cases where a potential crime is suspected to have been committed.

WhatsApp filed a lawsuit over this last month in the Delhi High Court. The company says it's unable to provide "first originator" information unless it traces every message on its platform — which would amount to what it called "a new form of mass surveillance."

"To comply, messaging services would have to keep giant databases of every message you send or add a permanent identity stamp — like a fingerprint — to private messages with friends, family, colleagues, doctors, and businesses," WhatsApp wrote in an FAQ about traceability on its website. "Companies would be collecting more information about their users at a time when people want companies to have less information about them."

Experts say messaging apps like WhatsApp and Signal would likely have to break their end-to-end encryption — which ensures only the sender and recipient, not the company or anyone else, can read a message — to comply with Indian law. Namrata Maheshwari, an India-based lawyer and policy consultant for the Center for Democracy and Technology, predicts that will have a "chilling effect" on free speech.

"This is problematic for users' right to privacy, because the core promise of end-to-end encryption is that users can communicate safely and securely without any unauthorized access by any third party, including the service provider," she says.

Maheshwari says the WhatsApp lawsuit is one of many filed in various high courts across India challenging India's new IT rules. They bring a key third party — judges — into the ongoing standoff between the Indian government and social media companies. The lawsuits will be decided over several months, or even years.

Facebook Promises More Private And Self-Destructing Messages

"As far as the question of who the stronger entity here is, I actually think it's now the Indian courts," she says. "The battleground has moved."

Editor's note: Facebook, Google and LinkedIn are among NPR's financial supporters.

social media

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Youth Perception towards Internet Censorship in India

Related Papers

Basu M . Daas

Volume II, Issue 1

Communications

Through the examination of recent developments in Iraq, Brazil and China, this paper explores the role of public communication in a) generating, corralling, and buttressing political legitimacy, and b) negotiating, demarcating, and reproducing collective identities. The transformation of Iraq’s public sphere after the fall of the Ba’ath regime saw it shift from a tightly controlled and unified communication space to unencumbered yet fragmented spheres split along ethno-sectarian lines, buttressing sectarian politics and identities. The emergence of subaltern publics in Brazil’s favelas empowered residents to express public dissent, assert their voice, and develop pride in their community. Chinese efforts to control online public discourse provide the government with ways of managing its perceived legitimacy and foster patriotic fellowship online. Legitimation and the affirmation of identity interact and support one another in public discourse, as we illustrate.

Prof.Onkaragouda Kakade , Shourini Banerjee

Social Media has transformed the lives of millions in this present era and has been instrumental in connecting the lives of many. Besides, connecting people, social media has been active in providing an individual with vast information through its several pages and posts. Gender issues are the talk of the town. Though, we are in the 21st century, the age-old patriarchal dominations layered with gender elements still co-exist. Gender notions are deeply embedded, hence proper awareness is required to negate those ideas. Despite, women achieving almost everything under the sun, yet masculinity and other gender-based violence or harassment are still plaguing our society. With the growing popularity and its credibility, Social Media can be a useful source for disseminating information and ideas related to several gender-equality themes and empowering women. For this study, the importance of Social Media in implementing gender awareness will be analyzed using a survey among the women of Vijayapura. The sample has been selected on the basis of random sampling. The study reveals that majority of the women have benefitted from Social Media.

Prof.Onkaragouda Kakade , Abhilasha R

Social media reduces the world into a well connected global village. It is a platform which allows expressing creatively where ever and whenever one wants. In the present time it is used to bring about many desired changes, revolutions, movements, to which social media users support endlessly. It is an open medium where one can express without being subjected to gate keepers. Movements such as India against corruption, occupy movement of Wall Street, revolution in Egypt gained momentum due to social media. In the recent days, Indian government has tried to censor social media and take control of it. This has been strongly opposed by the citizens, mainly youngsters. At the same time social media is acting as a primary source of information and is catalyzing social movements. This study focuses on two aspects, the need to find the opinion of the youngsters on social media censorship and the need to analyse the standing opinion about the objectivity and credibility of the social media content. One of the aims is to find out whether censorship of social media is required or not. Survey method has been employed and multi stage sampling technique has been used. The cities of Vijayapura and Bangalore were selected to represent north and south parts of Karnataka state. This study shows that maximum of the respondents are against the social media censorship and prefer self regulation as ideal method of maintaining objectivity and credibility of the content.

Revue des Femmes Philosophes, N° 4-5 / December 2017

Supriya Chaudhuri

Ritu Srivastava

final draft, submitted

John Palfrey

Pepperdine Law Review

Gordon Danning

The United States is an outlier in its legal protection for what is commonly termed "hate speech." Proponents of bringing American jurisprudence closer to the international norm often argue that hate speech causes violence, particularly political violence. However, such claims largely rest on assumptions which are inconsistent with social scientists' understanding of the causes of political violence, including that ethnic identity and ideological salience are more often the result of violence than a cause thereof; that violence during conflict is generally unrelated to the conflict's ostensible central cleavage; and that violence is generally instrumental and elite-driven, rather than spontaneous and "bottom-up." Therefore, censorship of hate speech cannot be justified by the argument that such censorship is necessary to prevent or forestall political violence.

Subhradipta Sarkar

India’s New Internet Rules Are a Step Toward ‘Digital Authoritarianism,’ Activists Say. Here’s What They Will Mean

T he Indian government must suspend sweeping new Internet regulations, 10 international NGOs said in an open letter Thursday.

The new rules, brought in by executive order in late February, give the Indian government an arsenal of muscular new powers that will force tech companies and news outlets to comply with government surveillance and censorship demands.

The rules increase the pressure on U.S. tech companies including Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp to comply with what the letter’s authors say is an increasingly authoritarian Indian government —or risk losing access to India, their biggest market in the world, which many see as key to future growth.

The Indian government had been preparing the new rules for years, but published them amid an escalating protest movement by Indian farmers that has captured both national and international attention. In February, the Indian government clashed with Twitter over the company’s refusal of a government request to remove hundreds of posts by activists and politicians about the protests, with the company saying they constituted freedom of expression. After the Indian government threatened Twitter employees with jail time, Twitter eventually re-blocked most of the posts.

Read More: Why Twitter Blocked Accounts Linked to Farmers’ Protests in India

“Why the government brought this up now is deeply linked to the farmer protests,” says Raman Jit Singh Chima, the Asia-Pacific policy director at Access Now, one of the groups that signed the open letter criticizing the rules. “After the pushback they received from social media firms, who were contesting orders they were receiving, the government definitely wants to send a clear signal that ‘we are going to regulate you, and if you push back, it will result in more regulation overall.’”

Farmers cheer and wave flags near Kundli border in Haryana, India, as more tractors arrive from Punjab to participate in the ongoing farmers' protest at Singhu border to mark the 100th day of demonstrations against the farm laws on March 6

India’s new rules come at a time when tech platforms are facing threats of regulation by Western governments over content including hate speech, misinformation, and incitement to violence. But the Indian rules are more worrying, the open letter says, because they are part of a wider push toward “digital authoritarianism,” including Internet shutdowns and arrests of journalists. Although the Indian rules also contain useful provisions like mandating transparency in cases when user content has been removed, they come with no clear mechanisms for tech companies to push back against potentially unlawful government demands.

“The rules change the fundamental Internet experience for any average user in India,” says Apar Gupta, executive director of India’s Internet Freedom Foundation. “Social media companies, streaming platforms and online news portals are now being brought under some level of direct government supervision,” he says. “These rules are a very stark illustration of a desire of the government to control the online conversation. They extend forms of regulation over areas that enrich any kind of democracy, and encourage self-censorship.”

The Indian government says the rules are designed to prevent “abuse and misuse” of social media. “The new rules instead seek to empower the users of social media by requiring these platforms to put in place a robust public grievance redressal mechanism,” a representative of India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology said in a March 17 letter to TIME. “It brings digital media outlets at par with print and electronic media with the underlying principle of self-regulation to ensure compliance to existing laws of India.”

What do the new rules say?

The rules force companies to remove content that the government says is illegal within three days of being notified, including content that threatens “the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India,” public order, decency, morality, or incitement to an offense. The rules also state that platforms must hand over information about users to law enforcement upon request.

Encrypted messaging platforms like WhatsApp—which is owned by Facebook—will also be forced under the new rules to keep information on who the “first originator” of any message is, and provide it to the government upon demand. WhatsApp is already facing similar legislation in Brazil, its second-biggest market after India. And Western intelligence agencies have also pressured encrypted platforms to build “backdoors” into their messaging services.

WhatsApp did not respond to TIME’s request for comment, but its head Will Cathcart said the company was “still digesting them and understanding what they actually mean, or don’t mean,” in an interview on Big Technology, a podcast by journalist Alex Kantrowitz.

Cathcart suggested that WhatsApp may be prepared to bring legal cases in India if the rules meant breaking the end-to-end encryption that the chat service is based on. “If you’re talking about break[ing] encryption, it’s really hard for me to imagine being comfortable with it,” he said. “It’s hard for me to imagine even how you ask people to do that, I think it’s such a fundamental threat. So, we’ll stand and we’ll make our case, and we’ll argue.”

Facebook and Signal (an end-to-end encrypted messaging app that is growing in popularity in India) did not respond to TIME’s requests for comment.

Read More: The Inside Story of How Signal Became the Private Messaging App for an Age of Fear and Distrust

In a statement, Twitter said: “We are studying the updated guidelines, and we look forward to continued engagement with the Government of India to strike a balance between transparency, freedom of expression, and privacy … We believe that regulation is beneficial when it safeguards citizen’s fundamental rights and reinforces online freedom.”

India’s new rules also say that companies must appoint a resident Indian citizen to be a “chief compliance officer” who will be criminally liable for any failure to comply with the rules. “India’s worst-kept secret is that if you work in the Internet industry, you will face arrest threats and threats of prosecution on a regular basis,” Chima says. “They’re just trying to codify this in one place. The idea is that if you have one person, you can put them under so much pressure that it will force compliance.”

The open letter by the 10 activist groups called on tech companies to resist the new rules. “They should interpret and implement legal demands as narrowly as possible, to ensure the least possible restriction on expression, notify users, seek clarification or modification from authorities, and explore all legal options for challenge,” the letter said.

A child touches a TV screen displaying OTT streaming apps at his home in New Delhi, Feb. 25. India has rolled out new regulations for social media companies and digital streaming websites to make them more accountable for the online content shared on their platforms.

A chilling effect on the press

As well as social media and streaming platforms, the new rules also impose strict new limits on digital news platforms—where a small handful of Indian publications have managed to remain critical of the government. In March, India’s democracy rating was downgraded from “free” to “partly free” by the U.S.-based NGO Freedom House, which cited among other factors the government’s “rising intimidation of academics and journalists.”

Under the new rules, digital publications will be subject to oversight by government-run committees, with the power to block publication of stories, remove stories, or even shut down entire websites. One of the 10 signatories of the open letter on Thursday is Reporters Without Borders, an NGO that campaigns for press freedom worldwide.

“Digital media has been quite outspoken, and I see this clearly as a way to bring it to heel, to control it, and perhaps intimidate it,” says Sidharth Bhatia, a founding editor of The Wire , a leading online publication that regularly publishes content critical of the Indian government. “It is executive overreach of the worst kind.”

Read More: Press Watchdog Urges India to Drop Investigation Into Journalist Over COVID-19 Reporting

The new legislation could result in critical reporting being silenced, Bhatia says. “Let’s say we’re about to publish a story about somebody powerful,” he says. “In a normal journalistic way, we will probably send a message before publication saying we would like your point of view. That person could very well go and say ‘I fear they will publish a very damaging story against me, and it’s libelous, etc.’” If that were to happen, he says, the case would be escalated through two committees, that contain no representatives of the digital media, until it is heard by a senior bureaucrat in India’s Ministry of Information. “At that level, you’re not likely to want to go against the government,” Bhatia says.

The publisher of The Wire is challenging the government’s new rules in the Indian court system—a challenge that a Delhi high court judge upheld on Tuesday, with the case adjourned to April 16.

Bhatia says that if the new rules are allowed to stand, they will have a “terrible chilling effect” on Indian journalism. “There is already talk within the media of journalists self-censoring,” he says. “More and more will say it’s not worth the trouble.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

The New Face of Doctor Who
Putin’s Enemies Are Struggling to Unite
Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control
Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is
Boredom Makes Us Human
John Mulaney Has What Late Night Needs
The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Write to Billy Perrigo at [email protected]

BDS School of Law, Meerut- Review
Christ University, Bangalore- Review
Unmanned aerial vehicle: Privacy and Safety Concerns
AI-DRIVEN THREAT DETECTION AND PRIVACY LAW
Apply for an Online Internship at Social Laws Today

SOCIAL LAWS TODAY is the Largest Legal Blog integrating tremendous knowledge and information amongst the entire legal fraternity and revolutionising Legal Services.

Community Guidelines
Country Ambassadors
Editorial Advisory Board
Privacy Policy
Publish Article/Guest Post
Terms and Conditions
Advertise with us

Internet Ban and Censorship in India

by Social Laws Today
April 1, 2023
9 minutes read

Drishti Suji , a 4th-year student from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS) has written this Article”Internet Ban and Censorship in India”.

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

What can be accessed, published, or watched on the Internet may be legally restricted or suppressed through internet censorship. Censorship most frequently affects internet domains. It incredibly might also cover all resources on the Internet that are outside the filtering state’s territorial control. Information that can be made available online may also be restricted by internet censorship. Businesses that offer internet access, including schools and libraries, may decide to block access to content that they deem unwanted, offensive, improper for children, or even unlawful. These businesses may do this ethically rather than through censorship.

The ability to publish or access information on the internet is basically controlled or limited by internet censorship. Internet filtering is frequently used by governments and other organizations to restrict access to sensitive or damaging content as well as to the information that is protected by copyright.

From one nation to the next, different levels of Internet censorship exist. While some nations have some degree of Internet censorship, others go so far as to restrict access to material like news and stifle citizen debate. Elections, protests, and riots are just a few examples of events that might prompt or lead to internet censorship.

Internet censorship takes place in one of two ways:

Top-down censorship occurs when an authority orders service providers what to obstruct. Certain regulations may call for the censorship of types of content. Users have no input and no control over what they may access.

Self-imposed censorship is related to people or organizations choosing what content to avoid. For instance, an individual can opt not to visit specific websites because they are conscious that their government will censor the content, rendering it undependable.

PROS AND CONS

Censorship guards against social disagreement by preventing the dissemination of unwanted material.
The government can employ censorship to restrict access to harmful activities by restricting their public display, among other things. It can also be used to prevent the spread of incorrect beliefs or rumors. Internet filtering can screen out undesirable content online. It shields kids from frightening websites that feature child pornography, sexual assault, and detailed how-to guides for committing crimes or using drugs.
Internet filtering can contribute to the preservation of social harmony and public security.
There are many different definitions of morality, taste, and disgust, which go against the constitution’s guarantee of free speech. So, this level of tight censorship is in direct conflict with the constitutional guarantee of everyone’s right to free speech and expression in India. However, it is subject to certain reasonable restrictions.
Instead of focusing on more important social issues, the practical execution of the censorship legislation may end up turning into a tool of moral policing that regulates other people’s lives.

INTERNET CENSORSHIP IN INDIA

In case of an emergency, such as a protest against the government, opposition to a new law, or an election. The central government and state governments of India have the authority to impose a ban on internet services in any area of Indian territory. In India, the central and state governments are not required to request permission from any Indian court. They can impose an internet ban on their own. Instead, they are free to do so directly or by asking all licensed ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to filter or remove specific content or to impose an outright ban on all internet users.

Freedom on the Net 2012 report analysis:

India ranks 20th out of the 47 nations that were considered for the 2012 study. India scored 39 on a scale from 0 (most free) to 100 (least free). In the 2011 study, India was placed 14th out of 37 countries.
Before 2008, the Indian government only sometimes and infrequently censored online content. The Information Technology Act was amended by the Parliament in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008. This attack left 171 people dead. These changes increased government censorship and monitoring power.
With the implementation of the modified ITA in late 2009. The pressure on private enterprises to remove content that is thought to jeopardize public order or national security has intensified. Private service providers, such as ISPs, search engines, and cybercafés, must abide by government blocking requests or face up to seven years in prison. Businesses must have dedicated workers to handle these requests.
Online posters have sporadically been prosecuted, and private content-hosting businesses are required by law to provide useful information to law enforcement.
The Supreme Court declared in 2009 that website moderators and bloggers may be subject to libel lawsuits and even criminal prosecution for comments made on their pages.

HOW DOES CENSORSHIP WORK IN INDIA?

The process of censorship is carried out by the relevant authority or an authorized entity.

In India, censorship is practiced both directly and indirectly through a variety of laws and agencies. It includes the Cinematograph Act 1952, the Cable Television Act, the Central Board of Film Certification, and the Press Council of India.

Code of Criminal Procedure:

Section 95 of the Cr.P.C. permits the confiscation of specific publications and content.

If any newspaper, book, or document, wherever printed, includes any information that the State Government deems injurious to the state. It is penalized by the State Government via an official notification issued under this provision.

This would enable a magistrate to issue search warrants for publications that are considered “objectionable.”

The Cinematography Act of 1952 established the Central Bureau of Film Certification (CBFC), a statutory organization.

It controls what is included in movies that are made available to the public.

Films are subject to prior certification by the CBFC, and broadcasters are required to abide by the certification’s requirements by the “Program Code and Advertising Code” rules.

It allows for classification into the following four groups, i.e.

The designation “U” stands for unrestricted exhibition.
“UA” stands for unrestricted exhibition, except for children under the age of 12.
The category of exhibition designated as “A” is one that is only open to adults.
“S” refers to a category of movies that are only available to a certain group of individuals.

The Press Council Act passed in 1978, created the Press Council of India, a statutory and quasi-judicial organization.

It controls what enters the media domain and serves as the press’s self-regulatory organization.

This organization emphasizes the necessity for media professionals and journalists to practice self-regulation. It serves as a watchdog on media content, in general, to determine whether it violates press ethics and the needs of the public.

The Cable Television Networks Act:

This law further restricts the type of broadcast content that is permitted. The act requires cable operators to register voluntarily in order to keep track of them. It also establishes rules for the content that the cable operator may broadcast. It requires that all films, whether they were made in India or elsewhere, receive CBFC certification under the category “U” (i.e., Unrestricted Public Exhibition) before they can be broadcasted on cable television.

The “Cable Television Networks Regulations” developed according to this Act provide the government broad authority to prohibit cable operators, channels, or specific programs that contravene the established program code or guidelines.

New IT Regulations and Social Media Platforms, 2021:

Given the rapid rise of social media, censorship of it has become a rising issue in India because, until recently, it was not directly regulated or under the direct control of any government agency.

Nowadays, social media usage is governed by the Information and Technology Act, 2000. Sections 67A, 67B, 67C, and 69A contain the relevant regulatory provisions.

IT Regulations for 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code):

These were preceded by changes made to the “Allocation of Business Rules” under the IT Act, 2000. It placed control of digital and online media, including OTT (Over The Top) platforms like Amazon, Netflix, and Hotstar, under the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (I&B), Government of India. This included films, audio-visual programs, news, and current affairs content.

New compliance and redressal methods for social media, OTT, digital news, and even messaging applications are included in the IT (Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which are implemented following this amendment (like WhatsApp and Viber).

CONSTITUTIONALITY

It is obvious that press freedom is significant to our democratic process. It aims to advance public opinion and issues of public interest by disseminating information that helps people to make informed decisions. The Supreme Court also defended the dignity of the press and the freedom it enjoys by overturning attempts to restrain it in several cases.

Perhaps the first case where the issue of cinema censorship comes up is K.A. Abbas v. Union of India [1] . As the basic right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in this decision carefully considered crucial issues relating to the pre-censorship of cinematograph films. In this case, the petitioner contested the Board of Film Censors’ decision to deny a “U” certificate for his movie “A Tale of Four Cities”. The Central Government agreed to provide the “U” certificate while the Supreme Court was hearing the case in exchange for the movie receiving a few edits.

The court had to decide on the following two matters:

Pre-censorship cannot be accepted in and of itself under the right of speech and expression
Even if it were a valid limitation on freedom. It must be used in accordance with extremely specific guidelines that forbid arbitrary action.

Considering all of these, Hidayatullah, C.J. clarified that pre-censorship of films was constitutionally allowed in India. Also that it was a reasonable restriction falling under the purview of Article 19(2). However, it was noted that pre-censorship was merely a component of censorship. But censorship must not be used in a way that unreasonably restricts the right to free speech.

Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that imposing pre-censorship on a newspaper, as held in the Brij Bhusan case , or prohibiting the newspaper from publishing its own views, as held in the Virendra case , or banning the entry of publications and their circulation, as ruled in the Sakal Papers case and the Romesh Thapper case , or attempting to impose constraints in some other way, as ruled in the Express Newspaper case and the Bennett and Coleman case , was an infringement on A 19 (1) (a).

The Supreme Court has ruled in all of the aforementioned cases that press freedom cannot be curtailed. Furthermore, it is not acceptable to subject the media to laws that restrict or obstruct freedom of speech and expression.

In terms of cinema censorship, censorship is necessary due to the films’ widespread popularity, their style of presentation, and most importantly the impression they have on viewers, both young and old. According to Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, one is free to express their ideas using any medium one chooses.

The film, a crucial medium for the presentation of ideas and unrestrained thought, must be free from all forms of censorship. The fundamental right to express one’s opinion in the community of civilized societies must not be restricted in any way. The practical realities of the society in which such ideas are spread must also be kept in mind. The process of expressing one’s opinions should not compromise the peace and security of the community. Given that cinema can have an impact on society. So care must be taken when screening the movie to prevent any form of disruption and threat to the country’s security.

The freedom of free speech and the obligation to uphold social peace must coexist in harmony. The Certification Board must examine a film objectively and with consideration for the compatibility between the right to free speech and the maintenance of peace and security in society.

Also Read: Fundamental Rights Under Indian Constitution. Click Here!

[1] (1970) 2 SCC 780 Available Here!

Share This Post:

Rules governing punjab: rera, rera – its implementation & its impact on various states..

by: Right to the Internet as a Fundamental Right - Social Laws Today
1 year ago (Edit)

[…] Also Read: Internet Ban and Censorship in India. Click Here! […]

Leave feedback about this Cancel Reply

Quality 5 4 3 2 1
Price 5 4 3 2 1
Service 5 4 3 2 1

THE ABOLITION OF THE UNTOUCHABILITY ACT

ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION

Balancing Freedom of Expression in Democracy

Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Precedents as a source of law

Preamble of the constitution of india: a critical analysis.

Censorship in Media – Causes, Effects and the Indian Laws

From Current Affairs Notes for UPSC » Editorials & In-depths » This topic

In a recent development, the Indian government through legislation has scrapped the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) with immediate effect leading to rising fear among the film fraternity over increased censorship in coming times. Similarly, the New IT Rules, 2021 also gave rise to fear among media of content censorship. This has brought back the focus on the censorship issue in India. Censorship in media is not a new concept in India. Since the British Rule, there have been issues regarding press freedom. News and broadcasting media have been under watch on the grounds of several laws and regulations. There has always been a tussle between those who are in power and the media on several issues. Censorship in the media has been counterproductive on various grounds and has constitutional limitations as well. Therefore, there is a need to look into the various aspects of censorship and how it works in India.

This topic of “Censorship in Media – Causes, Effects and the Indian Laws” is important from the perspective of the UPSC IAS Examination , which falls under General Studies Portion.

Censorship – Meaning

Censorship refers to regulation and suppression of speech and writing perceived to be detrimental to the public good. It includes the review of media content that can be deemed pornographic, politically offensive, or a security threat. It also includes official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It can be imposed by a government authority, sometimes by a religious authority and occasionally by private organizations.

Express Learning Programme (ELP)

Optional Notes
Study Hacks
Prelims Sureshots (Repeated Topic Compilations)
Current Affairs (Newsbits, Editorials & In-depths)
Ancient Indian History
Medieval Indian History
Modern Indian History
Post-Independence Indian History
World History
Art & Culture
Geography (World & Indian)
Indian Society & Social Justice
Indian Polity
International Relations
Indian Economy
Environment
Agriculture
Internal Security
Disasters & its Management
General Science – Biology
General Studies (GS) 4 – Ethics
Syllabus-wise learning
Political Science
Anthropology
Public Administration

Causes of censorship

Political reasons – Many times governments do not allow the publication of certain kinds of information on the grounds of being critical of it or some political party in the ruling.
Social reasons – The disclosure of some kinds of information may create social disharmony due to which they are held back or censored.
Moral reasons – Any content that is considered to be violating the moral code of conduct in society is censored. This may include pornographic content, content promoting racial and gender inequality or discrimination and others.
Religious reasons – Any type of information that may hurt the religious feelings of some community in society is often held back. Countries that have particular state religion also tend to restrict such speech and expression in any form that may be blasphemous.
Security reasons – Information that may harm the security of a state is often held back from publication. Such disclosure may risk the security of a particular region against foreign invasion and terrorist threats.

Prelims Sureshots – Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims

A Compilation of the Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims, including Schemes, Freedom Fighters, Judgments, Acts, National Parks, Government Agencies, Space Missions, and more. Get a guaranteed 120+ marks!

Effects of censorship

Pros – Although censorship is viewed negatively, it is not evil all the time; it has some positive aspects as well. Censorship prevents disharmony in society by prevention of disclosure of objectionable content that can lead to communal discord, preserves the security of the state, maintains morality in the society, prohibits the spread of false beliefs or rumours, curbs access to harmful activities by preventing their public display and others.
Cons – Censorship also leads to excess restriction on freedom of speech and expression. Most of the time it is used to silence those who are critical of those who are in power. Thus, it may harm healthy debate and criticism in society. In this way, it gives prominence and authority to a single group of people. It often becomes an instrument of harassment of those seeking free speech.

Censorship in India

During the British Rule

As soon as the British East India Company(EIC) set up its dominions in India, the printing press and typesets arrived in India but modern journalism was born in India mostly as a result of British suppression of Indians.
The EIC’s administrators and shareholders were constantly anxious about the potential of the new medium of the press to disrupt their colonial rule. The East India Company actively tried to suppress this new medium.
From 1780 onwards, the Company carefully monitored each piece of newsprint that was being circulated within its territories.
In 1799, the Censorship of Press Act was enacted by Lord Wellesley, anticipating the French invasion of India. As per this act, every newspaper should print the names of the printer, editor and proprietor. Before printing any material it should be submitted to the secretary of Censorship.
In 1823, the acting governor-general, John Adams enacted the Licensing Regulations to monitor press freedom in India. The regulations were supposed to act against Indian language newspapers or those edited by Indians. As per the regulations, starting or using a press without a licence was a penal offence.
In 1835, governor-general Metcalfe repealed the 1823 ordinance and enacted the new Press Act (1835) . The Act required a printer/publisher to give a precise account of premises of a publication and cease functioning if required by a similar declaration. Metcalfe earned the epithet of “liberator of the press” due to this decision.
In 1857, the Licensing Act was introduced given the emergency situation during the revolt. This Act imposed licensing restrictions in addition to the already existing registration procedure laid down by Metcalfe Act and the Government reserved the right to stop publication and circulation of any book, newspaper or printed matter.
In 1867, the Registration Act was introduced. It replaced Metcalfe’s Act of 1835 and was of a regulatory, not restrictive, nature. As per the Act, (i) every book/newspaper was required to print the name of the printer and the publisher and the place of the publication; and (ii) a copy was to be submitted to the local government within one month of the publication of a book.
A bitter legacy of the 1857 revolt was the racial bitterness between the ruler and the ruled. After 1858, the European press always rallied behind the Government in political controversies while the vernacular press was critical of the Government.
Lord Lytton’s administration especially regarding its inhuman treatment to victims of the famine of 1876-77 was widely criticised by Indian newspapers in reaction to which the Vernacular Press Act, 1878 was enacted. It was designed to ‘better control’ the vernacular press and effectively punish and repress seditious writing. The Act forced all Indian publications to apply for a government license while also making sure that nothing was written against all the British government, nor was the government in any way threatened. The Press was unaffected by the “Gagging Act”, making its way across news dissemination. This pressed the government to develop far more rigorous policies. No English-language media outlets were subject to this Act.
With the rise of the National Movement , the Indian Press got a powerful drive. Eventually, the government was suspicious of the press, so enacted many laws to regulate it and curb political issues.
Four new laws were introduced around 1908-1901, following the creation of the Indian National Congress, which includes the Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act of 1908 , the Press Act of 1910, the Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act of 1911 , and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 .
Film censorship in India began in 1918. In 1917, a bill was introduced in the imperial legislative council which noted that there was a rapid growth in the popularity of cinematograph and an increasing number of such exhibitions in India. The Bill recommended the creation of a law that would ensure both safety and the “protection of the public from indecent or otherwise objectionable representations”. As a result, the Cinematograph Act of 1918 came into existence.
In 1931, the Press Emergency Act was enacted. It was enacted in reaction to Gandhi ’s call to mobilise people for the Salt Satyagraha.
The government during the Second World War to suppress popular Indian opinion introduced strict censorship while the Indian Press (Emergency Powers) Act, 1931 was already in force. Under the Defence of India Rules , repression was imposed and amendments made in the Press Emergency Act and Official Secrets Act . It monitored and manipulated foreign news which was coming in, and intentionally generated, systematically propaganda-rooted news.
There were regional censors in India to monitor cinematic content.
In the 1940s, the policing of Indian cinema grew more stringent. Out of 1,774 films seen by the Bombay censors in 1943, 25 required modification before they could be released; that number went up to 464 (out of 3,099) by 1948.

After Independence

The makers of the Constitution knew the value of freedom of speech and expression and thus Article 19(1) was introduced that guaranteed freedom of speech and expression. However, this right came with certain reasonable restrictions.
The Cinematograph Act of 1918 was abolished and it was later replaced with a similar law the Cinematograph Act of 1952 . Over the next few years, a Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC, renamed as Central Board of Film Certification in 1983) was set up, regional boards were abolished. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) comes under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting purview. It assigns various certifications such as Universal, Adults, and Parental Guidance to India’s films before releasing.
In the laws governing the freedom of speech and expression in independent India, the sedition law, Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stands at the fore. The law is in working since British Raj. It provides for a maximum penalty of life in prison. It forbids any signs, visual representations, or phrases, whether written or spoken, that may “bring or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law”.
Similarly, criminal defamation, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , specified in Section 499 is another law governing freedom of expression in India. It forbids any person from defaming any other person thus ensuring the wise use of freedom of expression guaranteed in the Indian Constitution.
During the emergency period, there was a huge blow of censorship on the Indian media. In 1978, the Press Council of India Act came into being. The Press Council of India was established under its purview. It sought to preserve the press’s freedom and maintain and improve the standards of newspapers and news agencies in India. The PCI has the power to receive complaints of violation of journalistic ethics or misconduct by an editor or journalist. The decisions of the PCI are final and cannot be appealed before a court of law.
While the Cinematograph Act exists for the regulation of films, the Cinematograph Rules, 1983, govern the public exhibition of movies, and the Programme and Advertising Code prescribed under the Cable Television Network Rules,1994 , regulates the broadcast of films on television.
The operation of television networks, television broadcasters and related matters are governed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (the “Cable Television Laws”). These among other things, restrict transmission through a cable service, of any program that is not in conformity with the program code (the “Program Code”), and of any advertisement that is not in conformity with the advertising code (the “Advertising Code”) set out in the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
The Information Technology Act, 2000(“IT Act”) deals with censorship of online content. Sections 67A, 67B and 67C of the Act provide for penalty and imprisonment for publishing or transmitting obscene material, sexually explicit material and also material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, in electronic form. Under Section 69A of the IT Act, the Central Government is empowered to issue directions to block public access to any information.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (the “Intermediary Guidelines”) notified by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, provide a due diligence framework to be observed by intermediaries in respect of the information being hosted or published on any computer resource of the intermediary.
To monitor the content on the OTT (Over the Top) platforms, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) recently notified the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (Rules). The Rules seek to introduce a code of ethics to set out guidelines for classification of content based on viewer’s age, themes, content, tone and impact, and target audience; and requires OTT platforms to give due consideration to sovereignty, security, friendly relations of India, etc. It also requires the setting up of a robust three-tier grievance redressal mechanism.

Important cases and judgements

The Supreme Court of India in the K.A. Abbas vs the Union of India case upheld restrictions on public exhibition under Cinematograph Act, 1952, and rejected a petition that challenged the Act’s powers of censorship. The Court ruled that prior censorship fell within the reasonable restrictions permitted on free expression and that the Act was sufficiently clear to avoid the arbitrary exercise of the powers therein.
Constitutionality of censorship was also held in S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram . The Court opined that cinema caters for a mass audience who are generally not selective about what they watch. It cannot be allowed to function in a free market place just as does the newspapers and magazines. Censorship by prior restraint is, therefore, not only desirable but also necessary.
The Supreme Court through various judgments also upheld the dignity of the press and freedom it enjoys by nullifying the attempts to put a curb on it. These cases include the Brij Bhusan case , Sakal Papers case , Romesh Thapper case , the Indian Express Newspaper case , the Bennett and Coleman case and others.

Censorship and international laws

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR) states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) similarly states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. However, it carries with it certain duties and responsibilities.
Along with these, the Special Rapporteur’s Reports on Free Speech and other records of human rights tie to India which are related to free speech and expression.

Recommendations

Amendment of criminal laws in India in compliance with international principles to preserve freedom of speech and expression.
Proper discussion with all the stakeholders before introducing and modifying any particular law on censorship.
Creation of rules and procedures which are proactive and non-punitive to address hate speech etc. The process may involve raising public awareness, combating indecent misinformation and improving protection to protect a community at risk.
Artistic expression and creative freedom should not unduly be curbed and certification should be responsive to social change.

Way forward

Censorship is a coin with two faces. It has positive as well as negative sides. Given the ever-changing nature of society, everybody should be inclusive enough to accept diverse and contrasting opinions. The very essence of freedom of speech and expression needs to be kept alive keeping in mind the reasonable restrictions at the same time. Proper discussion and persuasion can be the right approach in building a healthy balance between freedom of expression and what needs to be held back.

Practise question

Write a note on censorship in media and its present status in India,
https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/international_standards_on_freedom_of_expression_eng.pdf
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-351-censorship-of-films.html
https://www.mondaq.com/india/broadcasting-film-tv-radio/757742/censorship-the-current-regulatory-framework-and-the-future-of-digital-content
https://www.theleaflet.in/censorship-and-creative-freedom-since-independence-to-ott-era/#
https://blog.ipleaders.in/defamation-section-499-to-502-of-ipc/
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/abbas-v-india/
https://www.cleverism.com/lexicon/internet-censorship/
https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/new-rules-for-ott-platforms-regulation-or-restriction/2207205/

GET MONTHLY COMPILATIONS

Biotechnology Sector in India – Scope, Challenges & Government Initiat...

China-U.S. Tensions – Implications for India and the World

The various reasons to celebrate ‘the Republic Day’

Feature Image of Common Electoral Roll in India

Common Electoral Roll in India – Need, Challenges, Way Forward

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

See blocked member's posts
Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

IAS Preparation
UPSC Preparation Strategy

Censorship and Indian Law - UPSC Notes

The issue of censorship is frequently seen in the news. Debates about freedom of speech and expression and restrictions on this freedom are commonplace. This is hence, an important topic for the UPSC exam . It is also important to understand what the law says on the matter of censorship in India.

The entertainment industry in India has grown by leaps and bounds in the last century. It has increased not only the number of movies and programs it produces but its reach has also spilled all over the world. The emergence of digital platforms over the years has only increased the quantity and extent of the content that is produced by the entertainment industry. The legal framework on censorship in this respect is explained in this article.

The issue of censorship is essentially an issue of free speech and expression; it refers mainly to the suppression of speech and other forms of public communication.
Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution as a fundamental right but this right is not absolute and as such restrictions are imposed on this right under Article 19(2).
Therefore, censorship is all about harmonising the two i.e. freedom of speech and expression on the one hand and the restriction provided on the other hand.

Film Certification

Movies in India as it stands now have to obtain certification before they are released in theatres. The certificates in this respect are issued by a statutory body called the Central Board of Film Certification ( CBFC ) which has been established under the Cinematographic Act of 1952.
The film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibitions. i.e. fit for ‘U’ certificate.
The film is suitable for unrestricted public exhibition but with an endorsement of caution that the question as to whether any child below the age of twelve years may be allowed to see the film should be considered by the parents or guardian of such child. i.e. fit for ‘UA’ certificate.
The film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults, i.e. fit for ‘A’ certificate.
The film is suitable for public exhibition restricted to members of any profession or any class of persons having regard to the nature, content and theme of the film, i.e. fit for ‘S’ certificate.
The principles guiding the CBFC in the certification of films include assessing the film from the perspective of public order, morality, decency and defamation.
Additionally, the CBFC is also required to consider laws relating to the depiction of cigarettes and tobacco, the use of drugs and substances, the prevention of cruelty to animals, the use of national emblems and names and other matters of national honour.

For more on film certification and the GD Khosla Report (1969) on film censorship, click on the linked article.

Some Related Links:

Censorship on Television

The regulation of content on television carried on by different networks and broadcasters is governed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 (the “Cable Television Laws”)
The above laws and regulations restrict transmission through a cable service, of any program that is not in conformity with the Program Code and of any advertisement that is not in conformity with the Advertising Code set out in the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
The Program Code also prohibits the televised broadcast of films that have not been issued the “U” certificate by the CBFC.
The cable operators are given the additional responsibility of portraying women in a positive light as well as keeping in check the violence and nudity in programs that are meant for children.

Censorship of Online Content

The rise of over the top (OTT) platforms in the last decade has been nothing short of phenomenal.

Moreover, the traffic to these platforms has only increased due to the lockdowns imposed because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
These platforms which are flourishing by the day include the most popular ones Netflix and Amazon Prime.
As of now, these platforms are free from any kind of regulations and restrictions making them very popular among artists because they do not restrict the creative nature of their art like theatres and television does.
The OTT platforms have adopted self-regulation in this regard by categorising their programs on the basis of violence, nudity and strong language.

The debate over the regulation of content has been a very old one. There are sound arguments on both sides of the debate in this respect. In the most recent times, content creators are leaning towards the OTT Platforms over the traditional platforms because of the creative liberties they can take.

For more notes on Indian Polity , visit the linked article.

Censorship and Indian Law-UPSC Notes:- Download PDF Here

Frequently Asked Questions on Censorship in Indian Law

Q 1. what is freedom of speech and expression, q 2. who manages the censorship of television programs.

UPSC Preparation Links:

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation.

Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

👇 Recommended LLS Courses to Excel in this Opportunity

Lawctopus’ Online Summer Training Programs Register Now!

Home » User Generated Posts » Internet Censorship In India

Internet Censorship In India

sahajveerbaweja
Sep 23, 2019
No Comments

DISTRESSED REFLECTION OF INTERNET CENSORSHIP IN INDIAN SOCIETY

The society with the adoption of transformative constitutionalism has moved into the regime of the global village where no person irrespective of wherever he is residing in one second away. Whatsoever is happening in any rural place in India can be easily promulgated to the highly developed urban countries.

The upshot of globalization has put forward everyone on to the same platform by the concept of comprehensive connectivity. Though, with such open-ended technologies, there is certainly a need to keep a check on the dichotomy of expressions. But, the question is how far the control shall come under the purview of law.

Numerous debates between Autonomy versus Paternalism; active, choosing citizens versus passive, consuming subjects; cultural democracy and dissent versus uniformity and conformity; constitutional principles versus public morals has divided the freedom of speech along the two lines of jurisprudence.

This has put the society of India under the distressed situation of where freedom to speech is just like a shell without substance.

“ When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, You’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say .” –George R.R. Martin

In the present time, changing measures of innocence and moral standards have led to a rapid paradigm shift in the status of the world. The society at large has now grown into a global village.

Your one statement, one opinion, or maybe one expression on social media shall echo to the whole world, no matter how far you are sitting in any corner of India. The upshot of the globalization era has filled every loophole that was hindering the comprehensive connectivity amongst the nations.

Now, within a span of a few seconds, an expression of thoughts can travel wholly around the world. As we know, nothing interesting is ever completely one-sided. Abuse of the freedom of expression and opinion can be a double-edged sword.

Certainly, due to the semantic gap, one’s positive expression can cause a negative impression on the other or in the other case; one can intentionally defame or can enunciate agitating statements. For the well-being of national security and to save the public morality and dignity of a human being; scrutiny is an essential element.

Here the scrutiny comes in the form of censorship. The intention of Internet censorship is to inspect, control or suppress the objectionable content what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. The issue that stands upright here is, what comes under the scope of scrutiny and whether Censorship is violating the access to free speech?

The term “ censor ” was initially introduced in the ancient Roman Empire. According to the etymological dictionary, censere is a Latin word which means to appraise, value or judge . Censorship was an official duty and censor was a title given to a public official in the Roman government.

The chief job of the censor in Rome was to keep an accurate count, or census, of the citizens of Rome. He has an additional work comprising of regulation and supervision of public morality. The censors had the autonomous power to examine the actions of an individual.

They had to determine if the actions were the cause of degradation in citizenship or rank, regardless of its legality. In the past times, censorship was looked on as ‘ honorable ’ since it helped in shaping the moral character of people. The most renowned case in history was of Socrates who had been a victim of Censorship.

The Greek philosopher Plato forcefully armoured that any art that could corrupt morality should be censored . “ Let the censors receive any tale of fiction which is good, and reject the bad ”. In the contempt to this, Socrates was prosecuted for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities and was sentenced to drink poison .

The test on the grounds of morality and political code determined the content that had to be censored and in fact, the authority was never misused.

With the changing times, Yesteryear’s definition of censorship cannot prevail in contemporary time. What had been obscene earlier has become tastefully moral today. The populated states out there are now with high literacy rates and are more aware of their rights to speak, to know, to watch and to silence as well.

A country that runs on the spirit of democratic liberty cannot decide the scope of morality . Gone are the days when people would settle for the “beeps” and “blurs” . Today, society functions on the theory of Un-cut and Un-inhibited .

Under article 19 of the Indian constitution, the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right. In the same article, the application of reasonable restrictions is also mentioned. The freedom to express is given but the freedom to the medium of expression is still in the hands of the dominating regime.

There is no sagacity of giving a voice to the person who has been locked into a dark isolated room. Half freedom is in no sense better if it’s bottled up with the tag of half restriction.

The status of India’s overall Internet freedom as “ Partly Free ” has not been changed since 2009. Information Technology act with its amendment in 2008 has turned out to be a totalitarian law . These stringent laws such as section 66-A (repealed by Shreya Singhal v. UOI ), section 69-B has directly attacked the provisions defined in article 19 of the Indian constitution.

Further, the thorny issue of ‘ who gets to decide to censor content and under what circumstances ’ is a nuanced argument which unfortunately tends to be hijacked by arguments based on security concerns and need for broad emergency provisions. Lack of transparency has halted the autonomy of an individual.

The very first refutes the ability for autonomy and self-determination, and vests the power in the hands of government to decide what forms of expression these individuals can or cannot be relied upon having exposure.

The second debates about the notion of non-interference and the commitment to not destroy the freedom of expression lest the situations created by permitting the freedom are pressing and hence, the public interest is in danger.

The primary function of a free speech is to protect a man from irrational fears. The idea works on a principle of non-interference and giving space to independent thoughts.

The whole philosophy behind the free speech will be desecrated if the censorship is totally justified on grounds of serious injury that could be caused . Unless the restriction is favoured with rational reasoning, it would not be an intelligible reason to censor the content.

Internet censorship has transferred the process of scrutiny in the hands of private authorities without any mediation by organs of the state. The jurisdiction has been given to private holders. When a person makes a complaint to the intermediary, an action has to be taken by the authorities within 36 hours.

It burdens the task of regulating for itself whether the offending speech violates the guidelines. The danger of arbitrariness is at peak here because for a certain reason. Private parties would tend to avoid the possibility of any legal actions against them and will try not to put itself in a weaker position; hence, it would undoubtedly censor the content reported as offensive.

Though control is a copyright of totalitarianism and the mechanism should be dealt with utmost sincerity and with the lowest probability of committing an error.

Bad laws can sometimes curtail your positive actions. Ideally, a provision of law that leads people to self-censor their thoughts for fear of criminal sanction wilfully violates the liberty and such laws should be termed as unconstitutional or should at least have a constitutional validity check.

Either a user or an intermediary would err in favor of quashing content for fear of criminal sanction is incompatible with the ethics of constitutional democracy.

An overhanging threat of criminal prosecution merely for the applicability of civil liberties, ensured by the constitution, by virtue of a vague and extensively worded law is in violation of Article 21 of the constitution of India. “ We could justify any censorship only when the censors are better shielded against error than the censored. ”

Internet Censorship is a reflection of the curbs on freedom of expression which comes with the abject fear of free and independent debate and discussion. It is an irrevocable damage when a government decides what I should see on the Internet and what should I restrict from myself.

Democratic spirit will be impeded by the dictatorial laws if they aren’t questioned now. Increasing politics and decreasing freedom shows the authoritative traits of the government. In fact, negative sanctions would only hamper the functioning of government and a motion of non-acceptability will be chanted.

Internet in the current time is being used by more than half of our population. Most of the people use this out of want and some had to use because of their needs. Censorship with strict laws will only give space to the ones who are technological experts. They would know how to circumvent it.

For the majority of people, it would be discriminatory in nature. “ The danger of such laws is that the society will be polarised between people who can enjoy freedom of expression and those who cannot .”

Laws are required to scrutinize the content so as to protect the welfare and the morality of the nation. In fact, excessive freedom can also led to damage. More people would try to use for their own benefit.

A more mature, reasonable and painstaking ways of dealing with objectionable material than the knee jerk reactions that government has involved themselves in should be looked for, so that the relationship between the government and the citizens remain intact and the morality, as well as the security of the nation, is not been compromised by providing fundamental freedom.

Join Our WhatsApp Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get Daily Updates

Join our Telegram Channel for Opportunity Updates

Get an Internship

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RV University - Webinar on Careers in Law

🎦 Learn about Data Privacy Law in the Age of AI. Join this free webinar

For Advertisements on Lawctopus

+91 90235 43927
[email protected]
Office hours: 11AM - 7PM

For Lawctopus Law School

+91 80474 94091
[email protected]

Download our eBook on

Get An Internship

Pakistan Today
Profit Magazine
Paperazzi Magazine

Who will guard the guardians?

Factors influencing school libraries in pakistan , dubai leaks: will everyone get away, a new carbon tax on petroleum, not talking to anyone, who was killed in fresno, pha initiates work on maiden ‘public sculpture garden’ at nasser bagh, centenarians and an sho’s powers, iran arrests over 250 in raid on ‘satanist network’, israel moves in on north gaza hamas stronghold, pounds rafah without…, out on bail, firebrand indian politician poses fresh challenge for modi, us military sees slight drop in sexual assaults, china urges philippines to stop ‘provocation’ in south china sea, t20 world cup 2024: pakistan’s 15-member squad ‘finalized’, virat kohli expresses hope to visit pakistan soon in conversation with…, babar azam, mohammad rizwan break t20i records, t20 world cup: usa may give tough time to pakistan: ramiz…, pcb chairman urges pak squad to embrace modern t20i techniques to…, digital darkness: india leads the world in internet censorship for 6th year in a row.

ISLAMABAD : Modi-ruled India has once again led the world in the number of state-sanctioned internet shutdowns in 2023, marking the sixth consecutive year that New Delhi has topped the global list and raising serious concerns about the state of digital freedom in the country.

According to Kashmir Media Service, digital rights and privacy organisation Access Now in its latest report said that a total of 116 internet shutdowns were ordered by the Indian government in the previous calendar year, as against 283 state-sanctioned shutdowns globally. 65 of these 116 internet shutdowns were in response to communal violence, the report said, adding shutdowns were ordered in total of 13 states and Union territories, of which seven disrupted internet services five times or more.

Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir saw 17 shutdown orders in 2023, the report added.

“India, for the sixth time, carried the shameful mantle of the world’s shutdown leader with at least 116 recorded shutdowns,” a press release accompanying the report said. “In the last five years, Indian authorities have hit the kill switch over 500 times, repeatedly plunging millions in the world’s largest democracy into darkness.”

“Between May and December [2023], roughly 3.2 million people in Manipur suffered under a statewide shutdown for 212 days,” the release pointed out. This was the world’s longest internet shutdown of 2023.

“Across India in 2023, internet shutdowns undermined democracy, with the government implementing more shutdowns than any other on earth, for the sixth time in a row,” said Namrata Maheshwari, senior policy counsel at Access Now, in the statement. “From Manipur to Punjab, Indian authorities steamrolled over people’s right to free speech, information, and assembly with unjustified shutdowns.”