WhatsApp LLC v. Union of India (transferred to the DHC)

WhatsApp filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution before the Hon’ble High Court of Tripura, challenging the constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Guidelines”). The petition also contested an order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, which directed WhatsApp to disclose the originator of a chat containing a fake resignation letter of the Chief Minister of Tripura, as per Rule 4(2) of the Intermediary Guidelines.

WhatsApp argued that the Intermediary Guidelines mandate compliance with judicial orders only on specific grounds, such as preventing and investigating offenses related to national security and public order. They contended that the Magistrate’s order did not establish grounds of public order or imminent threat as required.

Click here to continue reading

Against Rules of the Game

Beyond such technicalities, the larger danger of the IT Rules glares through when the court observes that, “people would be starved of the liberty of thought and feel suffocated to exercise their right of freedom of speech and expression, if they are made to live in present times of content regulation on the internet with the Code of Ethics hanging over their head as the Sword of Damocles.”

Click here to continue reading

Shutting Down Digital Square

The growing digitisation of Indian society is reflective in the ongoing protests by farmers. Battles are being waged every day in gram sabhas and protest sites as well on social media. Each day on Twitter, a new hashtag trends for and against the farm laws, or farm leaders, or the promoters of leading Indian conglomerates, leaders of Opposition and even the Prime Minister. This conversation is public, chaotic but also democratic. In this adversarial contest, a recent government direction was issued to the social media platform, ordering it to shut down user accounts connected with these protests. This direction presents a clear breach of fundamental rights but also reveals a complex relationship between the government and large platforms on the understanding of the Constitution of India.

Click here to continue reading

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal

In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on July 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of India ruled on the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Court held that a certificate under Section 65B(4) is necessary unless the original document is produced. In the case general directions were issued to be followed by courts that deal with electronic evidence, to ensure their preservation, and production of certificate at the appropriate stage.

Click here to continue reading