Mouthshut, India's leading online community for consumer reviews, filed a petition before the Supreme Court for quashing the Information Technology Rules (Intermediaries Guidelines), 2011 and declaring them violative of Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India See Mouthshout.com's press release here.
Common Cause, a NGO along with senior Aam Aadmi Party leader and former Law Minister of Delhi Somnath Bharti has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India arguing that Section 66A, Section 69A and Section 80 of the IT Act, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 are in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a member of the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India has filed a petition in the Indian Supreme Court challenging Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rules 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(7) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Council of Cyberspace (SCC) was established by the order of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. As stated in the SCC's charter, the body is tasked with writing the policies that govern the usage of internet exchange points (IXPs) and content for filtering.
The Supreme Council of Cyberspace (SCC) serves as the centralized authority regarding policymaking, decision-making, and coordination in the realm of cyberspace. All state agencies - not excluding the Iranian Parliament - are required to cooperate with the SCC. This effectively grants the SCC unilateral authority regarding Iran's internet policy and the power to compel other government agencies, e.g., the Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Web Content, to issue policies and verdicts at the SCC's will.
(1) Article 21 of Iran's Computer Crimes Law (CCL) imposes liability on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that fail to filter internet content that “generates crime.” Penalties for the violating the crime depend on the ISP's intention and number of prior offenses, and include fines and liquidation of the ISP. (2) The legality of online content is determined a body created in Article 22 of the CCL, now known as the Committee for Determining Instances of Criminal Web Content. Article 23 charges ISPs with implementing the orders of the Committee and imposes a reporting requirement on ISPs to inform the Committee upon encountering illegal content. (3) Additionally, Articles 15 and 17 do not specifically reference ISP liability, but could be referenced in cases against them. Article 15 outlaws facilitating others’ access to...