India – Information Technology Snapshots.

4 August, 2020

 

For further information, please contact:

 

Zia Mody, Partner, AZB & Partners

zia.mody@azbpartners.com

22 July, 2015

 

• In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,7 the SC has inter alia dealt with the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’). The observations of the Supreme Court in this regard are set out as follows:

 

1. i. Section 66A – held unconstitutional: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as being unconstitutional, and in violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (‘Constitution’), which sets out the right to freedom of speech. Section 66A sets out the punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. In addition to being unconstitutional on the ground of vagueness, Section 66A was also found violative of Article 19(1)(a), by severely curtailing information that may be sent on the internet, and not within any of the permissible restrictions in the Constitution.
2. ii. Section 79 – obligations of the intermediary restricted: With respect to Section 79 of the IT Act under which, intermediaries are exempt from liability subject to the provisions set out therein, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act states that the inter- mediary will be liable under the IT Act, inter alia, if the intermediary upon receiv- ing actual knowledge, or on being notified by the Government that a computer resource controlled by the intermediary is being used for an unlawful act, fails to remove or disable access to the material. 

 

SC observed that the obligation under Section 79(3)(b) to remove or disable access to cer- tain material will apply where the intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge that a Court order has been passed asking it to expeditiously remove or disable access to certain material, then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material and intermediaries will be held liable upon violation of such court order.