Mouthshut.com v. Union of India

MouthShut.com, Faisal Farooqui v. Union of India was a case - a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India filed by the consumer review social media company Mouthshut.com and its founder Faisal Farooqui - to protect freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. It argued against Sec. 66A and prayed for modifications or nullification of IT Rules and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of India. It was a watershed case for online speech and intermediary liability in India.

Mouthshut.com v. Union of India
CourtSupreme Court of India
Full case nameMouthShut.com and Faisal Farooqui , v. Union of India and Ors.

The Supreme Court, in a historic judgement on 24 March 2015, ruled in favor of the petitioner(s) and repealed Sec. 66A, declaring it as unconstitutional and ordered reading down of various other sections of the IT Act, including section 79 and the IT Rules. As a result, Internet users are free to post anything online and publishers cannot be forced to take down content without a court order. This applies to all user-generated content online[1]

Significance

The lawsuit and its proceedings were monitored by online Intermediaries, ISPs, telecom service providers and social media companies in India as well as overseas. According to the Center for Communication Governance, "this is one of the case under which India’s Supreme Court will define contours of free speech online".

The case was clubbed along with a petition filed by Shreya Singhal a law student, challenging India's IT Act's section 66A. Because the hearing for all the petitions challenging the IT Act were clubbed together by a Supreme Court order, the matter is sometimes also referred as Shreya Singhal case.[2] Before the verdict, CNN reported that "...Mouthshut.com has taken its case to the country's Supreme Court to protect what it says are the rights of Indian citizens and consumers enshrined by the Indian constitution."[3]

Background

MouthShut.com approached India's highest court, the Supreme Court of India, arguing about the draconian effect of Sec. 66A. It also prayed that India's Information Technology Rules 2011 be nullified or modified. These petitions were filed in April 2013. Writ petition was filed by MouthShut.com under Article 32 of the Constitution as the IT Rules were violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Mouthshut.com contended that people who post reviews on the website are denied their fundamental right to freedom of expression due to the provisions of Sec. 66A. Besides, it said that the IT Rules pose a significant burden forcing them to screen content and exercise on-line censorship. While a private party may allege that certain content is defamatory or infringes copyright, such determinations are usually made by judges and involve factual inquiry and careful balancing of competing interests and factors, which the petitioners are not equipped to make. The petitioners receive notices and phone calls from cyber cells and police stations asking them to delete content and provide information of users, which makes the running of their business difficult.[4]

Writ petition

On 29 April 2013, it was argued by senior counsel, Harish Salve, for the petitioner. Upon accepting the petition, Supreme Court Justice TS Thakur and Justice Sudhansho Mukhopadhya ordered the petition requires simultaneous hearing along with Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.[5]

Later, many other civil liberty organizations, NGOs, individuals and the Internet and Mobile Association of India filed their own petitions that have been tagged along with the main petitions.

Verdict

A two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman heard the matter of the various clubbed petitions and delivered the final verdict on 24 March 2015 in favor of the petitioners. As a result Sec. 66A of the IT Act was repealed and Sec. 79 and Rules were written down.[6]

Various other petitions
  • PUCL vs. Union of India [W.P.(Crl) No. 199 of 2013]
  • Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (WP (Cr) 167/2012)
  • Common Cause vs. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 21 of 2013]
  • Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 196 of 2014
gollark: It would be environmentally friendly, since you wouldn't need electricity or gas or something to cook.
gollark: Just replace the fire-y bit or electric heating bit with some plutonium.
gollark: nuclear-powered ovens > grills
gollark: microwaves > grills
gollark: I see.

References
  1. https://www.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/1719265.pdf
  2. https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/notes-of-proceedings-i-shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india-w-p-crl-no-1672012/
  3. https://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/16/asia/india-internet-freedom/
  4. "MouthShut.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI & [W.P.(C).No. 217 of 2013]". SFLC.in. Retrieved 31 December 2018.
  5. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 22 January 2015. Retrieved 22 January 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  6. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/section-66a-of-it-act-we-took-up-battle-big-guys-didnt-says-mouthshut-founder-faisal-farooqui/articleshow/46683331.cms
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.