7 ms·

Indian Supreme Court Judgement on Freedom of Speech [pdf]

195 points by msravi 12y ago

msravi 12y ago
In a landmark judgment upholding freedom of expression, the Supreme Court today struck down a provision in the law which provides power to arrest a person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites.
lake99 12y ago
Mods, can you please replace the above link with a direct link to the file hosted on the Indian Supreme Court's website? http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427...
- twosheep 12y ago
  Thanks sir/ma'am. Scribd is blocked at my job.
  - prateek_mir 12y ago
    here: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wr%2016712p.txt http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wr%2016712p.txt
- sctb 12y ago
  Thanks, we updated the link.
gryph0n 12y ago
The law was disportionately used to protect 'offended' politicians (Central & State) in power. Good riddance. Imagine getting arrested for liking a post on Facebook !! http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-pe...
shrikrishna 12y ago
Tl;dr This landmark judgement holds void Section 66A of India's Information Technology Act that made material on social networking sites that were "offensive, caused annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" punishable by upto 3 years in jail and a fine. This provision was widely used by politicians in power to stifle dissent.
devnonymous 12y ago
Pasting another link over here that breaks it down for non-Indians : http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritutional/ http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritu... (this was actually submitted as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255170 )
- cmadan 12y ago
  Some handy legends for non-Indian readers - Central = Federal - There are no juries in India. A "bench" of judges usually decides cases related to Constitutional Law. This was a bench of 2 judges - "court order or a government order for getting content taken down" -> I might be wrong, but before, an order from the Police was usually sufficient to block a website - Standard 11 student = A High School Junior student
  - denzil_correa 12y ago
    > I might be wrong, but before, an order from the Police was usually sufficient to block a website Not really. There is an elaborate procedure to block a website [0]. The police can't decide it by themselves. [0] http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/ http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websi...
  - amalag 12y ago
    > - Standard 11 student = A High School Junior student Or 11th Grade
thisisnotclear 12y ago
This is very good step by Indian supreme court. Largest democracy of billion plus people should have all the rights to speak whatever they want online.
ubersync 12y ago
One positive step, but a long long way to go. Just yesterday a cop snatched my phone because I had recorded his colleagues driving without seatbelts on (which is a traffic offence in India). He told me (lied) what I was doing is illegal. This is just an example of how messed up the whole system here is. What can you expect from a country where one in three elected representatives have criminal cases pending against them. [0] 0 http://m.timesofindia.com/home/news/Every-third-newly-elected-MP-has-criminal-background/articleshow/35306963.cms http://m.timesofindia.com/home/news/Every-third-newly-electe...
- zamalek 12y ago
  I think this is a problem in every 3rd world country. At least India is making positive steps.
- MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
  On the way to the airport in Mumbai we were flagged over by a cop and he told us that having luggage on the roof of the car was "illegal" and he issued us a 200 rupee "fine" for it. If we had been running late we might have missed our flight because that jackass wanted to shake us down for a couple of dollars. I love India but the amount of corruption is really depressing.
  - puranjay 12y ago
    At least he had an excuse. New Year's Even 2011, I was driving back home around 12:20 AM. Pulled over since I got a got a phone call from my parents. Was talking to them when a couple of cops on bikes stopped by and asked for my papers. I gave them whatever they needed. Nothing was out of order. Then one of the cops blatantly asked me for some cash. I said I had everything was in order. His reply? "Sir, thoda cash do na. Naya saal hai. Daru peeni hai" ("Sir, it's new year's eve. Give me some cash, we want to get drunk")
    - keerthiko 12y ago
      I would rather pay the honest guy who's just being a beggar than the douchebag fishing for borderline legitimate reasons to charge illegitimate fines from law-abiding citizens.
enlightenedfool 12y ago
Interesting comparison with US Constitution... "In the U.S., if there is a compelling necessity to achieve an important governmental or societal goal, a law abridging freedom of speech may pass muster. But in India, such law cannot pass muster if it is in the interest of the general public. Such law has to be covered by one of the eight subject matters set out under Article 19(2). If it does not, and is outside the pale of 19(2), Indian courts will strike down such law"
- ta82828 12y ago
  On the other hand, India has hate speech laws, which are anathema to the U.S. view on free speech.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    The reason the US doesn't have hate speech laws are pretty much the same as the reasoning given in this ruling. It's just a matter of how far a culture is willing to push these ideas.
    - ta82828 12y ago
      The reason I brought it up is because the quoted text seemed to boast that Indian courts protect freedom of speech more strongly than U.S. courts. On a second reading, however, I have no idea what that text is actually trying to say.
      - GauntletWizard 12y ago
        I think your initial reading is right; Whether the judges are correct with their dig at the US's concept of freedom of speech is a matter of debate.
- phkahler 12y ago
  I was surprised at that. As far as I know, nothing has ever passed muster. The classic "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is probably (my opinion) only true if it actually causes harm to someone. Of course it may cause "harm" to the business, but that would be a civil matter. If someone was trampled to death it could be criminal. In other words, our first amendment rights stop where it directly (not theoretically) causes harm. Or something like that. IANAL of course.
anuraj 12y ago
Finally sane voice of the court has reinstated limited democracy and freedom of speech in India.
dipeshch 12y ago
It was the need of the hour. The way it was being misused by thugs was shameful for the entire country: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-sh...
walshemj 12y ago
Reforming some of the "Horrific" Employment Laws would be a good next step.
- puranjay 12y ago
  India actually has one of the most protectionist labor laws. I remember when Nokia wanted to shut down a factory, workers staged demonstrations. Why? Because Nokia had offered them 18 months severance pay. They wanted 72 months of severance. They eventually settled for 36 months
  - nostrebored 12y ago
    And you don't find this horrifying? Making it more costly to replace underperforming employees causes stagnation, apathy, and a level of job security not tied to how well you do your job. I think that seems less than optimal.
    - wyager 12y ago
      Many people here on HN are stringently anti-freedom-of-association when it comes to labor laws. Many people like to imagine that making it impossible/expensive to fire someone is somehow sticking it to the man. Of course, in reality, the likely outcome is economic stagnation and/or Japan's soul-crushing Sararīman system.
    - avemuri 12y ago
      Subjecting employees who cannot sign their own name to the whims of their employer is not the solution either. Without unions, working conditions would be disastrous. Look up the shipbreaking yards of Pakistan or unlicensed coal mines in India as an example. Most white collar jobs are not unionized, many blue collar ones are. I think that's ok.
      - nostrebored 12y ago
        But asking for 6 years pay (and getting 3? seriously, 3 years of pay, imagine that) is not the same thing as unionizing. Receiving insane severance has way more negative externalities than positive benefits. This is the type of system that makes people expect that they should work for a single employer for their entire life, which hasn't worked so well for a number of countries in the past few decades -- just look at NiNi's.
TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Good. Now will the Supreme Court consider re-legalising homosexuality after it recently re-criminalised it?

195 points by msravi 12y ago

In a landmark judgment upholding freedom of expression, the Supreme Court today struck down a provision in the law which provides power to arrest a person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites.

lake99 12y ago

Mods, can you please replace the above link with a direct link to the file hosted on the Indian Supreme Court's website? http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427...

twosheep 12y ago
Thanks sir/ma'am. Scribd is blocked at my job.
- prateek_mir 12y ago
  here: http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wr%2016712p.txt http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wr%2016712p.txt
sctb 12y ago
Thanks, we updated the link.

gryph0n 12y ago

The law was disportionately used to protect 'offended' politicians (Central & State) in power. Good riddance. Imagine getting arrested for liking a post on Facebook !! http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-pe...

shrikrishna 12y ago

Tl;dr This landmark judgement holds void Section 66A of India's Information Technology Act that made material on social networking sites that were "offensive, caused annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" punishable by upto 3 years in jail and a fine. This provision was widely used by politicians in power to stifle dissent.

devnonymous 12y ago

Pasting another link over here that breaks it down for non-Indians : http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritutional/ http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritu... (this was actually submitted as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255170 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255170 )

cmadan 12y ago
Some handy legends for non-Indian readers - Central = Federal - There are no juries in India. A "bench" of judges usually decides cases related to Constitutional Law. This was a bench of 2 judges - "court order or a government order for getting content taken down" -> I might be wrong, but before, an order from the Police was usually sufficient to block a website - Standard 11 student = A High School Junior student
- denzil_correa 12y ago
  > I might be wrong, but before, an order from the Police was usually sufficient to block a website Not really. There is an elaborate procedure to block a website [0]. The police can't decide it by themselves. [0] http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/ http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websi...
- amalag 12y ago
  > - Standard 11 student = A High School Junior student Or 11th Grade

thisisnotclear 12y ago

This is very good step by Indian supreme court. Largest democracy of billion plus people should have all the rights to speak whatever they want online.

ubersync 12y ago

One positive step, but a long long way to go. Just yesterday a cop snatched my phone because I had recorded his colleagues driving without seatbelts on (which is a traffic offence in India). He told me (lied) what I was doing is illegal. This is just an example of how messed up the whole system here is. What can you expect from a country where one in three elected representatives have criminal cases pending against them. [0] 0 http://m.timesofindia.com/home/news/Every-third-newly-elected-MP-has-criminal-background/articleshow/35306963.cms http://m.timesofindia.com/home/news/Every-third-newly-electe...

zamalek 12y ago
I think this is a problem in every 3rd world country. At least India is making positive steps.
MagicWishMonkey 12y ago
On the way to the airport in Mumbai we were flagged over by a cop and he told us that having luggage on the roof of the car was "illegal" and he issued us a 200 rupee "fine" for it. If we had been running late we might have missed our flight because that jackass wanted to shake us down for a couple of dollars. I love India but the amount of corruption is really depressing.
- puranjay 12y ago
  At least he had an excuse. New Year's Even 2011, I was driving back home around 12:20 AM. Pulled over since I got a got a phone call from my parents. Was talking to them when a couple of cops on bikes stopped by and asked for my papers. I gave them whatever they needed. Nothing was out of order. Then one of the cops blatantly asked me for some cash. I said I had everything was in order. His reply? "Sir, thoda cash do na. Naya saal hai. Daru peeni hai" ("Sir, it's new year's eve. Give me some cash, we want to get drunk")
  - keerthiko 12y ago
    I would rather pay the honest guy who's just being a beggar than the douchebag fishing for borderline legitimate reasons to charge illegitimate fines from law-abiding citizens.

enlightenedfool 12y ago

Interesting comparison with US Constitution... "In the U.S., if there is a compelling necessity to achieve an important governmental or societal goal, a law abridging freedom of speech may pass muster. But in India, such law cannot pass muster if it is in the interest of the general public. Such law has to be covered by one of the eight subject matters set out under Article 19(2). If it does not, and is outside the pale of 19(2), Indian courts will strike down such law"

ta82828 12y ago
On the other hand, India has hate speech laws, which are anathema to the U.S. view on free speech.
- diminoten 12y ago
  The reason the US doesn't have hate speech laws are pretty much the same as the reasoning given in this ruling. It's just a matter of how far a culture is willing to push these ideas.
  - ta82828 12y ago
    The reason I brought it up is because the quoted text seemed to boast that Indian courts protect freedom of speech more strongly than U.S. courts. On a second reading, however, I have no idea what that text is actually trying to say.
    - GauntletWizard 12y ago
      I think your initial reading is right; Whether the judges are correct with their dig at the US's concept of freedom of speech is a matter of debate.
phkahler 12y ago
I was surprised at that. As far as I know, nothing has ever passed muster. The classic "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is probably (my opinion) only true if it actually causes harm to someone. Of course it may cause "harm" to the business, but that would be a civil matter. If someone was trampled to death it could be criminal. In other words, our first amendment rights stop where it directly (not theoretically) causes harm. Or something like that. IANAL of course.

anuraj 12y ago

Finally sane voice of the court has reinstated limited democracy and freedom of speech in India.

dipeshch 12y ago

It was the need of the hour. The way it was being misused by thugs was shameful for the entire country: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-sh...

walshemj 12y ago

Reforming some of the "Horrific" Employment Laws would be a good next step.

puranjay 12y ago
India actually has one of the most protectionist labor laws. I remember when Nokia wanted to shut down a factory, workers staged demonstrations. Why? Because Nokia had offered them 18 months severance pay. They wanted 72 months of severance. They eventually settled for 36 months
- nostrebored 12y ago
  And you don't find this horrifying? Making it more costly to replace underperforming employees causes stagnation, apathy, and a level of job security not tied to how well you do your job. I think that seems less than optimal.
  - wyager 12y ago
    Many people here on HN are stringently anti-freedom-of-association when it comes to labor laws. Many people like to imagine that making it impossible/expensive to fire someone is somehow sticking it to the man. Of course, in reality, the likely outcome is economic stagnation and/or Japan's soul-crushing Sararīman system.
  - avemuri 12y ago
    Subjecting employees who cannot sign their own name to the whims of their employer is not the solution either. Without unions, working conditions would be disastrous. Look up the shipbreaking yards of Pakistan or unlicensed coal mines in India as an example. Most white collar jobs are not unionized, many blue collar ones are. I think that's ok.
    - nostrebored 12y ago
      But asking for 6 years pay (and getting 3? seriously, 3 years of pay, imagine that) is not the same thing as unionizing. Receiving insane severance has way more negative externalities than positive benefits. This is the type of system that makes people expect that they should work for a single employer for their entire life, which hasn't worked so well for a number of countries in the past few decades -- just look at NiNi's.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago

Good. Now will the Supreme Court consider re-legalising homosexuality after it recently re-criminalised it?