India’s courts are back to business after summer vacations—and they’re staring at a very long list of tech policy cases. The Karnataka High Court certainly opened its doors with a bang, by upholding the Indian government’s (often-criticised) content-blocking powers on the Internet, which were challenged by Twitter last July. The microblogging platform has also been fined Rs. 50 lakh to boot—as we await the judgment, catch up on the hearings over here.
As for the other courts, we round up everything else they’ll be hearing this July—ranging from antitrust challenges to censorship requests, to copyright complaints.
Got a case you think we should cover? Did a recent tech policy judgment impact your business? What more can we do to make our legal coverage less Delhi-centric? Send in your inputs to aarathi@medianama.com.
Regulating India’s platforms and businesses
July 3rd, Tamil Nadu’s online gambling ban: Back in April, the Madras High Court gave the Tamil Nadu government six weeks to reply to online gaming companies challenging the constitutionality of its online gambling ban.
- Case number: WP 58134/2023.
July 10th, online dissemination of child porn: The Supreme Court will continue hearing arguments on what platforms are doing to curb the dissemination of child pornography online. The suo motu case has been ongoing since 2015.
- Case number: SMW (Crl) 3/2015.
July 10th, platform obligations under the IT Rules: The Delhi High Court will hear arguments in Aaradhya Bachchan’s challenge against misinformation circulating about her online. Past hearings saw the Court direct YouTube to disable videos of the child, who is also Bollywood film star Amitabh Bachchan’s granddaughter. Bachchan’s lawyer had argued that under India’s IT Rules, platforms have proactive obligations to take action on unlawful content.
- Case number: CS (COMM) 230/2023.
July 17th, Amazon-Future acquisition stand-off: The last hearing in May saw the Supreme Court temporarily stall the Competition Commission of India’s ₹202 crore penalty on Amazon for concealing information while trying to acquire Future Coupons. No coercive steps were to be taken until the next hearing on July 17th—after which the pendulum could swing either way.
- Case number: IA 92452/2023 in CA 4974/2022.
July 17th*, challenges to the IT Rules, 2021: The Supreme Court may hear the constitutional challenges against India’s platform regulation rules, the IT Rules, 2021. Point to note: even though the challenges remain pending, the government has passed multiple amendments to the rules over the last year.
- Case number: TP (C) 1147-1152/2021.
Not to be missed, Google’s Supreme Court anti-trust challenge: Google challenged the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s antitrust order against it for its abuse of the Android market at the Supreme Court. No word on when the case will be heard just yet, although it was registered at the Court on June 27th.
- Case number: CA 4098/2023.
STAY ON TOP OF TECH POLICY: Our daily newsletter with top stories from MediaNama and around the world, delivered to your inbox before 9 AM. Click here to sign up today!
Freedom of speech, censorship, and Internet access
July 6th*, Internet shutdowns in Manipur: The Supreme Court may hear a newly-registered challenge against prolonged Internet shutdowns in Manipur amidst widespread communal violence in the state. “Not only have they [Manipur’s residents] experienced feelings of fear, anxiety, helplessness, and frustration as a result of the shutdown, but they have also been unable to communicate with their loved ones or office colleagues, straining personal, professional, and social relationships,” noted Chongtham Victor and James Mayengbam in their petition.
- Case number: WP (C) 623/2023.
July 6th, challenges to fact-check amendment: Kunal Kamra, the Editor’s Guild of India, and the Association of Indian Magazines will begin their arguments against the Indian government’s stalled plans to let itself fact-check government information online. Remember: all three are arguing that the proposal will essentially lead to the censorship of information online – during a politically charged election year, no less. The Court will allocate dates for the Indian government to begin its defence against the proposal on July 17th.
- Case number for Kamra and the Editor’s Guild’s petitions: WP (L) 14955/2023. Case number for Association of Indian Magazines: WP (ST) 14702/2023.
July 6th, challenges against documentary exploring Islamophobia: The Allahabad High Court will hear challenges against Al Jazeera’s documentary on communal tensions in India, with a focus on anti-Muslim violence. The Court agreed with the petitioner’s concerns that the “telecast of film in question without adhering to the constitutional and statutory safeguards may result in injuring the public order and thereby the sovereignty and integrity of India”, restraining Al Jazeera from releasing the documentary until the matter is disposed of. The government was directed to ensure that the release is stayed pending administrative approvals.
- Case number: PIL 1407/2023.
July 7th, challenges against BBC’s Modi documentary: A Delhi District Court will hear challenges against the BBC’s banned documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s alleged involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots. The complaint was filed by Binay Kumar Singh, a politician from the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party. Singh was particularly injured by the documentary’s observations on right-wing intellectual organs like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. “The Plaintiff has worked assiduously over decades to build his career and reputation, and if this matter is left unchecked, it will permanently demolish the Plaintiffs hard-earned reputation and career,” he argued before Justice Ruchika Singla of the Rohini District Courts.
- Case number: CS DJ 362/2023.
Not to be missed, another challenge against the BBC: In May, the Delhi High Court issued notice in Gujarat NGO Justice on Trial’s challenge against the BBC’s Modi documentary, which allegedly cast “a slur on the reputation of the country and also makes false and defamatory imputations and insinuations against the Prime Minister of India”. The court will hear the case on August 25th.
Surveillance and security
July 17th, concerns with Cert-IN guidelines: The Delhi High Court will hear a Pune-based VPN provider’s challenge against the Indian government’s cybersecurity incident reporting rules.
- Case number: WP (C) 13997/2022.
July 31st*, searching and seizing devices: The Supreme Court may hear the challenges filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals against the search and seizure of electronic devices by the Indian government’s investigating agencies.
- Case number: WP (Crl) 395/2022.
Platforms and copyright at the Delhi High Court
July 12th, WhatsApp and copyright infringement: Bennett Coleman’s challenge against WhatsApp regarding the allegedly unauthorised circulation of its copyrighted newspapers will be heard before the Delhi High Court.
- Case number: CS (COMM) 232/2021.
July 12th, academic publishers and Sci-Hub: The Delhi High Court will hear a copyright challenge filed by top academic publishers against Sci-hub, which provides access to paywalled knowledge for free.
- Case number: CS (COMM) 572/2020.
July 18th, Telegram and copyright infringement: The Delhi High Court will also hear educationist Neetu Singh’s crusade against Telegram for allowing users to unauthorisedly share her learning materials on the app. Remember: this was the case where Justice Pratibha M. Singh ordered Telegram to disclose the accused users’ data, setting a precedent for later piracy and copyright cases heard at the Court.
- Case number: CS (COMM) 282/2020.
July 19th, exam prep giants, copyright, and Telegram: Similar to Bennett Coleman and Neetu Singh, exam prep giant Allen also petitioned the Delhi High Court about pirated copies of its prep material floating on Telegram. The Court will re-notify the case on July 19th.
- Case number: CS (COMM) 505/2020.
The round-up: important verdicts from the last few weeks
Safe harbour saved in the US—for now: In May, the United States Supreme Court declined to revoke platforms’ safe harbour provisions held under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the landmark Twitter v Taamneh and Gonzalez v Google cases. However, commentators argue that the US Congress is keen to shift the safe harbour status quo—and that through its verdicts, the Court may simply be handing this task back to America’s legislators.
Gameskraft prevails in Rs. 21,000 crore tax evasion case: In May, the Karnataka High Court ruled in favour of the gaming major, observing that tax authorities had incorrectly characterised its online rummy games as gambling games. The Court subsequently quashed the Rs. 21,000 crore notice it had received from GST authorities.
Madras High Court temporarily stays Google’s delisting of app stores: The apps were allegedly non-compliant with Google Play’s new-and-improved billing policy. In June, the Court directed the apps to pay Google a 4% commission based on their app downloads, as opposed to the 15-30% under the company.
Adar Poonawalla wins defamation case: In June, the Bombay High Court ruled that online complaints on the pharma tycoon’s Covid-19 vaccines had indeed been defamatory in nature. The accused were directed to take down the comments.
Delhi High Court directs Indian Kanoon to mask name of rape-acquitted man: Resurrecting right-to-be-forgotten debates, the Court directed the online legal repository to mask the acquitted’s name from its case archives until the next hearing, on October 5th.
Karnataka High Court upholds FIR against Congress honchos: The allegations in the complaint—that the likes of Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh, and Supriya Shirnate had infringed on MRT Music’s copyright by using music from the Kannada blockbuster KGF-2 in a Bharat Jodo Yodo campaign video.
Something new: AI in the courtrooms
MediaNama reports on UNESCO’s deliberations on how to approach the IP and copyright concerns arising out of AI-specific cases.
Outside of this serious business, a lawyer used ChatGPT to help prepare a brief for a case. The upside: less work to do. The downside: the cases the generative AI came up with were false.
*This date has been auto-generated by the Supreme Court of India and is subject to revision.
This post is released under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. Please feel free to republish on your site, with attribution and a link. Adaptation and rewriting, though allowed, should be true to the original.
Read more
