The statement released on Wednesday, May 28 was in clear solidarity with Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad who was arrested over his posts on Operation Sindoor.

“We are greatly distressed by the grave criminal charges levelled against Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest,” the statement said, calling the charges “outrageous and absurd.” “The main burden of his posts was to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace,” it noted.

Calling the charges against Mahmudabad reminiscent of the colonial-era sedition law, the statement said that it “be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint.”

The statement in full may be read below:

CCG Open statement on the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case

We are a group of former civil servants who have served in various capacities in the central and state governments. We owe no allegiance to any political party; our only loyalty is to the Constitution of India.

We are greatly distressed by the grave criminal charges levelled against Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad and his subsequent arrest. Professor Ali Khan was charged for two of his social media posts related to Operation Sindoor. His posts were thoughtful and measured. In these he praised the restraint of the Indian Army. He noted the importance of the “optics” of Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as a face of the Indian armed forces during the press briefings at the time that the hostilities were underway, but added that the symbolism of this would be hypocritical if lynching and bulldozing of homes continued.

But the main burden of his posts was to make eloquent and heartfelt calls for peace. He described the loss of civilian lives on both sides as “tragic” and warned against warmongering by civilians who have never experienced war. Denouncing the “blind bloodlust for war” displayed by some people on social media, he declared that warmongering “is actually disrespecting the seriousness of war and dishonouring the lives of soldiers whose lives are actually on the line.”

For these posts, Professor Ali was charged under stringent sections of India’s new criminal law code, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. These include Section 152, which penalises acts “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”. This closely echoes the language of the colonial-era sedition law under the now repealed Indian Penal Code. Other crimes for which Professor Ali Khan is charged include Section 196(1) (b), which penalises acts that disturb communal harmony and public tranquillity; Section 197(1) (c), which targets “assertions likely to cause disharmony” and Section 299, which criminalises “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings.”

We regard the criminal charges against Professor Ali Khan as outrageous and absurd. It cannot be a crime to seek justice for victims of lynching and bulldozer demolitions, or to call for peace and restraint. It is noteworthy that despite the orders of the Supreme Court for  taking suo moto action, even rampant hate speeches that openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian Muslims have rarely attracted these criminal charges of disloyalty to the  nation and fostering religious hate. In the most recent case, after a minister from Madhya Pradesh (MP), Kunwar Vijay Shah, described Colonel Sofia Qureshi as the sister of terrorists, it required the MP High Court to direct the police to register an FIR against the minister. The High Court described the statements of the minister as “cancerous and dangerous”.

Many students and faculty members came forward in heartening solidarity with Professor Ali Khan, even though the management of Ashoka University remained conspicuously silent about the unjust criminal targeting of their faculty. Faculty members took turns to sit outside places where the professor was detained. We were particularly touched by  a statement by Professor Ali Khan’s students, who described him as compassionate and  thoughtful, a teacher who loved his country and taught his students respect for the values of  secular democracy spelt out in our Constitution.

After his arrest and police remand, we were relieved that the Supreme Court granted him interim bail. But, with due respect, we are dismayed by some of the comments made by the bench and the conditions of bail that were laid down. The bench made mystifying allusions to “dog-whistling” in the professor’s social media tweets, criticising his “choice of words” and charging him with seeking “cheap publicity”. The bench ordered the surrender of the professor’s passport and the appointment of a Special Investigation Team to “holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in the two posts.” It is beyond our comprehension how three police officers could be equipped to extract hidden meanings from a post written in elegant and straightforward English.

The Supreme Court disapproved of public displays of solidarity with the professor, handing out a stern warning to academics and students who supported Professor Ali Khan with the words “we know how to handle them also”. The learned judges also directed the professor to make no further statements about the India-Pakistan hostilities. At a time when the country is deluged with social media posts and speeches of hatemongering and warmongering, it is a matter of painful irony that calls for peace by a political scientist are silenced. It is noteworthy that despite the orders of the Supreme Court for taking suo moto  action, even rampant hate speeches that openly call for violence and ethnic cleansing of Indian  Muslims have rarely attracted criminal charges of disloyalty to the nation and fostering  religious hate.

We are quite disturbed by the deviation from defence of free speech, which has been  upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous cases, including Arnab Goswami vs. Union of India  and even recently in the case of Imran Pratapgarhi vs. State of Gujarat. In the latter case, Justice Oka pronounced that “in a healthy democracy, the views or thoughts expressed by an individual or group of individuals must be countered by expressing another point of view”.  Even if such speech is opposed by many people, it must still be “respected and protected”.  That judgment notably offered advice to judges who might personally dislike certain articulations. Even in such cases, it was their “duty to uphold” and “zealously protect” the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

The perils and consequences of suppressing free speech by unjust application of criminal law can be profoundly corrosive for a society. Young journalist Saurav Das aptly describes the treatment of Professor Ali Khan by the police and courts as “a perfect example of how you make a nation of intellectually dead citizens, where critical inquiry is replaced by  rote repetition and progressive voices are muzzled to make space for conformist, mediocre  opinions. This is how a society dies, where the proliferation of free thought is choked, through a slow, judicially sanctioned suffocation of intellectual life”.

Satyameva Jayate

Constitutional Conduct Group (79 signatories, as below)

The post ‘Seeking peace, calling out hate crimes not a crime’: Former Civil Servants Group on Mahmudabad appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This case, arising from an FIR registered against Imran Pratapgarhi, a Member of the Rajya Sabha, for offenses related to a poem he shared on social media, specifically addressed the application of Section 173 of the BNS, which governs the procedure for handling information in cognisable cases and the subsequent registration of FIR.

Brief Facts and Background

Parliament Member Imran Pratapgarhi posted a video in which a poem was shared, which according to a complainant, promoted enmity between religious communities, and that it constituted imputations that are prejudicial to the national integrity.

The FIR was filed with offences under Section 302 (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings of any person), Section 299 (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs), Section 57 (Abetting commission of offence by public or by more than ten persons).

Mr. Pratapgarhi approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS read with Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the FIR. Section 528 of the BNSS states that nothing in the BNSS limits or affects the inherent powers of the High Court to pass such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under BNSS or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides High Courts with the power to issue certain writs to any person or authority, including Government in appropriate cases for enforcing fundamental rights provided under Part III of the Constitution, or for any other purpose.

The High Court refused to intervene. Aggrieved, Mr. Pratapgarhi approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined the poem in question and opined, first, that there is nothing in the poem which attracted the offences mentioned before. Later, it went on to deal with the question of whether, in this case, it was obligatory under Section 173(1) of the BNSS to register FIR or not.

Provisions and case law

Section 173(1) of the BNSS states that every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given (orally or via electronic communication) to an office in-charge of a police station and if given orally, such officer shall reduce it to writing by him or under his direction, read it over to the informant, and have it signed by the informant.

Essentially, when one gives a complaint over a cognisable offence, the police will have to record it in writing and take signature of the complainant. This record is commonly known as a First Information Report (FIR). Section 173(2) states that a copy of the FIR be given to the complainant free of cost.

Section 173(3) states that when an information relating to commission of a cognisable offence which is punishable with three years or more but less than seven years of imprisonment, the officer in charge of the police station may with the prior permission from an officer, not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, considering the nature and gravity of the offence,

1. proceed to conduct preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter within a period of fourteen days; or
2. proceed with investigation when there exists a prima facie case.

There exists a conflict between Section 173 (1)—which states FIR should be registered when cognizable offence related information comes and Section 173 (3)—which states that a preliminary investigation ought to be done for cognizable offences which are punishable for more than three but less than seven years.

In Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court stated that the condition sine qua non (essential condition) for registering FIR is that there must be information, and the information discloses commission of cognisable offence, the reasonableness or credibility of information is not a condition precedent for the registration of FIR.

Supreme Court resolved this contradiction in Imran Pratapgarhi vs. State of Gujarat (2025 INSC 410).

Judgement and its reasoning

On Section 173

While Section 173 (1) is the general rule, according to the court, Section 173 (3) is an exception to the rule. This means that when information is given to the police, if prima facie, a cognizable offence is made out, an FIR is to be registered unless the offence is covered under Section 173 (3) in which case a preliminary investigation could follow (Para 25).

According to the court, Section 173 (3) of the BNS thus introduces a notable exception, granting the police the discretion to conduct a preliminary assessment even when the information received might disclose a cognisable offense, if it is falling within the specified punishment range.

This pronouncement highlights a significant deviation from the general principle of immediate FIR registration for cognisable offenses, as previously emphasized by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(CrPC).

On free speech and usage of Section 173(3)

In its judgment, the Supreme Court laid significant emphasis on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court went further to characterize the registration of the FIR against Mr. Pratapgarhi as a “mechanical exercise” and a clear “abuse of the process of law” (Para 36).

This strong condemnation implies that the police acted without a proper appreciation of the nuances of free speech and potentially misconstrued the intent and message of the poem. The Court also highlighted the societal value of various forms of artistic expression, including poetry, literature, drama, films, and satire, emphasizing their role in enriching human life and the necessity of their protection under the umbrella of free speech (Para 38).

In this case, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that when an allegation concerns an offence that falls under the ambit of the restrictions on free speech outlined in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, it is invariably appropriate to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 (3) of the BNS before proceeding to register an FIR (Para 29).

The Court reasoned that when allegations are predicated on spoken or written words, it is incumbent upon the police officer to carefully examine the content to ascertain whether it indeed constitutes a cognizable offense

According to the Court, this initial assessment of the material does not equate to a preliminary inquiry that would be impermissible under Section 173 (1) when the information already discloses a cognizable offense. The Court underscored that the failure to utilize the option of conducting a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 (3) in cases where potential free speech violations are at issue could result in the registration of an FIR against an individual merely for exercising their fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a), even if the restrictions stipulated under Article 19 (2) are not applicable.

Furthermore, the Court opined that neglecting to invoke Section 173 (3) in such circumstances would undermine the very purpose for which this sub-section was incorporated into the BNSS (Para 29). It would also contravene the constitutional obligation of the police under Article 51-A (a) to uphold the Constitution and respect its ideals, according to the Court.

To this end, the Supreme Court suggested that the higher police officer, whose permission is required under Section 173(3), should ordinarily grant such permission to conduct a preliminary inquiry in cases involving the exercise of free speech where the potential punishment falls within the range of three to seven years (Para 29).

This directive indicates a clear expectation from the apex court that superior officers should facilitate the process of preliminary inquiry in such scenarios to ensure that the fundamental right to freedom of speech is adequately protected from unwarranted criminal prosecution at the very outset.

Conclusion: a paradigm shift in policing free speech

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Imran Pratapgarhi v. State of Gujarat marks a transformative moment in the jurisprudence of free speech and police powers, recalibrating the balance between constitutional rights and procedural obligations. By mandating preliminary inquiries under Section 173 (3) of the BNS for allegations implicating Article 19 (2) restrictions, the Court has introduced a safeguard against precipitate criminalization of speech. This intervention is not merely procedural but foundational, ensuring that the exercise of free expression—particularly in artistic or public discourse—is shielded from arbitrary state action.

The ruling underscores that police discretion under Section 173 (3) is not a license for inaction but a constitutional duty to scrutinise allegations rigorously. By requiring higher police authorities to authorise preliminary inquiries, the judgment institutionalizes accountability, preventing FIRs from becoming tools of harassment. This is especially critical in speech-related cases, where the line between lawful dissent and cognizable offenses is often blurred by subjective interpretations. The Court’s emphasis on the societal value of poetry, satire, and other forms of expression serves as a reminder that democratic robustness thrives on diversity of thought, even when contentious.

Critically, the judgment does not dilute the obligation to act on cognisable offenses but contextualises it. By distinguishing between immediate FIR registration under Section 173 (1) and the need for preliminary assessment under Section 173 (3), the Court harmonises competing imperatives: the necessity of prompt action in grave crimes versus the imperative to protect speech from overzealous policing. This nuanced approach ensures that the police remain guardians of both law and liberty, rather than arbiters of societal consensus.

While the judgment does not absolve individuals of accountability for speech that incites violence or undermines public order, it raises the threshold for criminal prosecution. This is a welcome check on the expanding criminalisation of political and artistic expression, which has historically been weaponised to stifle dissent.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organisation)

Related:

‘Courts, Police Have Duty to Protect Freedom of Speech’: SC on FIR against Congress MP Over Poem

The post SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shh…don’t make jokes. The jesters are thrown into the sea if the king feels bad. Don’t insult the king, or his deputy or his deputy’s deputy’s deputy’s deputy, or any of the men on the throne. Don’t talk about the demolition, the houses being turned to rubble, the bulldozers and their power. They are hunting voices. They are finding the loudest and clearest and the fearless and they are stringing them up on the market square so everyone shall see them and shut their tiny mouths. Quell the dissent. They don’t like art, oh no it makes them very angry. They don’t understand it, they don’t enjoy it and they’ll tolerate it if they have to unless it’s about them. It’s not easy being the butt of every joke, you know. It hurts.

Shh…don’t hurt their feelings. They don’t like it and they don’t know how to cry properly so they’ll pick you up, yes you, the young students, the trannies, the women, the Muslims, the Dalits, the artists, the reporters, and the dissenters. The question-askers and the answer-tellers and those who listen to them. You are only excluded and marginalised and untouchable until it is time to throw you into jail. Then they will grab you however required and shove you in a box.

Shh…don’t wake the people. They want to discuss the temples in the sea and the temples underground and the temples in the mosque and the comedians and the actors and actresses and their divorces and the gods and the goddesses and which one is sad and hurt and how one god is better than the rest. The people are sleeping, the people are gossiping, the people cannot see how the thieves have entered their houses to steal their food and take away their freedom but do not wake the people. They want to be asleep. If you wake them they will still ask about the temples and sad orange men and about which flag is better and who wore what when and they will watch the thieves take everything and they will let them. They will let their children be snatched and their houses be broken and all their money taken away and they will wake up and ask where the temple is, where the temples went and where new temples shall be built.

Shh…don’t ask questions. They will ask you to keep your mouth shut and they will turn you against one another and the blue will fight the green and then the orange wins. But this is a democracy after all so the only king you can question is the one who died more than 300 years ago, and the one that died 61 years ago, and all their children because there is a statute of limitations on these things. You can uproot their graves and celebrate your festivals in their houses of worship and say whatever you want about them.

Shh…don’t talk about Palestine. Of the hungry children, or the missing children, or even the parts of the children, the ones severed from their little bodies. Don’t talk about Palestine, because don-don and Mr. X and all their friends will get very sad and then they’ll get very mad and then they’ll lock you right up where all the naughty children go. Is that where the children of Gaza went? If yes then I want to go there, I want to play with them and I want to eat with them and roll around in the mud with them and race them to see who’s faster but it’s always them because hiding from guns and running from bombs gives you speed like no other. No they won’t send you where the children of Palestine went because even in confinement even in death they will not let you be together.

Shh…enjoy your freedom. You can break the rooms where the people are heard, where songs are sung, where poetry is recited. You can kill your neighbours, you can rape their women, and rape your wives, you can hate the colour green, vandalise their property, break their shops. You can bring back untouchability, be proud of your superior identity, eat your cow dung, beat the farmers, kill the students, send those with a voice to jail and abandon your wife. But you cannot love. You cannot love your wife and you cannot love your neighbour and you cannot love art and poetry and you must cheer when the jester is beheaded and you must bow to the king and celebrate his wars. You can criticise kings of the past and disrupt their graves but the kings that sit today on their throne of lies must not be hurt.

Shh…for silence is golden and violence is platinum and cow dung is a treasure and if you fall in line, keep the gold, wield the platinum then they will stuff your mouth with the treasure and it will replace all the love, all the freedom, all the art you’ve ever wanted.

(The author is a student of law in Mumbai and can be contacted at parulekarpriyanka02@gmail.com)

Related:

Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde

D*ck or fist

A Licence to Violate: Chhattisgarh HC’s ruling on marital rape exposes a legal travesty’

The post Shh..Silence is golden and violence is platinum…shh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Now, as the video uploaded by Kamra has gone viral, he is facing state-backed intimidation for daring to mock Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in a satirical stand-up routine. Within hours of uploading his show, an FIR was filed against him, Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised a Mumbai venue, and senior political leaders issued open threats, warning that Kamra would not be allowed to move freely unless he apologised. Meanwhile, those responsible for the violence were swiftly granted bail, exposing the stark reality of political power shielding its own while silencing critics. This blatant abuse of state machinery to suppress satire sets a chilling precedent for free speech in India.

Political violence and the state’s selective action

In a blatant display of political intimidation, a group of Shiv Sena (Shinde faction) workers vandalised the Habitat Studio and Hotel Unicontinental in Mumbai’s Khar area, claiming the video had been filmed at these locations. Among those involved in the destruction were several party workers, including social media in-charge Rahul Kanal and leader Kunal Sarmalkar. While 11 individuals were arrested for vandalism, all were granted bail within hours, highlighting the leniency afforded to political loyalists engaging in violent retaliation.

Despite the clear criminality of their actions, Shiv Sena leaders faced minimal consequences, whereas Kamra, whose only ‘offence’ was a joke, is being subjected to legal action. This incident underscores a disturbing double standard: dissenters and critics face police action, while those committing politically motivated violence operate with near impunity.

Explicit threats and calls for retaliation

The campaign against Kamra took an even more sinister turn when Shiv Sena MLA Murji Patel demanded an apology within two days, threatening that the comedian “would not be allowed to move freely in Mumbai” if he refused. Patel went as far as to say that if Kamra was seen in public, Shiv Sainiks would blacken his face—a direct incitement to mob violence. These threats were echoed by Shiv Sena MP Naresh Mhaske, who baselessly accused Kamra of being a ‘hired comedian’ making comments for monetary gain.

Further fanning the flames, political leader Sanjay Nirupam—who recently joined the Shinde-led Shiv Sena—declared publicly that Kamra would be “taught a lesson” at 11 AM the next day. Such statements, made without fear of legal repercussions, indicate a deep-rooted culture of impunity among political actors aligned with those in power.

Adding to the outrage, Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis stated that Kamra “should apologise” for his remarks and implied that comedy must have boundaries dictated by political sensibilities. “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot say whatever he wants,” he said, essentially arguing that speech must conform to the government’s approval. He also dismissed Kamra’s symbolic use of the Constitution, claiming, “Kunal Kamra has posted the same red Constitution book shown by Rahul Gandhi. Both of them have not read the Constitution.” His comments make it evident that Maharashtra’s leadership seeks to redefine free speech by placing political limitations on it.

Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis says, “There is freedom to do stand-up comedy, but he cannot speak whatever he wants. The people of Maharashtra have decided who the traitor is. Kunal Kamra should apologize. This will not be tolerated. There is the right to comedy, but if it is… pic.twitter.com/g7UVXEyfDC

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Weaponising the law to suppress speech

The response from Maharashtra’s government further cemented the state’s role in enabling political censorship. Fadnavis’ remarks reflect an authoritarian mind-set where freedom of speech exists only within the confines of state approval. His claim that Kamra was attempting to ‘defame’ Eknath Shinde reveals a fundamental misunderstanding—or deliberate misinterpretation—of free expression. Satire, political critique, and parody have historically been protected speech in democratic societies, and an elected official being offended by a joke does not justify state intervention.

Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar attempted to strike a neutral tone but ultimately reinforced the same logic, stating, “Nobody should go beyond the law, Constitution, and rules.” However, his remarks failed to acknowledge the hypocrisy of the state’s reaction—while Kamra faces legal scrutiny for satire, Shiv Sena workers responsible for actual violence were released on bail within hours.

Crushing artistic spaces through fear

In the wake of the controversy, Habitat Studio, a prominent venue for independent performances, announced a temporary shutdown. The studio issued a statement calling for “constructive conversations, not destruction” and condemning violence as an antithesis to art and dialogue. The forced closure of a venue due to political pressure illustrates the chilling effect such incidents have on creative spaces. When comedians, artists, and venues fear violent repercussions for hosting dissenting voices, the very essence of a democracy is undermined.

https://www.instagram.com/indiehabitat/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=2d583eff-8829-4cba-a143-187ff34afdcd

The dangerous precedent being set

The Kunal Kamra case is not an isolated incident but part of a worrying pattern where comedians, journalists, and dissenters are systematically targeted for criticising the ruling establishment. The use of legal mechanisms against Kamra, juxtaposed with the state’s lenient treatment of those who resort to violence, sets a dangerous precedent. It signals that speech critical of those in power will be met with legal harassment, while politically sanctioned violence will be tolerated and even encouraged.

In a functioning democracy, public figures—especially elected officials—must be open to criticism and satire. The weaponisation of state machinery against a comedian over a joke signals an alarming drift toward authoritarianism, where dissent is not just discouraged but actively punished. Kamra’s response to this intimidation was simple yet profound—he posted an image of himself holding the Constitution with the caption, “The only way forward.” In doing so, he reaffirmed a principle that the Maharashtra government appears eager to erase: the right to free speech is non-negotiable, and satire is not a crime.

The only way forward… pic.twitter.com/nfVFZz7MtY

— Kunal Kamra (@kunalkamra88) March 23, 2025

Related:

For us to be truly free & independent, both media & judiciary need one another: (Justice) S Muralidhar

Arresting dissent: Punjab Government’s U-turn on farmer protests, protest site bulldozed, farmer leaders detained

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

“It’s not Aurangzeb’s grave, but a plot to uproot Shivaji Maharaj’s valour!”

The post Comedian Kunal Kamra faces state-sponsored intimidation over satirical remarks on Deputy CM Eknath Shinde appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The interim order of the Madras HC in the case ‘Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India’ have brought attention to the critical importance of safeguarding journalistic freedom in India. The case involves Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. (Vikatan), a prominent Tamil weekly publication, whose entire website was blocked pursuant to an order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The central government cited a cartoon published on the site—depicting the Indian Prime Minister and the then-President of the United States—as a threat to India’s sovereignty and foreign relations.

Freedom of speech and its nexus with the press freedom

Freedom of speech is integral to any democratic setup, often described as the very cornerstone that supports all other liberties. In India, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution explicitly protects every citizen’s right to free speech and expression—an umbrella under which press freedom thrives. The press itself is commonly recognized as the “fourth pillar of democracy,” reflecting its mission to remain independent of the executive, legislature, and judiciary.

In the United States, the landmark “Pentagon Papers” decision (New York Times v. Sullivan) underscored that the press must do more than merely transmit information between government officials and the public: it should operate as a neutral institution, shining a light on governmental functions and exposing any shortcomings. Although the Indian Constitution does not explicitly mention the freedom of the press by name, the Supreme Court has long affirmed in cases like Sakal Papers v. Union of India that freedom of speech and expression is a broad genus, of which press freedom is a vital species. Open discourse, critiques, and reporting on the functioning of government serve the public interest—so whenever laws or administrative measures threaten to muzzle the press, courts bear the responsibility to strike them down and uphold the Constitution.

The blocking of Vikatan’s website

1. Government’s action
   On 25.02.2025, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an order blocking the entire website of Vikatan. Officials argued that a caricature published by the magazine undermined India’s friendly relations with a foreign state, thus justifying the action under Section 69A of the IT Act and the “reasonable restrictions” outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
2. Vikatan’s response
   Vikatan challenged the blanket ban as excessive. They maintained that political satire and commentary lie at the heart of a free press. Shutting down an entire website over a single image, they argued, was disproportionate and infringed upon both their editorial independence and the readers’ right to information.

The Madras high court’s interim order

On 06.03.2025, Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy granted partial relief:

• Limited removal of content: The Court held that blocking the entire domain was unnecessary. It directed the publishers to temporarily remove only the specific cartoon in question.
• Unblocking the site: Once the offending material was taken down, the Union of India was to promptly restore access to the rest of the website.
• Further hearing: The Court set a date two weeks later for the central government to file its counter-affidavit, at which time it would scrutinize whether the caricature truly warranted any continued restriction.

This approach aligns with the principle of proportionality, a concept clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments, including Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Courts have insisted that restrictions on speech must be the least intrusive possible—removing only the offending material, rather than imposing an overbroad restriction affecting legitimate content or expression.

The order in the case Ananda Vikatan Productions Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. Union of India (WP 7944 of 2025) Delivered by Madras HC Bharatha Chakravarthy J on March 6, 2025 may be read here:

By granting Vikatan temporary relief and restricting the blocking order to only the particular caricature, the Madras High Court has made an important statement about press freedom in the digital era. This nuanced approach promotes a healthy environment for political satire and commentary, without dismissing national security or foreign-policy concerns. As India continues to rely on digital platforms for information and debate, the balance struck in cases like Vikatan serves as a reminder that freedom of speech particularly the freedom of the press remains the lifeblood of any vibrant democracy.

Related:

Targeting Press Freedom: The unexplained censorship of Vikatan and the erosion of free speech

The post Madras HC unblocks Vikatan site appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ruling coalition—the Maha Yuti alliance comprising the Shinde Shiv Sena, Bharatiya Janata Party, and Ajit Pawar’s National Congress Party—has come under scrutiny for its ties to many of these incidents, with local leaders and affiliates implicated in attacks, intimidation, and censorship. These actions point to a growing intolerance for criticism and opposition, particularly against those who dare to report or speak out on politically sensitive issues. Maharashtra, long celebrated for its robust economic stature and industrial might, now faces an identity crisis as it grapples with the question: can it retain its democratic spirit under a regime increasingly willing to punish dissent?

Journalists have borne the brunt of this hostility, facing threats, physical assaults, and even murder. In 2023, the shocking death of Shashikant Warishe, a journalist in Ratnagiri, who was run over after publishing a critical report linking a BJP-affiliated land broker to political elites, underscores the risks that Maharashtra’s press faces today. Meanwhile, activists protesting environmental degradation and displacement, as well as students voicing concerns over academic freedom, have encountered police harassment, legal intimidation, and restrictions that send a clear message: criticism of the state’s policies will not be tolerated.

As the election nears, Maharashtra’s citizens are at the crossroads. For a state that prides itself on its industrial strength and democratic values, these growing restrictions pose an existential challenge. The upcoming polls are not only about choosing the next set of leaders but about deciding the kind of society Maharashtra aspires to be—one that respects democratic freedoms and protects the rights of its citizens or one that endorses a politics of fear and control. The choice before voters has seldom been clearer or more consequential, as the future of free speech, accountability, and the right to dissent hangs in the balance.

1. Mounting threats to journalists and press freedom

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Killing

1. 06.02.2023: Shashikant Warishe, mowed down by Pandarinath Amberkar (land broker close to BJP) , Rajapur, Ratnagiri district

Attacks

1. 09.08.2023: Journalist Sandip Mahajan attacked by supporters of the local MLA Kishor Appa Patil (Shiv Sena Shinde )
2. 09.02.2024: Senior journalist Nikhil Wagle,lawyer Asim Sarode, activists Vishwambhar Choudhar and Shreya Awale and driver Vaibhav Kothule attacked by BJP and Shiv Sena (Shinde) workers
3. 21.10.2024: Political leader Yogendra Yadav attacked by Vanchit Bahujana Aghadi workers and prevented from speaking, Akola, Maharastra

Threats

1. 27.04.2024: Journalist Sukhda Sadanand Purav threatened by supporters of Union Minister and BJP’s Mumbai North Lok Sabha candidate Piyush Goyal
2. 14.05.2024: Journalist threatened by BJP state spokesperson Shrish Boralkar, BJP Scheduled Caste cell state general secretary Jalinder Shendge and the BJP state executive member Anil Makariye
3. 20.08.2024: Journalist Mohini Jadhav covering the Badlapur rape case, threatened by Waman Mhatre, former Mayor of Badlapur (Shiv Sena Shinde)”

In Maharashtra, the chilling effect on press freedom is undeniable, with recent incidents revealing the grave risks journalists face in reporting the truth. One of the most harrowing incidents was the murder of journalist Shashikant Warishe on February 6, 2023, in Ratnagiri. Warishe was deliberately run down by Pandarinath Ambekar, a land broker known for his close connections with the ruling BJP. Warishe’s last article had shed light on Ambekar’s alleged involvement in controversial land deals tied to high-ranking politicians, including the Chief Minister. Hours after the article was published, Ambekar had allegedly attacked Warishe in a brazen display of intimidation meant to silence dissent. This brutal killing laid bare the high cost of reporting on politically sensitive issues in Maharashtra, where exposing inconvenient truths can cost a journalist their life.

The climate of impunity extends further, as seen in the assault on Pachora journalist Sandip Mahajan in Jalgaon district on August 9, 2023. Mahajan was attacked in broad daylight by supporters of local Shinde Shiv Sena MLA Kishor Appa Patil. Despite serious injuries, Mahajan encountered bureaucratic resistance when he tried to file a First Information Report (FIR). His struggle highlighted the systemic bias that protects those with political connections and discourages journalists from challenging power.

Threats against journalists have become a common tool to control narratives. In April 2024, Sukhda Sadanand Purav, a journalist who covered Union Minister Piyush Goyal, received menacing messages from BJP affiliates, pressuring her to retract critical articles. In May 2024, three BJP officials, including state spokesperson Shrish Boralkar, allegedly threatened another journalist for unfavourable coverage. A similar incident in August saw former Badlapur mayor Waman Mhatre intimidate journalist Mohini Jadhav for her reports on a local rape case. Such acts send a chilling signal that political commentary comes with personal risk, eroding the very foundation of an independent press.

2. Rising intimidation and censorship in academia

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Censorship in academia

1. 08.06.2023: Professor forced to go on leave after students owing allegiance to hindutva groups protest her comments on rapists having no religion, Kolhapur Institute of Technology, Gokul Shirgaon, Kolhapur
2. Jan 28, 2023: Advisory issued to Students At Mumbai’s TISS against screening of BBC Series On PM Modi, screening held despite warning
3. 18.04. 2024: TISS suspends Dalit PhD student for 2 years for ‘anti-national activities’
4. 19.08.2024: TISS Ban on student body Progressive Students’ Forum, revoked after student protests
5. 20.09.2024: TISS convocation: students protest suspension of Dalit pupil, sacking of teachers, student Arghya Das forcibly removed and degree certificate withheld
6. Oct 20, 2024: TISS issues showcause notice to assistant prof over viral protest video” 

Academic institutions, often pillars of intellectual freedom, have also been deeply affected by the [partisan and oppressive environment prevailing in the country. In particular, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai has faced growing pressure to limit political discourse and protest, acting on which they have targeted Adivasi and Dalits scholars. On April 18, 2024, TISS took the drastic step of suspending a Dalit Ph.D. student, namely  Ramadas Prini Sivanandan, for alleged “anti-national activities,” citing his participation in student protests against government policies. The decision stirred widespread outrage on campus, with students calling it an abuse of administrative power to stifle dissent. The tension came to a head at TISS’s convocation in September, when students staged a protest demanding justice for the suspended student and for faculty members dismissed under similar circumstances. When Arghya Das, a graduating student, raised a placard during the ceremony, security forces forcibly removed him, withheld his degree, and detained him. These actions show how academic institutions in Maharashtra are increasingly becoming battlegrounds for free expression and political dissent.

Outside of TISS, other academic figures face similar repression. In June 2023, a professor at the Kolhapur Institute of Technology was placed on “forced leave” after responding to derogatory comments made by students affiliated with Hindutva groups. When she stated that “rapists have no religion,” her remarks went viral in a heavily edited form, fuelling a backlash from right-wing organisations that pressured the institution to remove her. This case underscores how ideological factions are working to shape the narrative within classrooms, using intimidation to limit critical discourse on topics of social justice.

3. The crackdown on activism and environmental protests

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Censorship of peoples’ protests, activists

1. January-March 2023: Detentions and externment orders of villagers and activists protesting Saudi-Aramco refinery in Barsu-Solgaon region, Ratnagiri
2. November 2023-March 2024 : Externment notice and proceedings against Aarey activist Tabrez Sayed, Mumbai
3. Oct 6, 2024: Rally Held in Mumbai Against Israel’s Aggression, Notices Issued to Organisers

Lawfare

1. 11.07.2024: Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, tabled in the Monsoon session of the Vidhan Sabha, draconian provisions against dissent and public protests; bill lapsed”

Beyond academia, Maharashtra’s crackdown on dissent extends to environmental and social activists. In Ratnagiri, protests against a Saudi-Aramco refinery in Barsu-Solgaon saw a wave of detentions and legal intimidation beginning in January 2023. Villagers and activists opposed the refinery due to fears of environmental degradation, displacement, and health hazards. In response, the government imposed externment orders, effectively banning key activists from their own villages, while deploying police forces to suppress protests. The government’s tactics not only disrupted peaceful demonstrations but sought to stifle dissent by removing activists from their communities.

The repressive approach continued with the case of Tabrez Sayed, a central figure in Mumbai’s Save Aarey movement, who was served multiple legal notices for his role in protests against the destruction of the Aarey forest. The planned metro construction in Aarey would decimate significant green space and displace indigenous communities, yet activists like Sayed faced mounting legal threats and harassment for voicing environmental concerns.

In July 2024, the Maharashtra government took a decisive step to institutionalise this repression by introducing the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill. Introduced by Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis, the bill ostensibly aimed to counter “urban naxals” but granted sweeping powers to the state to curb any form of organised protest. If passed, the bill would allow authorities to detain activists, seize assets, and dismantle movements deemed to threaten public order. Though it was not enacted, there is widespread concern that if the Mahayuti coalition retains power, the bill will resurface, providing legal cover for the clampdown on activism and free expression across the state.

4. Judiciary’s response: A mixed outcome

The Free Speech Collective provided the following list of incidents that took place between Jan 2023- November 2024 under this category:

“Court cases

1. 22.08.2024: The bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Shyam C. Chandak of the Bombay High Court terms the arrest of journalist Abhijit Arjun Padale I January 2022 as illegal, awards compensation
2. 20.09.2024: Justice A.S. Chandurkar of the Bombay High Court delivered a “tie breaker” judgment in the case of Kunal Kamra and Ors. v. Union of India wherein he struck down the amendment to Rule 3 (1)(b)(v) (“Impugned Rule”) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (“IT Rules 2023”), seeking to set up a Fact Check Unit (“FCU”) to fact check content on social media, as unconstitutional.
3. 07.03.2024: Supreme Court quashes criminal charges against Javed Ahmed Hajam, professor at Sanjay Ghodawat College in Kolhapur district who hails from Baramulla, Jammu and Kashmir, for his WhatsApp status describing abrogation of Article 370 as a ‘Black Day’”

Amid these escalating threats to freedom of expression, the judiciary has occasionally acted as a safeguard. In a landmark case on September 20, 2024, the Bombay High Court declared unconstitutional an amendment within the Information Technology Rules that sought to establish a government-controlled Fact Check Unit to monitor social media. This decision, protecting online freedom of speech, was widely seen as a victory against excessive government surveillance.

Another judicial victory came in March 2024 when the Supreme Court quashed criminal charges against Javed Ahmed Hajam, a professor originally from Jammu and Kashmir working in Kolhapur, who had been charged for his WhatsApp status labelling the abrogation of Article 370 as a “Black Day.” These legal rulings underscore the judiciary’s crucial role in defending free speech, even as repressive measures intensify. However, given the scale of incidents affecting freedom of expression, these victories feel isolated within a broader context of diminishing rights.

Why the upcoming elections are critical

In Maharashtra, where economic development and social challenges coexist, the state’s stance on freedom of expression has profound implications. The forthcoming elections in Maharashtra, the voting for which will take place on November 20, represent a watershed moment for civil liberties and democratic values in the state. The Maha Yuti coalition’s tenure has seen a sharp increase in suppression of dissent, targeting journalists, activists, and academics with intimidation, legal threats, and violence. The attacks on the press, the censorship within universities, and the harassment of activists all suggest that the coalition’s governance model rests on silencing opposition. If these trends continue, they threaten to redefine the state’s relationship with free speech, casting a long shadow over Maharashtra’s future as a democratic society.

The ruling coalition’s recent actions highlight a troubling trajectory away from democratic ideals, where dissent is criminalised, and accountability becomes rare. The stakes of this election extend beyond the immediate political outcomes—it will shape the future of civil liberties, set a precedent for free expression, and either affirm or reject Maharashtra’s commitment to democratic values.

The elections present an opportunity for the people of Maharashtra to address these deepening infringements. For a state that grapples with high poverty rates, farmer suicides, and rising unemployment, the stifling of public discourse is not just an attack on individual freedoms but a barrier to addressing systemic social issues. Without a robust media and space for activism, these pressing issues will likely remain unaddressed, and the public’s capacity to hold leaders accountable will diminish.

If voters decide to support parties that pledge to protect free speech, it could signal a shift toward a governance model that values transparency and accountability. Conversely, if the current regime is re-elected, the impending revival of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill and other repressive measures could entrench authoritarianism in the state, silencing dissent for years to come.

Related:

CJP files complaint with Maharashtra Election Commission over communal posters featuring UP CM Yogi Adityanath

Pre-Election Gimmickry, Maharashtra: Mahayuti govt compelled to appropriate INDIA alliance Constitution driven call?

Despite legal promises, hate speech prosecutions in Maharashtra remain paralysed

CJP sent two preventive action complaints to Maharashtra Police

The post Maharashtra: Free speech has remained on the line of fire of the current regime, democracy on trial as state goes for election appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This development comes at a time when the region’s administration is virtually run by bureaucrats, who have become increasingly powerful in the absence of a political dispensation, delayed elections, and the ongoing disenfranchisement of the local population.

The General Administration Department (Vigilance) of Jammu and Kashmir issued Circular No. 14-JK(GAD) of 2024 on June 20, 2024, outlining measures to deal with complaints against public servants. The circular, while ostensibly aimed at protecting honest officials from harassment, has raised concerns about its potential to shield corrupt practices and further insulate the bureaucracy from public scrutiny.

Under the new guidelines, authorities can pursue prosecution under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against individuals deemed to have filed false complaints. Additionally, they can initiate prosecution under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on complaints filed with the court by appropriate authorities.

These measures significantly raise the stakes for citizens considering filing complaints against officials, potentially deterring not just false accusations but also legitimate grievances.

Secondly, and perhaps more controversially, the circular recommends punitive actions against media publications. It promises institutional support to officers for conducting inquiries into cases involving publications. If found complicit in spreading false information, the circular suggests taking action against these publications. This could include reporting them to the Press Council of India, cancelling their accreditation, and stopping government advertisements.

These measures pose a significant threat to press freedom in the region where critical voices and journalism, which aim to hold the administration accountable, have already been potentially silenced.

The circular justifies these measures by citing an alleged increase in false, frivolous, anonymous, and pseudonymous complaints against public servants. It claims that such complaints cause unwarranted harassment and mental agony to officials, affecting their decision-making abilities and causing administrative inertia.

However, civil society activists, though anonymously, argue that this move is a thinly veiled attempt to silence dissent and protect an increasingly unaccountable bureaucracy. With the absence of an elected government and the postponement of elections, bureaucrats have assumed unprecedented power in the region’s governance. Critics argue that this circular will further entrench their authority and make it more difficult for citizens to voice legitimate grievances against corrupt or inefficient officials.

The timing of this circular is particularly contentious, given the ongoing political vacuum in Jammu and Kashmir. Since the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, the region has been under direct central administration, with key decisions being made by appointed bureaucrats rather than elected representatives. This has led to growing concerns about the lack of democratic accountability and the erosion of local autonomy.

Activists have expressed alarm at the potential misuse of these new provisions. They argue that the threat of prosecution could deter whistleblowers and conscientious citizens from reporting genuine cases of corruption or misconduct, effectively creating a chilling effect on accountability measures.

“It has turned the basic principle of accountability in a democracy on its head,” stated an activist. “Instead of making the administration responsible to the citizens, it seeks to provide the officers and bureaucracy an impunity. It also threatens the whistleblowers,” he said.

As the administration moves to implement these new guidelines, questions remain about their impact on transparency, good governance, and the already strained relationship between the bureaucracy and the public in Jammu and Kashmir. With elections still on hold and political activities restricted, this latest move is seen by many as another step towards centralising power in the hands of an unelected bureaucratic elite, further alienating the local population from the governance process.

The circular, issued by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir’s General Administration Department (Vigilance), provides more extensive details about the handling of complaints against public servants. It acknowledges that despite previously issued instructions aimed at balancing good governance with protection for public servants, cases of undue harassment through false complaints are reportedly on the rise.

The order emphasizes that many complaints, after verification, are without merit. However, the process of investigating these complaints has led to “unwarranted harassment and mental anguish for public servants who are performing their duties in good faith”. This situation, according to the circular, is affecting decision-making processes and causing “administrative inertia”, which in turn impacts the disposal of government business and public service delivery.

The circular explicitly mentions that the procedure for dealing with false, frivolous, anonymous, and pseudonymous complaints needs to be strengthened. It aims to ensure that honest public servants are not unfairly harassed and that government business is not adversely affected.

The circular outlines two primary courses of action against those filing false complaints. These include pursuing prosecution under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code for making a false complaint and initiating prosecution under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, based on a complaint filed with the court by the appropriate authority.

The circular also advocates considering departmental action against public servants making false complaints, as an alternative to prosecution.

It also recommends institutional support to government servants affected by “false complaints” threw a slew of methods including “assisting the affected employee to approach Crime Branch, J&K, for initiation of criminal proceedings upon receiving a report or request from a public servant, and facilitating public servants, who have suffered harm as a result of false complaints, to file civil lawsuits seeking damages against responsible individuals (including compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, or harm to reputation, with the provision for the public servant to engage a lawyer as per requirement on contingency fee arrangements, subject to available resources, for which each case shall be decided on merits).”

It also recommends “assistance of Law Officers from the Department of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs for appropriate legal remedies in respect of acts done in official capacity, arranging formal inquiries by the relevant registering authority, where such complaints have been filed by any such registered organizations and issuance of formal press notes regarding complaints and inquiries to promote transparency, preferably every month.”

It also recommends punitive action against publications. It states that institutional support will be provided to officers for “conducting of inquiries in cases involving publications and if found complicit, taking action, including reporting the matter to the Press Council of India (PCI) and other measures like cancellation of accreditation and stoppage of Government advertisements”.

The circular, signed by Sanjeev Verma, Commissioner-Secretary to the government, has been distributed to all Administrative Departments, Heads of Departments, and Cadre Controlling Authorities, with instructions to implement these measures effectively.

While the specific details of these instructions are not fully elaborated in the provided excerpt, it’s clear that the government is taking a more stringent approach to what it perceives as “baseless complaints”.

The order appears to be part of a broader effort to streamline administrative processes and protect public servants from what the government views as unnecessary impediments to their work. However, without a balanced system of checks and balances, particularly in the absence of a democratically elected government, such measures risk being seen as a means to insulate the bureaucracy from legitimate scrutiny and accountability.

The circular’s issuance on June 20, 2024, indicates that this is a recent development in the ongoing evolution of administrative policies in Jammu and Kashmir. It reflects the continuing challenges faced by the region in maintaining a balance between administrative efficiency and public accountability, especially given its unique political circumstances.

https://kashmirtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Gag-order-public-servants.pdf

Courtesy: Kashmir Times

The post Iron-Fist To ‘False Complaints’: J&K Circular Tightens Screws On Complaints Against Officials And Media Scrutiny appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Juice Media is an Australian media channel that publishes satirical takes on governments and issues across the world. They have previously made similar satirical takedowns on political issues in Brazil, Australia, and the UK as well.

The video that is found objectionable by the government is still up on the channel’s Instagram page. The video shows a satirical take on the role of the ruling government and the recent Lok Sabha elections, even citing the ‘harassment and threats to opposition and journalists.’ Ironically the video has also called out autocrising democracies worldwide.

So the government of India has ordered YouTube to block our video there. Apparently we violated section 2 of the “Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act” pic.twitter.com/sCcmtBIQ7W

— theJuiceMedia (@thejuicemedia) June 11, 2024

According to the notice issued by the government, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has cited several violations of various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the block. Some of these include, Section 153 ( Provocation to cause a riot), Section 504 (Intent to provoke a breach of peace) and Section 505 (Making statements to cause public mischief). According to the government, the video has also violated Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act, 1971.

This is not the first time The Juice Media has faced attempts at censorship. According to The Guardian, two months ago, the Juice Media was directed to remove a video featuring the image of the Tasmanian premier or face severe penalties.

Earlier last week, comedian and talk show host in the USA, John  Oliver had also made a video on the Indian government and elections in his show Last Week Tonight, highlighting press censorship. The segment of the show, which was titled ‘Indian Elections, Trump & Red Lobster’, was reportedly restricted by Ambani-owned streaming platform, JioCinema.

These incidents of censorship are not new, especially over the last decade. In the run down to the Lok Sabha elections, several media platforms and journalists have been receiving similar notices from YouTube.

For instance, just a week before India’s Lok Sabha elections in April, 2024, the YouTube channel of Bolta Hindustan, an independent news platform, had been banned. The notice, sent on April 3rd, cited violations of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the Information Technology Rules, 2021. The notice had also said that it would not disclose the specific reasons for the ban. Bolta Hindustan had reiterated that they maintain high journalistic standards and principles and would take legal steps to challenge the ban if the ban were not lifted.  However, a month later, in May, YouTube reinstated the channel, apologising for any inconvenience caused.

Since the beginning of 2024, which saw India’s 18th Lok Sabha elections take place, a number of independent media portals and independent voices have faced censorship by the government. Some of them include, Bolta Hindustan, National Dastak, Media Swaraj, Hindus for Human Rights, Indian-American Muslim Council, tribal leader Hansraj Meena, journalist Mandeep Punia etc., also saw their social media accounts banned.

In February, 2024, X, formerly Twitter, owner Elon Musk also confirmed and disclosed that the Indian government had asked the tech giant to ban accounts. Musk said that he had been asked by the government to withhold ‘some accounts’, but that he believed in press freedom and disagrees with these moves.

So the government of India has ordered YouTube to block our video there. Apparently we violated section 2 of the “Prevention of Insults to the National Honour Act” pic.twitter.com/sCcmtBIQ7W

— theJuiceMedia (@thejuicemedia) June 11, 2024

Interestingly, according to Business Standard, X had tried to challenge the government’s movies to ban and withhold some accounts. However, its petition was declined and declared ‘devoid of merits.’ It also incurred a penalty of rupees 50 lakhs by the Karnataka High Court for not complying with the government’s orders before challenging them.

Related:

 ‘Attack on free expression’: ABVP ‘insults’ Udaipur professor for FB post

‘X’ distances itself from the clampdown on freedom of expression by blocking accounts on the executive orders of the Union government

After Bolta Hindustan, Centre tells YouTube to remove National Dastak channel

Congress approaches Election Commission, raised Bolta Hindustan ban

“The messenger is being punished.” – Bolta Hindustan after YouTube channel ban

Media fraternity condemns government directed ban of independent media channels

Police Case Filed Against Woman Editor Of Magazine In Kerala

The post Australian channel’s satirical YouTube video directed to be blocked by union government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The said statement comes on days after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), at the behest of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) issued emergency order directing top social media companies like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, X and Snapchat to block 177 accounts and links related to the farmers’ protest in order to maintain ‘public order’. Notably, these blocking orders were issued on February 14 and 19 and demand that specified accounts be suspended for the duration of the protest and be restored after the same is over. The statement released on the X account of Global Government Affairs touches upon the issues of the issuance of these executive orders, the writ petition against the powers of the union and the lack of transparency, which has been provided and discussed below.

Issuance of executive orders of blocking by the union government:

The statement released by the social media platform stated that “The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.  In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts.”

Section 69A of the Information Act, 2000 (IT Act) empowers the union government to issue take down orders or blocking orders in India. The said legal provision states that the Union government can issue blocking orders to platforms in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and so on. These powers are being increasingly used by the Modi-led government to clamp down on any critical voices against his government and policies.

The writ petition by X Corp against these blocking orders:

In the statement released by X, it is further stated that “Consistent with our position, a writ appeal challenging the Indian government’s blocking orders remains pending. We have also provided the impacted users with notice of these actions in accordance with our policies.”

This sheds light on the ongoing legal proceedings taking place in the Karnataka High Court against the blocking orders being issued by the Union government by invoking Section 69A of the IT Act in complete darkness. On July 1, 2022, X Corp filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court after having complied with blocking orders issued by the Union government “under protest”. Through the petition, X had contested the blocking of 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets. According to the platform, the directive to block all accounts violated Section 69A and that the banning orders “demonstrate an excessive use of powers and are disproportionate” and are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision”. The platform had further argued that the Central government lacked the authority to issue general orders requesting the disabling of social media accounts and that such orders must include justifications that should be made known to users. Moreover, it also specified that only when the nature of the content complied with the requirements set forth in Section 69A of the IT Act could a blocking order be issued.

On June 30, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the said petition brought in by X Corp (then Twitter Inc.) by holding the company’s argument to be “devoid of merits.” Interestingly, the bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit had also imposed the company with a 50 lakh rupee fee to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within 45 days of the judgement.

In October of 2023, the appeal preferred by X Corp against the dismissal of its plea by a single judge bench was accepted by the division bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil after MeitY had informed the court that the government will not be reconsidering the blocking orders. As the appeal was accepted, the bench indicated that it would consider the issue of whether reasons of the blocking orders passed by the Ministry are to be communicated to the platform, users of the accounts. It remarked that recording reasons is mandatory.

Notably, during the January 30, 2024 hearing of the case, X Corp had argued against the Union Government review committee’s non-disclosure of its orders upholding the blocking of several posts on the platform. A Division Bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Dinesh Kumar and Justice Shivashankare Gowda was hearing the said case. The counsel for X Corp, Sajjan Poovayya, had informed the court that with several of the blocking orders having been upheld by a review committee, the appellants were yet to be provided with a copy of the orders as they were deemed to be “secret”. It was further submitted by the counsel that as contesting such the emergency blocking orders is not easy, which is even the case in issuance of regular blocking orders, around 1,500 pieces of content were removed with a one line order. With regard to the same, the counsel questioned how the orders could be kept secret when the relevant statute stated that reasons had to be recorded. The social media giant had also raised concerns that the Review Committee had never actually met as required under Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (IT Rules).  Based upon these arguments, an Interlocutory Application (IA) had been moved by the appellants to gain access to the orders issued by the review committee upholding the blocking orders of the government, by deeming the same to be crucial to their case in contesting these government orders.

Ironically, on February 21, the union government had argued against the IA moved by the social media platform to gain access to the review committee reports by stating that they had no right to access to the same since X Corp is merely an intermediary and not the author or creator of the blocked content.

As per the government, a review of the decisions to block internet content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act serves as a safeguard against arbitrary usage of power and only the creators of the accounts or tweets can invoke this safeguard. The government further contended that review under Rule 14 of the IT Rules is an internal and independent safeguard mechanism and there exists no requirement to hear any party before passing the review orders.

“A party aggrieved by the blocking orders has the option of seeking judicial review, and has no right to insist on access to the proceedings of the Review Committee. The appellant (X Corp), being an intermediary, certainly has no locus standi to seek access to the proceedings of the Review Committee,” the counsel for the union stated as per Bar and Bench.

Lastly, during the said hearing, the government also highlighted that in the writ petition, X Corp had only challenged the blocking of 39 URLs, while through the IA it is now questioning 1,096 blocking directions. The government had also challenged this move, terming it an attempt to widen the scope of X Corp’s challenge.

The next hearing in the X Corp’s writ appeal is slated to be held by the High Court’s division bench in March 2024.

Non-publishing of the executive orders by X Corp

The statement further specifies the legal restrictions prohibiting them from publishing these executive orders and stated “Due to legal restrictions, we are unable to publish the executive orders, but we believe that making them public is essential for transparency. This lack of disclosure can lead to a lack of accountability and arbitrary decision-making.”

It is pertinent to highlight here that since 2023, pursuant to the takeover of the social media platform by Musk, X had stopped sharing takedown notices issued by the Indian government with Lumen Database, a website that collects and analyses legal complaints and requests for removal of online material. The same had been specified by Lumen Database who had said “As of April 15, 2023, Twitter has not submitted copies of any of the takedown notices it receives to Lumen. According to Lumen’s persons of contact there, Twitter’s 3rd party data sharing policies are under review, and they will update Lumen once there is more information.” 

The complete statement uploaded on Global Government Affairs can be read here:

The Indian government has issued executive orders requiring X to act on specific accounts and posts, subject to potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.

In compliance with the orders, we will withhold these accounts and posts in India alone; however,…

— Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) February 21, 2024

It is also essential to point out here that while the said statement has been made public by X Corp, no list with specific names against whom actions based on the executive orders have been taken is provided.

Legal provisions required compliance by X Corp to government orders

Releasing the statement while distancing itself from the oppressive censorship tactics being followed by the government marked X’s first confrontation with the Indian government since Musk took ownership of the micro-blogging platform. The existing legal structure of India is such that the social media giant can face serious consequences in case it does not comply with the orders being issued by the government in taking action, including suspension, withholding and taking down of accounts, against certain accounts or content.

The infamous section 69A of the IT Act provides that “The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” In simple words, if any intermediary, in this case X Corp, refuses to comply with the orders of the government, they may have to bear monetary fines as well as be subjected to a significant jail term. It is in this regard that in April 2023, Musk had deemed the social media laws in India to be ‘quite strict’ and that the company could not go beyond the laws of the country. Being compliant with India’s laws is better than having employees go to jail, Musk had stated as per the Economic Times.

Prior to Musk, Dorsey, who quit as Twitter CEO in 2021, had in an interview claimed that during his tenure as CEO, Twitter received requests from the Indian government to block accounts covering the 2020-2021 farmers’ protests and those critical of the government. Dorsey had also alleged that the Indian government had threatened the social networking platform with raids if it did not take down critical content during the farmers’ protests against the three farm laws.

“It manifested in ways such as: ‘We will shut Twitter down in India’, which is a very large market for us; ‘We will raid the homes of your employees’, which they did; and this is India, a democratic country,” Dorsey had said. It is important to highlight here that in the year 2021, Delhi Police’s special cell had ‘visited’ the Delhi and Gurgaon offices of Twitter, as was then known as, to serve notice to India’s managing director about an investigation into the social media giant’s tagging of a post by a ruling party spokesman, namely Sambit Patra, as “manipulated media”. While the aforementioned investigation had been used as a guise, the ‘visit’ had been a result of the current dispensation in 2021 asking Twitter to block certain provocative hashtags and the then Twitter initially gave in to the demand but it rolling back its decision citing ‘insufficient justification’.

In addition to this, the union government could also revoke X’s safe harbour that is granted to the platform under Section 79 of the IT Act. The said status protects intermediaries from being held responsible for “any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted” on its platform.

Pressure building on social media platform to bow before the Modi government

The current regime has applied increasing pressure on social media platforms to control the information as well as the criticism that circulates on social media. With mainstream media already under control, and the independent media facing cases and suspension of licences,  the right to speech and expression as well as the right to information, both guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, are threatened. By employing these repressive and oppressive steps, the Modi-led government is following the path of other autocratic countries, such as Russia, that is trying to control how and where messages can spread on social media. One should not forget that in March of 2021, the Russian government had provided that it would slow access to Twitter and in turn control one of the few places where Russians openly criticise the government.

Recently, privacy advocate Apar Gupta had taken to X to write on this issue. He had stated:

“Blocking orders for Twitter accounts of farm leaders have been issued in advance. This form of pre-censorship is without any transparency or natural justice.”

Twitter under new ownership will no longer disclose the URLs to the Lumen Database taking away any transparency. It also lost the Karnataka High Court case which employed theocratic (as opposed to constitutional) reasoning. I wrote on this separately, but that’s an aside.

The government on its part will not disclose or submit to accountability. Why block entire accounts in advance? Is the account itself illegal? It will not bother asking these questions for fewer people will ask them today than two years ago. As its march towards total power becomes menacing it commands greater levels of social compliance. Either by discipline, despondency or indoctrination. This is not surprising, what does provide anguish is the vile commentary against farmers on social media. How easy it is to forget that close to 750 protestors who lost their lives? Have we as a society lost all civility in disagreement?”

His post can be read here:

Twitter was a reliable and timely medium for farmers during their protests in 2020-21.

They issued official press releases, documented police excesses, built community and sympathy for their cause with hashtags. It became a vital informational pipeline for farmers to convey…

— Apar (@apar1984) February 13, 2024

To know about the farmers’ Protest, read here.

Related:

Farmers protest: Death of a farmer after teargas shells dropped by Haryana cops, protests intensify as 77 SM accounts banned by MEITY/MHA

EXCLUSIVE: Three independent Tamil channels win battle against censorship by MeitY-YouTube after 6 months of a gritty battle

Police Case Filed Against Woman Editor Of Magazine In Kerala

The post ‘X’ distances itself from the clampdown on freedom of expression by blocking accounts on the executive orders of the Union government appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: Kashmir Times

The post Bail For Kashmiri Journalists: What Does It Mean For Freedom Of Expression? appeared first on SabrangIndia.