Logo

Defender of your Digital Freedom

Home > Uncategorized > MouthShut.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI & [W.P.(C).No. 217 of 2013]

MouthShut.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. UoI & [W.P.(C).No. 217 of 2013]

Feb 08,2014 | 07:25 am

This writ petition was filed by MouthShut.com under Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing the IT(Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), as they are violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Rules impose a significant burden on the petitioners, forcing them to screen content and exercise on-line censorship. While a private party may allege that certain content is defamatory or infringes copyright, such determinations are usually made by judges and involve factual inquiry and careful balancing of competing interests and factors, which the petitioners are not equipped to make. The petitioners receive notices and phone calls from cyber cells and police stations asking them to delete content and provide information of users, which makes the running of their business difficult.

In the light of the above facts, the following issues have been raised before the SC:

  • Are the Rules liable to be set aside as they contain arbitrary provisions which place unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of free speech and expression, as well as the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry out any occupation, trade or business as guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?

  • Are the Rules liable to be struck down because of their failure to conform to the Statute under which hey are made and exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act (IT Act)?

On determination of the above-mentioned issues, the petitioner prays that:

  • A direction be issued that no coercive action may be initiated against the petitioners in relation to the Rules, during the pendency of W.P.(C).No. 217 of 2013; and

  • Such other order for direction be passed as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice

Concerns with undisclosed and selective consultation on the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018

On August 25, 2019 Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology held undisclosed and selective consultation on the Draft Personal Data ...

Hearing Update: Shantha Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India; June 27th, 2017

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, heard the petition against notifications making Aadhaar mandatory for social welfare schemes ...

Delhi Tech Talks [June 23, 2017; New Delhi]

On June 23, 2017, the second edition of Delhi Tech Talks – a collaborative series of quarterly discussions on the ...

Hearing Update: Shantha Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India; May 19th, 2017

The petition against notifications making Aadhaar mandatory for social welfare schemes- Shantha Sinha & Anr. v. Union of India [W.P. ...

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 6

Arguments in the Supreme Court litigations around linking Aadhaar with PAN, challenging the constitutionality of Section 139AA of the Income ...

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 5

The ongoing challenge in the Supreme Court regarding the linking of Aadhaar for filing of income tax returns, and making ...

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 4

The State’s reply in the Aadhaar-PAN linking case was heard today (our coverage of arguments from previous hearings can be ...

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 3

The hearing for the Aadhaar-PAN case spilled over to day 3 with Senior Counsel, Shyam Divan making his concluding remarks. ...

Supreme Court hears the Aadhaar-PAN case; updates from Day 1

The cases for linking Aadhaar to PAN and making it mandatory for Income Tax returns were heard before a bench ...

22 social media websites blocked in Kashmir valley for up to one month

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017, the Jammu and Kashmir Government directed Internet Service Providers to block access to 22 social media sites ...