Logo

Defender of your Digital Freedom

Home > Freedom of Speech > SC refuses to issue interim order blocking pornographic content on the Internet; says it would violate Article 21

SC refuses to issue interim order blocking pornographic content on the Internet; says it would violate Article 21

Jul 10,2015 | 12:22 pm

A writ petition filed by an Indore-based lawyer – Kamlesh Vaswani – seeking to prohibit and criminalize the viewing of Internet porn was taken up for hearing by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 8th July. The petition (filed in October 2013) urges the SC, in light of the damage done to contemporary Indian society and mores, to declare existing and ineffective pornography-related provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, and to direct the formulation of a separate legislation, national policy and draft action plan to curb access to Internet porn. The petition also asks that watching/sharing Internet porn be treated as non-bailable, cognizable offenses.

At Wednesday’s hearing, advocate Vijay Panjwani appearing on behalf of the petitioner highlighted an incident where indecent photographs of a woman were circulated on-line by her estranged husband, and lamented the Centre’s inaction despite express instructions from the SC to file an affidavit on whether it is competent to ask Internet Service Providers to block pornographic content. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand appearing on behalf of the Centre assured the SC that the Ministry of Home Affairs would soon file a response to the petition, and that all possible measures under the IT Act would be taken to address the issue. The Bench comprising Justices H L Dattu, Arun Misra and Amitava Roy directed the Centre to file a detailed affidavit within four weeks, and asked Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to assist in the matter and advise the concerned departments of the Government.

Further, the Bench refused to entertain the petitioner’s request for an interim order, maintaining that the Court cannot dictate what a citizen may or may not watch within the four walls of his room. It was said that such an order would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty, in which the right to privacy is implicit. The Court nevertheless conceded that the issue at hand is a serious one and that the Centre’s response is awaited.

The matter is next listed for 10th August, 2015.

SC judgment – Safeguards for shutdown, limited relief for Kashmir

SC judgment – Safeguards for shutdown, limited relief for Kashmir The Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v UoI ...

Our Statement on Delhi High Court’s Dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation Challenging Internet Shutdown in Delhi

Our Statement on Delhi High Court’s Dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation Challenging Internet Shutdown in Delhi On 24.12.2019, the ...

Report Launch: The Future of Intermediary Liability in India

Report Launch: The Future of Intermediary Liability in India SFLC.IN is releasing a report on Intermediary Liability titled “Future of ...

A Detailed Analysis of the Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Judgment

Statement: At SFLC.in we believe that ordering intermediary platforms to take down content globally, negatively impacts freedom of expression online, ...

Our Statement on the WhatsApp Surveillance Issue

Our Statement on the WhatsApp Surveillance Issue The use of sophisticated surveillance technology by governments violates basic human rights of ...

Del. HC Orders for Global Take Down of Content

Delhi High Court Approves Take Down of Content Globally Asks Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter to remove defamatory content from ...

CJEU rules that search engines cannot be asked to de-list information globally under EU right to be forgotten requests

CJEU rules that search engines cannot be asked to de-list information globally under EU right to be forgotten requests On ...

Any regulation of online speech in India must safeguard the rights to free speech and privacy

Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Constitution, while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression, ...

Google v. Visakha: Final Arguments

In 2009, Visakha Industries, a construction company involved in the manufacturing of asbestos cement sheets, filed a criminal defamation case ...

Submission on Surveillance Industry and Human Rights to the UN Special Rapporteur

UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression had invited comments ...