The author argues that access to and free flow of information need to be seen as significant parts of our freedom of expression jurisprudence. In particular, it highlights the role played by information gatekeepers in the free circulation of information and argues that liability norms must not be such that they allow information gatekeepers to be “used to censor speech in an opaque fashion that leaves little room for accountability”.

The author discusses the intermediary liability provisions in Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and suggests various amendments to the provisions to make them more compliant with the Manila Principles. 

This a multi-stakeholder roundtable discussion examined key provisions of the draft amendments to the Intermediary Guidelines 2018 through the lens of international human rights law and principles. 

The author criticizes the vaguely worded provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Intermediary Guidelines, 2011 framed thereunder.

This report studies the law and policy implications of upload filters, tools enabling traceability of originator, local registration and office thresholds for foreign companies, and 24-hour take down timelines.

The author examines legislative ambiguities and poorly reasoned judicial decisions that have imposed a chilling effect on free speech in India by imposing overbroad liability on intermediaries.

This study argues that the takedown method prescribed by the Intermediary Rules has a chilling effect on online free expression.

The authors suggest that regulatory attempts in the intermediary liability sphere in India have largely lacked nuance in terms of being able to differentiate various kinds of intermediaries. Accordingly, the authors argue for a more calibrated approach to intermediary regulation.