
Indian Supreme Court Judgement on Freedom of Speech [pdf] - msravi
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf
======
shrikrishna
Tl;dr This landmark judgement holds void Section 66A of India's Information
Technology Act that made material on social networking sites that were
"offensive, caused annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult,
injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" punishable by upto
3 years in jail and a fine. This provision was widely used by politicians in
power to stifle dissent.

------
ubersync
One positive step, but a long long way to go. Just yesterday a cop snatched my
phone because I had recorded his colleagues driving without seatbelts on
(which is a traffic offence in India). He told me (lied) what I was doing is
illegal. This is just an example of how messed up the whole system here is.
What can you expect from a country where one in three elected representatives
have criminal cases pending against them. [0]

0 [http://m.timesofindia.com/home/news/Every-third-newly-
electe...](http://m.timesofindia.com/home/news/Every-third-newly-elected-MP-
has-criminal-background/articleshow/35306963.cms)

~~~
leephillips
This ruling is a positive step, but India still has its notorious law
criminalizing the offending of religious feelings[0], and, as far as I know,
import of _The Satanic Verses_ is still banned.

Police falsely claiming that photographing or recording them on the job is
illegal is a recurring problem in the US, too.

[0][http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/07/sanal-edamarukus-
situ...](http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2012/07/sanal-edamarukus-situation-
worsens.html)

~~~
lotsofmangos
I have often wondered if you can respond to a blasphemy charge, with a
blasphemy charge, as long as the first charge is from a different group than
your own, on the basis that a demand to abide by the principles of a different
faith than your own is clearly a blasphemous request.

~~~
avemuri
The law isn't against blasphemy, it's against offending religious sentiments
and is deliberately vague. You'd have to prove that the group claiming to be
offended is not offended.

Stupid, but India has a long history of religious violence, so perhaps its a
case of pragmatism over principle as a justification.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
There are efforts at an international level to stifle religious expression as
well. This is championed by Islamic states to prevent any criticism of Islam.
This is a growing global threat to freedom of expression and it often finds
its way into online censorship.

------
enlightenedfool
Interesting comparison with US Constitution... "In the U.S., if there is a
compelling necessity to achieve an important governmental or societal goal, a
law abridging freedom of speech may pass muster. But in India, such law cannot
pass muster if it is in the interest of the general public. Such law has to be
covered by one of the eight subject matters set out under Article 19(2). If it
does not, and is outside the pale of 19(2), Indian courts will strike down
such law"

~~~
phkahler
I was surprised at that. As far as I know, nothing has ever passed muster. The
classic "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theatre" is probably (my
opinion) only true if it actually causes harm to someone. Of course it may
cause "harm" to the business, but that would be a civil matter. If someone was
trampled to death it could be criminal. In other words, our first amendment
rights stop where it directly (not theoretically) causes harm. Or something
like that. IANAL of course.

~~~
themartorana
Except any free speech aimed at any politician while not in a designated "Free
Speech Zone."

This causes me such angst even discussing it. It has to be the most egregious
affront to free speech in my lifetime - and the Supreme Court not only upheld
the right to enforce them, but to only enforce them on people with ideas
unfriendly to the politician in question.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supre...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/27/supreme-
court-bush-protest-speech/9172707/)

~~~
brownbat
> Except any free speech aimed at any politician while not in a designated
> "Free Speech Zone."

This was not the holding in Wood et. al. v. Moss et. al., which can be read in
its entirety here:
[http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-115_gdil.pdf](http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-115_gdil.pdf)

You can listen to the arguments here:
[http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_115](http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2013/2013_13_115)

It's not quite the easy political speech suppression case some newspapers made
it out to be.

There were a series of factors that complicated the decision--including
questions of deference to officers making snap judgments, whether or not there
is any right to bring a case in this instance, and the level of threat posed
by the protestors. Any of the individual factors are arguable, but note that
there are so many complications that it led to a unanimous decision. That's an
unlikely occurrence without some strong reasoning driving the disparate
members of the court. If you disagree with a unanimous court, then its worth
closely reading and trying to understand how they all came to that conclusion.

The foundation of the decision leans heavily upon a long history of fourth
amendment findings and a preference for objective standards in law enforcement
decisions, but that's incredibly difficult to summarize. My best
recommendation for the curious is to read through the leading cases on fourth
amendment law over the last century to build an appreciation for this style of
jurisprudence over officers of the law. (I know that's an obnoxiously
inefficient recommendation, I'm not smart enough / haven't thought hard enough
to come up with a more efficient way to get a curious reader up to speed, and
apologize for that...)

If you want a "gotcha" moment that makes the case (probably too) simple, note
that Wilker, arguing for the petitioner, at one point replies to Justice
Breyer that his case is about agents that have 100% viewpoint motivations and
0% security motivations. Later, in response to a question from Justice Kagan,
he admits that a reasonable security officer could have made these decisions
motivated purely by security considerations alone. (Compare 33:30 with 37:30
in the oral arguments.)

There are a dozen factors that led to the decision, but if you want to reduce
to one moment where the petitioner most likely lost the case, that might be
it.

------
gryph0n
The law was disportionately used to protect 'offended' politicians (Central &
State) in power.

Good riddance. Imagine getting arrested for liking a post on Facebook !!

[http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-
pe...](http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-trouble-people-
arrested-under-sec-66a-of-it-act/article1-1329883.aspx)

------
msravi
In a landmark judgment upholding freedom of expression, the Supreme Court
today struck down a provision in the law which provides power to arrest a
person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites.

------
devnonymous
Pasting another link over here that breaks it down for non-Indians :
[http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritu...](http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-section-66a-unconstritutional/)
(this was actually submitted as
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255170](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9255170)
)

~~~
cmadan
Some handy legends for non-Indian readers

\- Central = Federal

\- There are no juries in India. A "bench" of judges usually decides cases
related to Constitutional Law. This was a bench of 2 judges

\- "court order or a government order for getting content taken down" -> I
might be wrong, but before, an order from the Police was usually sufficient to
block a website

\- Standard 11 student = A High School Junior student

~~~
denzil_correa
> I might be wrong, but before, an order from the Police was usually
> sufficient to block a website

Not really. There is an elaborate procedure to block a website [0]. The police
can't decide it by themselves.

[0] [http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-
websi...](http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-
websites.pdf/)

------
dipeshch
It was the need of the hour. The way it was being misused by thugs was
shameful for the entire country:

[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-
sh...](http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-
due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece)

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Good. Now will the Supreme Court consider re-legalising homosexuality after it
recently re-criminalised it?

------
anuraj
Finally sane voice of the court has reinstated limited democracy and freedom
of speech in India.

------
thisisnotclear
This is very good step by Indian supreme court. Largest democracy of billion
plus people should have all the rights to speak whatever they want online.

------
walshemj
Reforming some of the "Horrific" Employment Laws would be a good next step.

~~~
puranjay
India actually has one of the most protectionist labor laws.

I remember when Nokia wanted to shut down a factory, workers staged
demonstrations. Why? Because Nokia had offered them 18 months severance pay.
They wanted 72 months of severance.

They eventually settled for 36 months

~~~
nostrebored
And you don't find this horrifying? Making it more costly to replace
underperforming employees causes stagnation, apathy, and a level of job
security not tied to how well you do your job. I think that seems less than
optimal.

~~~
avemuri
Subjecting employees who cannot sign their own name to the whims of their
employer is not the solution either. Without unions, working conditions would
be disastrous. Look up the shipbreaking yards of Pakistan or unlicensed coal
mines in India as an example. Most white collar jobs are not unionized, many
blue collar ones are. I think that's ok.

~~~
nostrebored
But asking for 6 years pay (and getting 3? seriously, 3 years of pay, imagine
that) is not the same thing as unionizing. Receiving insane severance has way
more negative externalities than positive benefits. This is the type of system
that makes people expect that they should work for a single employer for their
entire life, which hasn't worked so well for a number of countries in the past
few decades -- just look at NiNi's.

------
lake99
Mods, can you please replace the above link with a direct link to the file
hosted on the Indian Supreme Court's website?

[http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427...](http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf)

~~~
twosheep
Thanks sir/ma'am. Scribd is blocked at my job.

~~~
prateek_mir
here:
[http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wr%2016712p.txt](http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wr%2016712p.txt)

