Centre for Internet and Society

KEI Side Talk Events

praskrishna — 2015-01-08T02:47:44Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/kei-side-talk-events.pdf

Kavita Philip

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T15:57:53Z

Kavita Philip

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/KavitaPhilip.jpeg

Kavita Philip

praskrishna — 2012-10-04T15:27:33Z

Kavita Philip

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Kavita.jpg

Kavita Philip

praskrishna — 2014-08-26T08:16:24Z

Kavita Philip is Associate Professor at UC Irvine’s Program in Women’s Studies. Her research interests are in technology in the developing world; transnational histories of science and technology; gender, race, globalization and post-colonialism; environmental history; and new media theory.

Her essays have appeared in the journals Cultural Studies, Postmodern Culture, NMediaC, Radical History Review, and Environment and History. She is author of Civilizing Natures (2003 and 2004), and co-editor of the volumes Constructing Human Rights in the Age of Globalization (with Monshipouri, Englehart, and Nathan, 2003), Multiple Contentions (with Skotnes, 2003), Homeland Securities (with Reilly and Serlin, 2005), and Tactical Biopolitics (with da Costa, 2008). Her work in progress includes a monograph entitled Proper Knowledge,on technology and property.

Books and Edited Volumes

Civilizing Natures: Race, Resources and Modernity in Colonial South India
Rutgers University Press (U. S. edition) 2003; Orient Longman (Asia/UK edition) 2004
Tactical Biopolitics: Art, Activism, and Technoscience. B. da Costa and K. Philip, editors, Boston: MIT Press, 2008
Homeland Securities, K. Philip, D. Serlin, E. Reilly, editors, Radical History Review, Issue 93 (Durham: Duke University Press), Fall 2005 [Awarded “Best Special Issue” prize for 2005 by the Council of Editors of Learned Journals].
Multiple Contentions, K. Philip and Andor Skotnes, eds., Radical History Review (Durham: Duke University Press), Issue 88, Winter 2004.
Constructing Human Rights in the Age of Globalization, co-edited by Mahmood Monshipouri, Neil Englehart, Andrew Nathan, Kavita Philip, M. E. Sharpe, 2003

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/about/people/kavita-philip

Kavita Philip

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T05:36:39Z

Kavita Philip

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/kavita.png

Kavita

praskrishna — 2013-12-26T06:37:06Z

Kavita

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Kavita.png

Kaushik Signature

praskrishna — 2012-12-04T03:22:09Z

AK Kaushik

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Sign.png

Katak Community Meetup

praskrishna — 2013-04-26T05:42:47Z

Odia Wikipedia Community in Cuttack

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Katak.png

Kashmir: Telecom firms struggle to block 22 banned social media sites

praskrishna — 2017-05-04T02:29:04Z

A BSNL official says engineers are still working on shutting down the 22 social media sites but so far had been unable to do so without freezing the Internet across Kashmir.

The article by Aijaz Hussain was published in Livemint on May 4, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The government has banned 22 social media sites in an effort to calm tensions in parts of the disputed region of Kashmir, after several viral videos depicting the alleged abuse of Kashmiris by Indian law enforcement fuelled protests. But the sites remained online Thursday morning as the local telecom company struggled to block them.

The government said on Wednesday that the restrictions, to be in effect for one month, were necessary for public safety. “It’s being felt that continued misuse of social networking sites and instant messaging services is likely to be detrimental to the interests of peace and tranquillity in the state,” the public order reads.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director for the Indian advocacy group the Centre for Internet and Society, called the ban a “blow to freedom of speech” and “legally unprecedented in India.”

An official with Kashmir’s state-owned telecom company, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), said engineers were still working on shutting down the 22 sites, including Facebook and Twitter, but so far had been unable to do so without freezing the internet across the Himalayan region. The official spoke on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to give technical details of the effort to the media.

Meanwhile, 3G and 4G cellphone service has been suspended for more than a week, but the slower 2G service was still running.

Residents in Srinagar, the region’s main city, were busily downloading documents, software and applications onto their smartphones, which would likely be able to circumvent the social media block once it goes into effect. Many expressed relief to still have internet access Thursday morning.

“It was a welcome surprise,” said Tariq Ahmed, a 24-year-old university student. “It appears they’ve hit a technical glitch to block social media en mass.”

While the government has halted internet service in Kashmir in previous attempts to prevent anti-India demonstrations, this is the first time they have done so in response to the circulation of videos and photos showing alleged military abuse.

Others mocked the government. One Facebook post by Kashmiri writer Arif Ayaz Parrey said that the ban showed “the Indian government has decided to take on the collective subversive wisdom of cyberspace humanity.”

Kashmiris have been uploading videos and photos of alleged abuse for some years, but several recently posted clips, captured in the days surrounding a violence-plagued local election 9 April, have proven to be especially powerful and have helped to intensify anti-India protests.

One video shows a stone-throwing teenage boy being shot by a soldier from a few metres (yards) away. Another shows soldiers making a group of young men, held inside an armoured vehicle, shout profanities against Pakistan while a soldier kicks and slaps them with a stick. The video pans to a young boy’s bleeding face as he cries. Yet another clip shows three soldiers holding a teenage boy down with their boots and beating him on his back.

The video that drew the most outrage was of young shawl weaver Farooq Ahmed Dar tied to the hood of an army jeep as it patrolled villages on voting day. A soldier can be heard saying in Hindi over a loudspeaker, “Stone throwers will meet a similar fate,” as residents look on aghast.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-may-4-2017-aijaz-hussain-kashmir-telecom-firms-struggle-to-block-22-banned-social-media-sites

Kashmir

praskrishna — 2015-07-21T15:34:32Z

Kashmir

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Kashmir.png

Karuna Nandy

praskrishna — 2015-03-29T00:45:50Z

Karuna Nundy

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Karuna.png

Karti Chidambaram

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:33:44Z

Karti

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/karti.jpg

Karti

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:32:24Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_KapilSibalPressBriefing1.png

Karti

praskrishna — 2012-11-19T03:33:15Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_KapilSibalPressBriefing1.png

Karthikeyan R v Union of India

praskrishna — 2012-01-18T11:51:59Z

The court refused to direct the government to take proactive steps to curb access to Internet pornography stating that such matters require case-by-case analysis to be constitutionally valid under Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :01-04-2010
CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
WRIT PETITION NO.20344 OF 2009 and M.P.No.l of 2009

Karthikeyan. R.
Advocate .. Petitioner
Vs.

Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan,
20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,No.6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
The Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
New Delhi.
State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Information Technology,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch,
Egmore, Chennai 8.
The Central Bureau of Investigation,
Rep. by its Director,
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003.
Internet Service Provider's Association of India,
612-A, Chiranjiv Tower,
43, Nehru Place,
New Delhi 110 019.
Google India Private Limited,
No.3, RM2 Infinity Tower-E,
Old Madras Road,
Bangalore 560 016.
Yahoo Web Services India Private Limited,
801, Nicholas Piramal Towers,
Peninsula Corporate Park,
Lower Prel, Mumbai 400 013.
Microsoft Corporation India Private Ltd.,
Tower-A, DLF Cyber Greens,
DLF Cyber Citi, Sector 25A,
Gurgaon 122 002.
Rediff.com India Limited,
Mahalaxmi Engineering Estate,
L.J. Road No.1, Mahim (West),
Mumbai 400 016. .. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.

For Petitioner: Mr.P.T. Perumal

For Respondents 1 to 5: Mr.J. Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor General of India

For Respondents 6 & 7 : Mr. G. Desingu, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 8: Mr. N. Chandrasekaran, Special Govt. Pleader

For Respondent 10: Mr. G. Balasubramanian for M/s. Poovayya & Co.

Respondents 9,11 to l3: No Appearance

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed in public interest for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith formulate censor rules and regulations and appoint a regulatory body to strictly enforce those rules monitoring online publications in internet, prohibiting obscene and pornographic publications and penalising the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and search engine companies for offences and violations of licence conditions committed by them.
Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5, the learned Assistant Solicitor General by placing reliance upon a recent unreported decision of the Mumbai High Court in Janhit Manch and Others v. Union of India IPI1 No. 155 of 2009), disposed of on 3.3.2010, submitted that the prayer in the writ petition before the Mumbai High Court is very much similar to the present writ petition and, as has been observed in the said decision, the present writ petition may also be disposed of.
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. In the said decision, the prayer made by the petitioners therein was to direct the respondents therein to make co-ordinated and sustained efforts, to have a blanket ban on websites which according to them are displaying material pertaining to sex and harmful to the youth of the country. The Division Bench, after hearing the contentions made on either side, observed as follows :

"By the present petition what the petitioner seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained efforts to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament, in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Courts in such matters, the guardian of the freedom of free speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved depending on the sensibilities of persons whose views may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint.

In the light of that we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. If the petitioner comes across any website/s which according to him publishes or transmits any act which amounts to offence under section 67 or 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it is upto him to file a complaint.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
From the facts of the Janhit Manch case and the observations made therein, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio of the said decision squarely applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present writ petition the relief sought for by the petitioner is to strictly enforce the rules monitoring online publications in internet and punish the persons violating such rules, which is indirectly made in the Janhit Manch case. Therefore, applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the present writ petition is disposed of. Moreover, we make it clear that if any complaint is made against the publishing or transmitting any obscene or pornographic publications, necessary steps should be taken by the respondents in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

With the above observations, Petition disposed of."
Sd/
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst.Registrar

The Secretary,
Union of India,
Department of Telecommunications,
Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
Department of Information Technology,
Electronics Niketan,
No.6, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi 110 003
The Secretary,
Department of Legal Affairs,
4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110 001.
The Secretary,
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of Indie,
Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,
Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,New Delhi 110 002.
The Secretary,
Department of Women and Child Development,
New Delhi.
The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Ministry of Information Technology,
Secretariat, Chennai 9.
The Asst. Commissioner of Police,
Cyber Crime Wing, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai 8.
The Director
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Block No.3, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.

1 cc To M/s.P.T.Perumal i E.Bdwing, Advocates, SR.22010

1 cc To Mr.J.Ravindran, Asst.Solicitor, SR.22034

1 cc To M/s.Poovayya & Co., Advocates, SR.22221

1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.21929

W.P.No.20344/2009
GR(CO)

srs 15/04/2010

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/r-karthikeyan-v-union-of-india