Campaign Against Curbs on Websites Gathers Steam

Campaign Against Curbs on Websites Gathers Steam is a News18 article published on 23 April 2012. The report examines how intermediary liability rules under India’s Information Technology Act enabled easy website takedowns, prompting activists to launch the ‘Save Your Voice’ campaign. It details research by the Centre for Internet and Society demonstrating vulnerabilities in content moderation frameworks.

Contents

  1. Article Details
  2. Full Text
  3. Context and Background
  4. External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:
News18 (curated from The New Indian Express)
📅 Date:
23 April 2012
📄 Type:
News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online

Full Text

CHENNAI: For political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and his blogger-cum-journalist friend Alok Dixit, who both ran a website against corruption, a tryst with the blind side of law triggered their mission against "gagging" of the new-age Indian Internet user. It all started when they were in Mumbai, taking part in the first public protest seeking a strong Lokpal led by social activist Anna Hazare. "During the course of the protest, we got word that our website had been taken off," recalls Alok. The Mumbai Police had banned the website without any prior notice, apparently after a complaint was filed by a Congress leader that some content on the site, CartoonsAgainstCorruption, was objectionable, he says.

"We then contacted Bigrocks, the domain provider, but they did not divulge the exact procedure to restore our website," he adds. Kerala High Court lawyer P Jacob, who has a masters in cyber law and is a researcher in the field, clarifies. "Let's say that you are a website, blog or domain owner... As per the intermediary rules incorporated into the IT laws, introduced through an amendment in 2011, if a third person sends a complaint, be it a frivolous one, to you (the intermediary) about some objectionable content, you will have to take off the said content within 36 hours."

This could happen to anyone and could be quite dangerous, points out Sunil Abraham, the executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS-India). "If a company wants to target your organization's social media network, they can keep sending fraudulent emails to you and you will have to keep deleting it unless you are ready to face litigation or government action. And then there is no penalty for abusing the provision. There is no transparency, the people who comment will not be told," says Sunil.

It was this realization that drove Alok, who then quit his job as a reporter, and Aseem Trivedi to start a movement against such blind curbs. 'Save Your Voice' was thus born. A research conducted by the CIS gave further credence to their fears that it was very "easy to ban any website in India."

"We call it a policy sting operation," details Sunil. "We sent out fraudulent take-down notices (or complaints) to seven of the largest intermediaries in India. They gladly over-complied and promptly took off the material in question. You can try this. You could look at a legitimate comment and complain that this is blasphemous, offensive or plain annoying. And without questioning your locus standi, the intermediary sites will have to take it off."

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

This article appeared during a contentious period in Indian internet governance. The 2011 amendments to the Information Technology Act introduced intermediary liability provisions requiring platforms to remove content within 36 hours of receiving complaints. Critics argued these rules lacked safeguards against abuse and created a framework for censorship without judicial oversight.

The ‘Save Your Voice’ campaign emerged after activists experienced arbitrary website blocking during the 2011 India Against Corruption movement. The Centre for Internet and Society’s research highlighted systemic flaws by demonstrating that intermediaries would remove content based on fraudulent complaints without verifying legitimacy or notifying affected users.

The concerns outlined in the report reflected early warnings about how intermediary liability rules could be misused to suppress online expression. At the time of publication, these issues were beginning to draw wider attention from civil society groups, lawyers, and researchers working on digital rights and internet governance in India.

📄 This page was created on 30 January 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .