Cordon Tightens: Rajya Sabha Nod to Harsh IT Rules

Cordon Tightens: Rajya Sabha Nod to Harsh IT Rules is a DNA India report by Anil Sharma and Aishhwariya Subramanian, published on 18 May 2012. The article covers the Rajya Sabha debate on the statutory motion to annul the intermediary rules of the Information Technology Act, and quotes Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash, both of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), on the top-down nature of India’s internet policy and the contradiction between India’s domestic censorship posture and its stated international positions.

Contents

  1. Article Details
  2. Full Text
  3. Context and Background

Article Details

📰 Published in:
DNA India
📅 Date:
18 May 2012
👤 Author:
Anil Sharma and Aishhwariya Subramanian
📄 Type:
News Report
🔗 Newspaper Link:
Not available

Full Text

The draconian intermediaries rules of the Information Technology Act that allows the government to aggressively police the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter will continue for some more time as a motion to annul them in the Rajya Sabha was defeated by the treasury benches on Thursday.

The rules that came into effect last year almost became annulled after a determined push from MPs cutting across party lines in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday. However, the government barely managed to scrape through but union communications and IT minister Kapil Sibal conceded that there were problems and promised to call for a meeting to address the concerns of the MPs.

CPI(M) Rajya Sabha member from Kerala P Rajeeve had moved a statutory motion demanding that these rules be annulled as they violated the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression. Rajeeve received enthusiastic support from the leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, who made a detailed argument against the existing rules. An impressed Jaitley commended Rajeeve for involving Parliament in the process of framing the rules. Jaitley also slammed the government for trying to police the internet but stressed that like other media this could not be controlled. "In fact, if the internet had been there at that time even the Emergency would have been a fiasco," he said.

The members were keen that the motion be put to vote and the numbers in the Rajya Sabha were loaded against the government.

However, responding to Jaitley's suggestion, Sibal assured the house that the concerns of the members would be taken on board. "I request the members to write to me with their specific suggestions. I will take up the matter at a joint meeting with all the stakeholders and arrive at a solution," he said.

This pacified the members and the government ducked a potentially embarrassing situation.

Expressing his dissatisfaction with the minister's reply, Rajeeve stressed that just as there is a provision for withdrawing objectionable content from the internet within 36 hours, there should be scope for restoring it if the original author can justify it.

The debate was keenly followed by free speech activists who have been lobbying for months to get these draconian rules annulled. The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) also conducted a major sting operation to prove how absurd these rules are. They sent several fake "take-down notices" to several companies hosting internet sites. The companies went ahead and shut down some blogs and web sites without even bothering to check if the complaints had any merit.

"The trouble with Indian government's proposal to address issues such as network neutrality, privacy and freedom of expression, is top-down. Unlike other countries where internet policies have always been developed with consultation with other stakeholders, here the government imposes its will," said Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS.

Netizens are concerned about India's bad track record when it comes to censorship and a policy for the internet. Delhi-based Anja Kovacks, from the Internet Democracy Project, feels that many of the concerns voiced by Indian government are justified. "Undoubtedly the internet presents a range of new challenges, in India as elsewhere, that need to be addressed. Many of the concerns the Indian government expresses are therefore also completely justified. But the ways in which it seeks to tackle these problems are not appropriate for a democratic nation." Kovacks believes that the current policy will impair the freedom of speech.

Ironically, while the UPA government is busy clamping down on domestic opinion, it is planning to take a far more liberal stand at an upcoming international conference on running the internet in Geneva later this year. "It is an ironical situation where India is not following domestically what it is proposing internationally," said Pranesh Prakash of CIS.

With the government holding on to its draconian rules, citizens using social networks like Twitter and Facebook or writing blogs will now have to worry about big brother watching over their shoulders.

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

The article was published on 18 May 2012, following the Rajya Sabha vote on P Rajeeve’s statutory motion to annul the IT Act intermediary rules. The motion was ultimately defeated, but the debate marked a significant moment in parliamentary engagement with internet freedom issues in India.

The article references CIS’s sting operation on intermediary take-down compliance, which had been conducted in the weeks prior to the debate and had demonstrated that hosting companies were removing content without verifying whether complaints had any merit.

📄 This page was created on 11 May 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .