Facebook, Google Face Censorship in India

Facebook, Google Face Censorship in India is a ZDNet news article by Betwa Sharma, published on 5 January 2012. The piece reports on Indian court orders requiring Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and 19 other websites to remove “anti-religious” material, and examines whether the promotion of religious harmony is being used as a cover for broader internet censorship. Sunil Abraham is quoted arguing that IP rights holders and governments are finding common cause in pushing for surveillance and filtering technologies.

Contents

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

Article Details

📰 Published in:
ZDNet
📅 Date:
5 January 2012
👤 Author:
Betwa Sharma
📄 Type:
News
📰 Publication Link:
Read Online

Full Text

Indian court says Facebook and Google pose threat to religious harmony but activists say government is trying to censor the internet.

DELHI — Religious leaders in India are on a collision course with social media websites including Google, Facebook and Yahoo. Two Indian courts recently asked these American companies as well as 19 other websites to take down "anti-religious" material. They are now required to report their compliance by February.

Information technology minister Kapil Sibal also met with a delegation of different faith groups who are worried that certain internet content could lead to communal discord. India's 1.2 billion people are made up of majority Hindus but it also has the third largest population of Muslims as well as large number of Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and other faiths.

India has an estimated 100 million internet users — the third largest in the world after U.S and China. The proposed restrictions are not at all comparable to China's but is the internet free enough for the world's largest democracy?

Some observers are suspicious that promoting religious or social harmony is a front for censoring the internet. Sunil Abraham, head of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said that "traditional intellectual property rights holders like movie studios, music companies and software vendors are trying to protect their obsolete business models by pushing for the adoption of blanket surveillance and filtering technologies."

"They have found common cause with both totalitarian and so-called democratic regimes across the world interested in protecting the political status-quo after upheavals like the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous and the Pirate Party," he said.

The Indian government has tried to reassure the public that it is not trying to censor. Google's Transparency Report, however, recorded that out of the 358 items requested to be removed by the Indian government from Jan–June 2011, 255 had to do with government criticism and only a handful with hate speech.

Sibal has also been speaking to executives from Facebook, Yahoo and Google in India. But no agreement has been reached on taking down hate speech. New rules, issued in April, require internet intermediaries like Facebook and Yahoo to check for "unlawful" material and take it down.

CIS will soon be releasing a report called "Intermediary Liability in India: Chilling Effects on Free Expression on the Internet 2011." For the report, CIS conducted a sting operation by sending flawed takedown notices to seven intermediaries. The results showed that six intermediaries over-complied with the notices. "From the responses from the intermediaries don't have sufficient legal competence or unwilling to dictate resources to determine legality of an online expression," Abraham said.

"Various pretexts like national security, protection of children, crackdown on online crime and terrorism, defense against cyber war etc are used to compromise civil liberties and clamp down on freedom of expression," he added.

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

This article was published at the height of the 2011–2012 controversy over India’s intermediary liability rules and government requests to social media platforms to remove content. Sunil Abraham’s framing is notable: he situates the censorship push not merely as a government overreach but as a convergence of interests between the content industry seeking to protect legacy business models and governments seeking political control after the Arab Spring.

The CIS intermediary liability report referenced in the article was a significant piece of empirical research showing that platforms were over-complying with legally flawed takedown notices, producing a chilling effect on free expression beyond what the law actually required.

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