How to Steer Clear of India's Strict Internet Laws

How to Steer Clear of India’s Strict Internet Laws is a blog post published on The New York Times India blog on 20 November 2012, written by Sangeetha Rajeesh and Heather Timmons. The article examines a series of arrests for social media posts, including two women detained for a Facebook comment about a political leader’s death, featuring analysis from Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash on the impossibly broad scope of India’s internet legislation and the lack of clear guidelines for lawful online expression.

Contents

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

Article Details

📰 Published in:
The New York Times (India Blog)
📅 Date:
20 November 2012
👤 Authors:
Sangeetha Rajeesh and Heather Timmons
📄 Type:
Blog Post
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online

Full Text

The arrest of two women in Mumbai for a Facebook post is the latest heavy-handed move by India's government to curb what Indian citizens say on the Internet.

The two women were arrested Sunday under a section of the Indian Penal Code that outlaws spreading "statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes" after one complained about the citywide strike sparked by the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and the second woman "liked" her statement.

But the incident was just the latest in a string of recent arrests, detentions and account suspensions in India over online comments. If you live in India and have an opinion someone might not like, but you don't want to become a target of the law, there's one easy rule you need to follow, experts say: stay off social media.

Right now, "there's nothing one can do but to close up your social media accounts" and stop voicing your opinion on the Internet entirely, if you want to guarantee you won't be arrested in India, said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore. (To be sure, that's not what most free speech advocates recommend that you do. India Ink will soon have more on a social media activist who is fighting India's strict Internet controls.)

Mr. Abraham advises extreme caution because India's free speech rules have been historically weak (read more about India's long history of censorship here), a relatively new Internet law is extremely broadly defined and police and lawmakers themselves are sometimes confused about what the actual rules themselves say.

Late last month, Ravi Srinivasan, a Puducherry businessman and an India Against Corruption volunteer, was arrested for his Twitter post that alleged Karti Chidambaram, the son of Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, had amassed a large amount of wealth. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested Oct. 30 but was later released on bail.

Earlier in October, an associate professor of the National Institute for Fashion Technology in Chennai was arrested after what the Tamil Nadu singer Chinmayi said was a long period of harassment on the Internet, including negative Twitter messages. In August, the Indian government demanded Internet service providers suspend hundreds of Web pages to curb ethnic tension and asked Twitter to suspend accounts parodying government officials. Last year, the central government asked social media companies to prescreen content about India for objectionable remarks.

The key culprits here are revisions to India's Information Technology Act made in 2008 and 2011, experts say, that leave nearly everything that is transmitted via the Internet open to interpretation by nearly everyone who reads it on the Internet. Things that are considered "annoying" and "offensive" can, under the law, land their sender in jail for up to three years.

While some of India's nearly 50 million Facebook users and millions of Twitter users are up in arms about the recent arrests in Mumbai and are sharing the woman's original post, under the theory that the police can't arrest everyone, conservative advocates don't recommend that sort of action on the Internet.

V. Vijaya Baskar, an advocate with Madras High Court practicing civil, criminal and family law for over 10 years, said that there are basic guidelines of free speech behavior that should be followed, even by Internet users. The most important, he said, is to avoid the use of obscene language and pictures, which are considered a direct threat. He also advised against getting into confrontations with people you don't know or recognize on social media.

"If you have a true and verifiable source or documented evidence, then making a public statement is not defamation, but making passing comments of any person, particularly people in public life, will amount to defaming the person and is punishable," he said.

While India's government and law officials sometimes come across as not very tech-savvy, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Center for Internet and Society, said that lawmakers in many countries with a much higher Internet penetration are just as challenged by the Internet. And in India, while the laws are strict, people seldom land in jail for Internet-related offenses, he said.

"The detention law in India, sensibly, defaults to 'bail, not jail,' " he said.

Mr. Prakash said he could not offer any global guidelines to avoid being arrested, and concluded that "each forum has its own rules of etiquette, which cannot be codified or enforced by legislation." Online speech can be disagreed upon and opinions should be made known, since it is only the "natural tendency for people with extreme views to be more vocal online."

Not surprisingly, the authorities in India who have been involved in arrests insist they are just doing their job, and doing it well. The Tamil Nadu police, for example, said they acted appropriately in Mr. Srinivasan's arrest.

R. S. Krishna, inspector general for law and order, told the media that the Puducherry police could not be faulted for filing a First Investigation Report, the precursor to filing charges, against Mr. Srinivasan.

"I am very clear that we have acted purely on the basis of the merit of the complaint, in accordance with the rule of law," he said. "We are right on our part."

Back to Top ⇧

Context and Background

The arrest of two women in Mumbai for a Facebook post about Bal Thackeray’s death—particularly the fact that one woman was detained merely for “liking” another’s comment—crystallised the absurdity and danger of India’s internet laws. The incident triggered nationwide outrage and highlighted how provisions originally intended to combat serious hate speech had devolved into instruments for suppressing legitimate political expression. The women’s subsequent release and the dropping of charges against them, following public pressure, demonstrated both the laws’ misuse and the power of collective resistance.

Sunil Abraham’s stark recommendation that Indians should “close up your social media accounts” to avoid arrest reflected the impossible position citizens faced under the existing legal framework. His counsel wasn’t genuine advice but rather a pointed critique—the only way to guarantee safety was complete silence, an obviously unacceptable outcome in a democracy. This highlighted the chilling effect of vague laws that criminalised speech deemed “annoying” or “offensive,” terms so subjective that virtually any expression could theoretically trigger prosecution.

Abraham’s observation that “police and lawmakers themselves are sometimes confused about what the actual rules themselves say” identified a critical governance failure. When even those charged with enforcing legislation cannot consistently interpret it, citizens have no reasonable way to comply. This confusion enabled arbitrary enforcement, where arrests often reflected political considerations or personal grievances rather than clear legal violations. The Information Technology Act’s provisions, combined with colonial-era sedition and defamation laws, created a thicket of overlapping restrictions that few could navigate safely.

Pranesh Prakash’s more measured perspective—that India’s detention laws defaulted to “bail, not jail”—provided important context about enforcement patterns. Whilst arrests generated headlines and had chilling effects, they rarely resulted in sustained imprisonment. This suggested the legal system retained some checks on abuse, even if initial arrests themselves created harassment and intimidation. His point that lawmakers everywhere struggled with internet regulation acknowledged this wasn’t uniquely an Indian problem, though India’s historically weak free speech protections made the consequences more severe.

The article’s documentation of multiple arrests—for tweeting about political corruption, for online harassment allegations, for parody accounts—illustrated the breadth of content triggering legal action. This pattern revealed how internet laws had become multipurpose tools for silencing critics, harassing activists, and settling personal scores. The August 2012 demands for mass content removal following ethnic tensions, mentioned in the piece, showed how crisis responses could normalise expansive censorship.

The conservative legal advice offered by advocate V. Vijaya Baskar—avoid obscene language, document evidence, don’t confront strangers—whilst practical, tacitly accepted that citizens must self-censor to avoid prosecution. His guidance essentially counselled defensiveness and caution rather than robust expression, itself evidence of the laws’ success in dampening public discourse. The gap between this conservative approach and Prakash’s acknowledgement that “people with extreme views” would naturally be vocal online captured the tension between legal safety and democratic vitality.

📄 This page was created on 14 December 2025. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .