Tweet Arrest Sparks Protest and a Fightback

Tweet Arrest Sparks Protest and a Fightback is a Hindustan Times article published on 2 November 2012. The report covers the arrest of businessman Ravi Srinivasan in Puducherry following a complaint by Karti Chidambaram over tweets comparing him to Robert Vadra. The case drew sharp criticism from digital rights advocates who questioned the proportionality of criminal prosecution for social media commentary and highlighted concerns about Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

Article Details
Full Text
Context and Background
External Link

Article Details

📰 Published in:: Hindustan Times
📅 Date:: 2 November 2012
📄 Type:: News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:: Read Online

Full Text

A businessman's arrest in Puducherry on charges he defamed Congress' Karti Chidambaram on Twitter, triggered protests from activists who say it hurts freedom of speech.

Ravi Srinivasan has since been released on bail and plans to contest his arrest and 15-day remand.

Karti is the son of finance minister P Chidambaram. "I have a right to seek constitutional/legal remedies over defamatory/scurrilous tweets," he tweeted on Wednesday.

Nirmal Sanjeevi Roy, Karti's lawyer, told a TV channel the tweets comparing Karti with Robert Vadra violated section 66A of the IT Act that says offensive information spread through a computer resource to cause insult can be prosecuted.

"What I tweeted is already in public domain," Srinivasan, who has only 16 followers on Twitter, said. "Insult from a tweet from a person who just has a handful of subscribers cannot be the same as somebody widely followed," said Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society.

Context and Background

This article was published at a time when Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was frequently being used in cases involving online speech and social media activity. The provision was intended to address harmful digital communication, but its broad and imprecise wording had led to concerns about inconsistent and excessive application by law enforcement agencies.

The arrest described in the report drew attention from civil liberties groups and digital rights advocates, who argued that criminal prosecution for online commentary risked undermining freedom of expression. Critics highlighted the difficulty of defining what constituted “offensive” or “annoying” content, and questioned whether such determinations should trigger custodial action, particularly in cases involving limited online reach.

Within this context, the case came to represent wider unease about how emerging digital platforms were being regulated through criminal law. The article situates the incident within an ongoing debate over balancing reputational harm, public order, and constitutional protections for speech in Indias evolving digital environment.