The legal team at IFF works tirelessly to safeguard digital rights, leading critical battles against arbitrary internet shutdowns, online censorship, invasive media regulations, threats to end-to-end encryption, and the unchecked deployment of facial recognition technology. In 2024, we expanded our horizons—engaging with Constitutional Courts, and tribunals across India––holding the State and Big Tech accountable for their actions.
This year brought victories along with some setbacks, reinforcing our philosophy that strategic litigation is both a sprint and a marathon. Some fights demand rapid responses—overnight drafting and urgent court filings—while others are slow-burning battles, requiring persistence and the resilience to keep pressing forward.
There are days when we return to the office with the glow of a hard-earned win, and others when we carry the weight of loss. But each day, we recommit to the fight with even greater resolve. If our mission resonates with you, we urge you to support us. Our work is collaborative, made possible by a network of brilliant, like-minded lawyers contributing countless pro bono hours, courageous litigants entrusting us with their causes, and, most of all, you—our members. Your belief in us fuels our fight to protect digital liberties and ensure a freer, fairer digital space for all.
2024 in numbers
IT Rules 2023 Struck Down as Unconstitutional by the Bombay High Court
- On April 6, 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) released the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 (IT Amendment Rules, 2023), which included a provision allowing a “fact check unit of the Central Government” (“FCU”) to deem any online content related to “any business of the Central Government” as false or misleading and require it to be removed from the internet. This introduced a troubling dynamic: the Central Government assumed sole authority to determine the veracity of information about itself, creating a direct conflict of interest. Intermediaries that fail to comply risk losing their safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, exposing them to liability for user-generated content. This regulatory framework raises significant concerns about censorship, accountability, and the chilling effect on free expression in the digital domain.
- IFF’s Response: IFF assisted two petitioners—satirist Kunal Kamra and the Association of Indian Magazines (AIM)—in challenging the IT Rules 2023 before the Bombay High Court. The court delivered a split verdict, and during the pendency of the challenge, the Union Government gave an undertaking not to operationalise the FCU, effectively staying its operation. On 31 January 2024, Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Goakhale delivered a split verdict. The matter was subsequently referred to a third judge. However, after the split verdict, the government did not extend this undertaking indefinitely.
- IFF, on behalf of AIM, filed an interim relief application before the Bombay High Court to prevent the notification of the FCU, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Union Government notified the Press Information Bureau (PIB) as the FCU. IFF then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which stayed the government notification, citing a prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. The Supreme Court directed that the stay would remain until the Bombay High Court delivered its final verdict.
- The substantive challenge was referred to the third judge––Justice Chandurkar, who held the IT Rules unconstitutional for violating the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
- Impact: This case is a rare instance where a law was struck down for unconstitutionally infringing upon freedom of speech and expression, reinforcing the limits on state regulation of digital spaces and protecting individual rights.
CCI imposes a landmark ₹213.14 crore penalty on Meta for abusing its dominant position through WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy.
- In 2021, WhatsApp introduced an invasive privacy policy, leveraging its dominance in India’s messaging market. While alternatives like Signal and Telegram exist, WhatsApp remains the primary choice for most Indians, leaving users with limited alternatives. Dominance, however, cannot justify impunity. The Competition Commission of India (CCI), as a market regulator, plays a crucial role in preventing dominant entities from imposing unfair conditions on users.
- IFF’s Response: In October 2021, IFF submitted expert information to the CCI’s suo moto investigation into WhatsApp’s anti-competitive practices. Our submission highlighted how WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy enabled data sharing with Facebook Inc. (now Meta) and its subsidiaries, raising concerns of abuse of dominance. This was IFF’s first matter before the CCI.
- Impact: The CCI imposed a penalty of ₹213.14 crore (approximately $25.25 million) on Meta for exploiting its dominance through WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy. By holding Meta accountable, the CCI established a significant precedent for protecting user privacy and ensuring fair competition, reinforcing that tech giants cannot exploit their market power at the expense of the fundamental rights of users.
Supreme Court Mandates Publication of Internet Shutdown Review Committee Orders
- In May 2020, the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP), one of the original petitioners in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, approached the Supreme Court seeking the restoration of 4G mobile internet services. The Court constituted a Special Committee to review the 4G mobile internet ban and consider less restrictive alternatives. However, the lack of public information on the committee’s functioning and the issuance of unreviewed suspension orders post-judgment raised significant concerns about transparency and compliance.
- IFF’s Response: IFF filed a miscellaneous application in 2020 on behalf of the Foundation for Media Professionals seeking transparency regarding the publication of orders of the Review Committee passed in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
- Impact: The Supreme Court through a final order mandated the publication of all Review Committee orders on internet suspensions, setting a vital precedent for transparency and accountability. This landmark ruling ensures that the committee’s functioning remains open and accessible to the public, limiting the indiscriminate and unjustified use of powers to impose internet shutdowns.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice in India’s First User-Led Challenge to Social Media Account Blocking
- Hindutva Watch is a research initiative documenting hate speech and hate crimes against marginalized communities in India. Its X/Twitter account actively shared news reports and documented human rights violations targeting minority communities. In January 2024, the account was arbitrarily blocked in India without prior notice, a hearing, or a blocking order.
- IFF’s Response: IFF filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the founder of Hindutva Watch, challenging the wholesale account blocking as a disproportionate restriction on freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and an unconstitutional prior restraint. The petition argued that the blocking order violated natural justice, disregarded the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and failed to comply with Section 69A of the IT Act, the 2009 Blocking Rules, and the proportionality test.
- Impact: The Delhi High Court issued notice in what is the only legal challenge before constitutional courts by a user contesting the wholesale blocking of their account. This case has the potential to set a critical precedent for safeguarding free speech, ensuring accountability in government-mandated content restrictions, and upholding the right to access information.
Delhi High Court Issues Notice on Challenge to Wholesale Blocking of Websites Documenting Hate Crimes and Hate Speech
- Hindutva Watch and India Hate Lab are research initiatives documenting hate speech and hate crimes against marginalized communities in India. In January 2024, MeitY directed the wholesale blocking of both websites without providing an adequate hearing—either prior to or after the blocking—or furnishing copies of the blocking orders.
- IFF’s Response: IFF filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on behalf of the founder of Hindutva Watch and India Hate Lab, challenging the wholesale blocking of the websites. The petition argued that the blocking violated principles of natural justice, failed to comply with the procedural safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act, and constituted a disproportionate restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Impact: The Delhi High Court issued notice in a challenge to the wholesale blocking of websites documenting hate crimes and hate speech. This case could set a significant precedent for limiting executive overreach in online censorship, strengthening free speech protections, and ensuring transparency and accountability in the regulation of digital content.
You Win Some, You Lose Some: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to the Constitutional Validity of CPIA
- On April 18, 2022, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, was enacted, replacing the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. The new legislation vests law enforcement authorities with extensive powers to collect, indefinitely retain, and share sensitive personal data of “convicts and others”, significantly broadening the scope of its predecessor. These provisions have raised grave concerns regarding privacy, arbitrary state action, and disproportionate surveillance.
- IFF’s Response: IFF, in collaboration with the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project, filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, and its corresponding Rules. The petition argued that the Act and Rules infringed fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to privacy, by enabling arbitrary and disproportionate state surveillance. It further contended that the provisions failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice and violated the standards of necessity, proportionality, and procedural safeguards required for the legitimate exercise of state power.
- Impact: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court was not inclined to hear the matter and dismissed the petition, and it granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate High Court for relief.
Looking Ahead to 2025!
Advocacy doesn’t guarantee immediate victories, but every effort contributes to a larger fight for justice. We take setbacks in our stride, learning and evolving from each experience. One key lesson is that outcomes may not always be immediate, but persistence pays off.
In 2025, we will prioritise advancing our existing cases to fruition while initiating new, strategic challenges across constitutional courts and tribunals. Our efforts will focus on addressing emerging threats, particularly the harms posed by invasive technologies like artificial intelligence, which include intensified surveillance, breaches of privacy, and impacts on welfare entitlements. With a targeted emphasis on safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms, we will broaden our docket to include cases ensuring transparency and accountability in the design and deployment of these technologies, aligning them with constitutional principles. Additionally, we will intensify our work to protect press freedom, scaling up efforts to counter censorship, intimidation, and legal harassment faced by journalists and media organisations.
Our work is driven by a multi-faceted strategy that integrates legal action, public advocacy, expert collaboration, policy engagement, and RTI-based accountability. As technology continues to reshape society, judicial intervention remains a cornerstone of our efforts to safeguard individual rights. We invite you to share your feedback and priorities for 2025 by writing to us at [email protected].
Together, we can continue to push the boundaries of digital rights advocacy!
