A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law
[This is the first part of a two-part post authored by Abhilash Roy and Hrishikesh Bhise, fourth-year students at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. Click here for Part II ]
The purposes and functions of the internet, as we know it today, have grown manifolds since its inception over thirty years ago. Its importance and use has only grown due to the ongoing pandemic with an estimated 50 to 70% more hits.
[Ed Note: The following post is part of the TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-21. It has been authored by Saumya Khandelwal, a second year student of NALSAR University of Law.]
Recently, a report on the ‘Non-Personal Data Governance Framework’ was released by an expert committee established by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for recommending a framework to regulate Non-Personal Data (‘NPD’). NPD is electronic information that cannot be traced back to an identifiable natural person (learn more about what is data governance here). The committee, believing in the huge potential of data, strove to create a framework to unlock the economic, social and public value of data. One of the objectives of the report is to wipe out the possibility of data monopolies. It aims to create certainty and incentives for innovation to encourage domestic start-ups, spurring digital economy growth. The recommended framework: enabling start-ups/businesses to access meta-data of data-driven businesses and building data marketplaces for easy exchange of data seeks to provide a level-playing field for all Indian actors. The goal of this article would be to show how the draft framework in its present form cannot achieve the aforementioned objective.
[This post has been authored by Raashi Vaishya, a fourth year student at the NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai.]
The sentiment of intermediary liability in India can be felt from the dialogue that transpired between Cleopatra and the messenger who informed her about Antony’s marriage. When Cleopatra threatened to treat the messenger’s eyes as balls, he replied, “Gracious madam, I that do bring the news made not the match.”[1]
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
Jio was recently made a party in a matter regarding adjusted gross revenue (AGR case) between companies in India and the Department of the Telecommunications and other telecom companies in India. The issue was regarding investigation into whether telcos like RCom, Videocon and Aircel wanted to evade paying their dues to the DoT by filing for insolvency. The DoT had decided that Jio was to be made liable for the 31000 crore AGR dues that RCom owed to the Department, since Jio was using RCom’s airwaves as evidenced by a 2016 spectrum sharing agreement. Jio sought to prove that the spectrum was simply leased and that they didn’t have any exclusive use of the spectrum. They further argued that spectrum sharing agreements do not assume a sharing of liabilities for DoT’s AGR dues.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
In an increasingly globalised world, major retail companies like Amazon have reached even the most inaccessible places. The consumers that are exposed to e-commerce companies can only be protected in the presence of increased accountability. The newly issued E-Commerce Rules set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority to police companies that violate consumer rights. Misleading ads and unfair trade practices are prevented as e-retailers have to mandatorily disclose return, refund, warranty, exchange, guarantee, delivery and grievance redressal details. Henceforth, prices of products cannot be manipulated to produce unreasonable profits for companies. These rules apply to retailers either registered in India or abroad.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
Former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya filed a public-interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi to prompt Google, Twitter and Facebook to disclose identities of designated content moderation officers on the basis of the Information Technology Rules. In response, Google submitted that the officers worked with government authorities to remove illegal content. Govindacharya claimed that without disclosure of the officers’ identities, no mechanisms to enforce obligations could not be adequately instituted. However, Google responded by stating that revealing the identities of officers would jeopardize their capacity to work efficiently with the government, as they would be exposed to public scrutiny and criticism.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced in a press release on 29th June that it had invoked its powers under section 69A of the Information Technology Act to ban 59 Chinese applications. The Indian government cited ‘raging concerns on aspects relating to data security and safeguarding the privacy of 130 crore Indians’ as reasons behind the ban. The move comes after a border skirmish with China resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers. Regardless of the cybersecurity concerns cited in the press release, speculation remains rife over whether the ban was a retaliatory measure in light of the worsening geopolitical situation between India and China. India is a huge market for Chinese apps, particularly for the video-sharing platform Tik-Tok which had previously been banned in February 2019 for encouraging the spread of pornography and ‘cultural degradation’. The ban was ultimately lifted after assurances by Tik-Tok that it had the tools to censor explicit content. The current ban has been called a purely political decision and criticised for its procedural impropriety and its excessive restriction on dissemination of online content.
[This post has been authored by Harshit Goyal, currently in his 3rd year at National Law School of India University, Bangalore.]
Imagine that you get to know about a cryptocurrency that had been launched recently and has been selling like hotcakes. The price of this token has been on a steep rise, and thus, you also decide to invest a dear amount in it. How will you feel if the value of this cryptocurrency plummets the very next day to rock bottom? Worse, how will you feel if you get to know that the law had done absolutely nothing to prevent such a situation?
[This post has been authored by Mohd Rameez Raza (Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow) and Raj Shekhar (NUSRL, Ranchi).]
The Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in day to day working, access to information, and most important facilitating active citizen participation in building strong democratic societies. Relying on the same belief, the Kerala High Court, in its monumental, decision has held ‘Right to Internet Access’ as a fundamental right. Thus, making the right to have access to Internet part of ‘Right to Education’ as well as ‘Right to Privacy’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.