AUTHOR: P. NAGA LASYA SRI, CHRIST ACADEMY INSTITUTE OF LAW.
ABSTRACT
This blog explores the growing legal framework controlling internet publishing in India, with a particular focus on the Anuraag Mittal v. Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd. (2020) case. The decision emphasizes that defamatory words shared and circulated online can result in civil and criminal liability, while digital evidence—such as screenshots and internet records—is considered valid in court.
Digital evidence, such as screenshots and online records, is considered valid in court. In this context, the blog examines key Supreme Court judgments such as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, all of which define constitutional guarantees for online speech, privacy, and internet access. Through a broad approach, this blog provides practical advice for bloggers and platform management, highlighting the importance of openness, record-keeping, and proactive compliance with developing regulations such as the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. The research, which combines landmark decisions and specific actions, prepares online publishers to balance expressive freedoms with increased obligations in India’s evolving digital environment.
TO THE POINT
The Anuraag Mittal case shows clearly that defamatory words and statements made online, whether they are originally posted by the individual, simply shared or republished by others, or otherwise published in online forums, can subject the affected individual to both civil and criminal penalties under relevant law.
This case also highlights that defamatory words and statements made online—whether originally posted, shared, or republished in digital forums—can expose both the publisher and others sharing the content to civil and criminal liability under Indian law. The court emphasized that digital evidence (like screenshots and internet records) is valid in proceedings, and that online publishers need to keep accurate records, provide clarifications, and review user-generated content before amplifying it. The judgement underscores the need for diligence from all digital intermediaries in India’s evolving legal landscape regarding defamation, privacy, and data protection.
-THE PROOF
Navigating India’s complex legal landscape requires a proactive approach. The following tables provide a consolidated view of key legal principles and a checklist for actionable steps.
Case Name
Year
Core Legal Principle Established
Specific Impact on Bloggers
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
2015
Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act; established parity between online and offline speech.
Protected against vague laws, ensuring freedom of online expression and dissent.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India
2020
Internet access as an integral part of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
Guaranteed the right to access the internet as a medium of publication; challenged arbitrary internet shutdowns.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
2017
Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Established the need for a privacy policy and careful handling of user data to comply with the DPDP Act.
Key Defamation Cases (e.g., Anuraag Mittal)
Various
Online content (screenshots, digital traces) is admissible as evidence in court.
Highlights the significant risk of legal liability for publishing defamatory content and the need to document all legal interactions.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
This blog applies particular legal language to identify the rights and duties of online publishers.
• Defamation is the act of making false statements that hurt someone’s or an entity’s reputation. It might be a civil wrong (tort) for which compensation can be asked for, or a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment or fine.
• Tort refers to a civil wrong that causes loss or harm, resulting in legal liability.
In the Anuraag Mittal v. Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd (2020) case, defamatory words or statements circulated online (whether originally posted, shared, or republished) were found to be actionable under both civil (tort) and criminal law. This shows that online defamation constitutes a tort—a civil wrong causing harm or loss—making platforms and individuals legally liable for reputational damage.
Intermediary: A legal term for online platforms such as social media sites, search engines, and blogs that host content generated by third parties.
Flipkart, as an online intermediary platform, hosted content generated or shared by users. Under Indian law, intermediaries like Flipkart have legal responsibilities to monitor and remove defamatory content once officially notified. The case underscored that intermediaries must act responsibly and maintain accurate records of published materials to avoid liability.
Safe Harbour Principle: A legal provision, codified under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, that protects intermediaries from liability for defamatory content posted by their users. However, this protection is lost if they fail to remove the content after receiving an official notice.
The Safe Harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, shields intermediaries from liability for defamatory content posted by users only if they act promptly to remove content after receiving official notice. In this case, if Flipkart failed to remove the defamatory content after the notice, it would lose the Safe Harbour protection and become liable for defamation.
Right to be Forgotten (RTBF): An emerging legal concept that empowers an individual to seek the de-indexing or erasure of their personal data from the internet under specific circumstances, even if the information is factually true.
The RTBF concept, part of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, empowers individuals to seek removal or de-indexing of personal data under certain conditions. While not directly cited in the Anuraag Mittal case, the responsible management of online content and personal data underlines the broader legal duties intermediaries and online publishers have regarding privacy and reputational rights, reinforcing their need for careful content moderation.
CASE LAWS
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India directly challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. This provision criminalized sending any “grossly offensive” or “menacing” information through a computer. The subjective and vague language of the law had a palpable “chilling effect” on online expression, leading to arrests for what were often dissenting political opinions. The Supreme Court, in a watershed moment, struck down Section 66A in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional. The court’s rationale was that laws restricting free speech must be “precise, unambiguous, and necessary”. This judgment established the crucial principle that online speech is on par with offline speech and is protected by the same constitutional safeguards.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)
The 2017 judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling has direct implications for bloggers who collect any form of user data, such as email addresses or comments. The court’s recognition of “informational privacy”—the right to control personal data—created a constitutional imperative for legislative action, leading to the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. As a direct result, bloggers now have a legal obligation to have a robust privacy policy and ensure user data is collected and processed with “free, specific, and informed consent”.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the indefinite internet shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. The court’s ruling established that the freedom of expression and the freedom to practice any profession, trade, or business over the internet are part of the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. This was a pivotal declaration, as it meant that internet access—the very medium of online expression—is a protected right. While the government can suspend internet services, an indefinite shutdown is illegal and must be justified by the tests of necessity and proportionality, be made public, and have a temporal limit.
CONCLUSION
The Anuraag Mittal case clearly establishes online defamation as a real issue for digital manufacturers and intermediaries. The admissibility of digital evidence has lowered the standard for proving damage and responsibility, requiring caution for all internet users, particularly bloggers and content hosts. The case adds to the chain of constitutional judgments—Shreya Singhal (free expression), Anuradha Bhasin (internet access), and Puttaswamy (privacy)—by defining the line between acceptable speech and harmful expression in the digital age.
FAQ
Q: Is my blog automatically protected by copyright in India?
A: Yes. According to the Copyright Act of 1957, any original work or creation, including a blog, is immediately protected the moment it is created. While not required, registering a copyright might make it easier to pursue legal action against infringement because it provides as prima facie evidence of ownership.
Q: Can I be held accountable for posting or sharing defamatory content?
A: Yes. According to the Delhi High Court, “retweeting defamatory content amounts to defamation”. Amplifying a post can be interpreted as portraying the content as your own, which may result in legal liabilities.
Q: What is the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ and how does it affect me as a blogger?
A: The Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) allows an individual to have their personal information removed or destroyed under certain conditions. It has been recognized by Indian courts as part of the right to privacy and is now enshrined in the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023. This means that you could be legally compelled to remove anything about an individual, even if it is true, thereby infringing on your right to publish.
