Dear Members,

Please execute your right to free expression on this forum and visibly demonstrate your fundamental right that includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek receive and impart information and ideas through any medium.

We do receive hostile emails from some Developers/Builders for comments made by IREF members that have serious repercussions to their business interests. They do not realize that members of this forum have a primary right to express their justifiable opinions and share their experiences.

What we offer to all the visitors and members is a free and fair platform to discuss relevant real estate matters and experiences. The readiness of this forum to allow its members to exercise their right to free speech is one of the reasons for such threats.

If you are faced with similar intimidations by such real estate players for expressing your genuine opinions and experiences, please feel free to use our forum.

We will collectively stand in your defense and continue with our freedom of expression as it is not only necessary for our individual dignity but also for participation, accountability and democracy.


Read more
1 Replies
Sort by :Filter by :
  • Historic Supreme Court ruling upholds online freedom of expression

    A landmark judgement by India’s Supreme Court striking down a vague and overly broad law on online expression is a defining moment for freedom of expression in the country, Amnesty International India said today.

    Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act has been used on several occasions to prosecute people for legitimately exercising their right to free speech online, and has enabled arbitrary arrests and detention. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was “unconstitutionally vague” and overbroad, and “arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech”.

    The Supreme Court’s historic decision is a crucial victory for free speech and expression, and a reminder to the government about the importance of respecting this right.: Shemeer Babu, Programmes Director at Amnesty International India

    “Political parties have often spoken in different voices about Section 66A. The Supreme Court’s historic decision is a crucial victory for free speech and expression, and a reminder to the government about the importance of respecting this right,” said Shemeer Babu, Programmes Director at Amnesty International India.

    “However other problematic laws, including those on sedition and criminal defamation, are still on the books. The ruling should spurt the government to repeal these laws, and ensure that any restrictions on speech and expression are in line with international standards.”

    Section 66-A criminalized several forms of online expression, including sending of information that was “grossly offensive” or persistently caused “annoyance, inconvenience, obstruction, insult, injury, enmity, hatred or ill-will”. The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by a law student and several civil rights groups challenging the law.

    Emphasizing the importance of upholding freedom of expression, the Court ruled that Section 66A did not constitute a “reasonable restriction” on the grounds of public order, defamation, incitement to an offence and decency or morality that are recognized in the Constitution of India.

    The Court stated: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another… Information that may be grossly offensive or which causes annoyance or inconvenience are undefined terms which take into the net a very large amount of protected and innocent speech.” It observed that Section 66A was liable “to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech.”

    The Supreme Court also struck down a clause of the Kerala Police Act as being constitutionally invalid for similar reasons. However the Court upheld Section 79 of the Information Technology Act relating to online intermediary liability. It introduced an additional safeguard, ruling that online intermediaries – like internet service providers - are required to take down content only following a court order, or notice from the government about an imminent illegal act. The Court also upheld Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and related laws relating to the blocking of websites.

    “The government needs to ensure that laws relating to intermediary liability and website blocking are aligned with international standards”, said Shemeer Babu. “Any restrictions on online expression must be formulated precisely, and be necessary and proportionate to specified goals.”
    “The internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression.”


    More Related News:

    What 66A Judgment Means For Free Speech Online | Geetha Hariharan

    Supreme Court takes freedom of speech to the Net by striking down much abused Section 66A | The Indian Express

    The judgment that silenced Section 66A - The Hindu

    Political parties differ over SC quashing controversial Section 66A

    'Victims' Rejoice as SC Scraps Controversial Cyber Provision - The New Indian Express