Internet Censorship: Gagging Mouthshut.com

While Facebook and Youtube routinely get several requests to delete offensive content, Mouthshut.com recently has been at the receiving end of several legal actions for facilitating consumers to post negative reviews. Mouthshut is a popular site which provides consumers a platform to post their reviews of products and services. It was launched in 2000 and is regarded as a reliable source of information. In April, the Bombay High Court ordered Mouthshut to delete reviews critical of Sharda University. Another case filed by a certain Pune based Kumar builders claiming damages for 2000 crores is pending too. Mouthshut has a strict policy which does not let users delete the review unless specifically requested by the user. It states that they will delete a review only if the original author requests or if there is a court order asking it to remove a review.

Indian cyberspace is largely governed by Information Technology Act, 2000. Insertion of section 66A in the Information Technology Act, 2000 penalised dissemination of ‘any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character...’. A negative comment can easily be held illegal under this. The provisions leave ample room for sweeping interpretation of comments, thereby burying the principles of free speech. Further, the Information Technology Rules 2011 place responsibility on the website owner to remove ‘offensive comments’, failing which they could face legal prosecution. This report demonstrates how ISPs have started removing any dissenting comment complained as ‘offensive’, without actually going into the merits of the takedown request. The vagueness of these laws has been discussed on this blog (here and here).

As a consequence of increasing legal threats and actions, in April 2013, Mouthshut filed a filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court for quashing the IT Rules, 2011 on the grounds that the rules are violative of articles 14, 19 and 21. Eminent lawyer Harish Salve appeared on behalf of Mouthshut. The petition pleads that the Rules curtail free speech, and are vague and rather uncertain regarding the criteria for removal of allegedly offensive content.