The Internet Freedom Foundation is committed to defending and expanding fundamental rights as India gets more digitally connected. As part of this mandate, we strategically engage with courts, regulators, and other legal institutions across India. On this page, we list principles which guide our litigation advocacy and provide details of cases in which we have acted as parties, collaborators or our retained lawyers have acted in the capacity of counsel.
IFF’s litigation advocacy is guided by the following principles:
- Progressive constitutionalism: We are first and foremost believers in the Constitution of India. While the Constitution was drafted several decades before the invention of the internet, it is a progressive and visionary document. All technologies must respect the fundamental rights of citizens and further constitutional values of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity.
- Non-Partisanship: We represent all individuals and organizations to achieve systemic policy change regardless of ideological leanings or party politics.
- Collaboration: We recognize the value of adopting a collaborative approach because the harms arising from new technologies are often disproportionately borne by vulnerable and marginalized groups.
- Technological expertise: Our board of trustees and group of volunteers consist of several technologists and we also seek input from external experts with domain knowledge. This enables us to assist courts by shedding light on the technological feasibility of different alternatives which may be under consideration.
- Indigenously funded: IFF is wholly funded by Indian citizens and organizations. We do not accept foreign funding. None of the funding we gather is case specific and we take active steps to ensure transparency, prevent co-option and maintain independence. All funding received by IFF goes into our general corpus.
Currently, we are engaged in the following cases:
|Court||Case Title||IFF's Role||Issue||Documents|
|Supreme Court||Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India [I.A. No. 139555 in W.P. (C) No. 1031 of 2019]||Drafting Assistance and Counsel Coordination||Communication Shutdown||(link)|
|Supreme Court||Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 44 of 2019]||Petitioner||Surveillance Reform||(link)|
|Supreme Court||Karmanya Singh Sareen v. Union of India [S.L.P. (C) No. 804 of 2017]||Intervenor||Data Protection||(link)|
|Delhi High Court||Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India [W.P. (C) No. 1021 of 2016]||Intervenor||Right to be Forgotten||(link)|
|Karnataka High Court||Syed Peerzada Suheel Ahmad v. Union of India [W.P. No. 36713 of 2019]||Drafting Assistance and Counsel Coordination||Communication Shutdown||(link)|
|Madras High Court||Antony Clement Rubin v. Union of India & Janani Krishnamurthy v. Union of India [W.P. Nos. 20774 & 20214 of 2018]||Intervenor||Anonymity, Encryption, Automated Filtering and Intermediary Liability||(link)|
We have previously filed matters at:
|Court||Case Title||IFF’s Role||Issue||Documents|
|Supreme Court||People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India [M.A.No. 3220/2018 in W.P. (Crl.) No. 199 of 2013]||Apar Gupta as Counsel||Enforcement of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India||(link)|
|Gujarat High Court||Internet Freedom Foundation v. State of Gujarat [W.P. (PIL) No. 11718 of 2019]||Petitioner||App Bans and Misuse of Section 144, CrPC||(link)|
|Delhi High Court||Justice for Rights v. Union of India [C.M.A. No. 12759 of 2019 in W.P. (C) No. 11164 of 2018]||Applicant||Correction of inadvertent reference to Section 66A, IT Act||(link)|
Please note that our published material and correspondence does not constitute legal advice unless specifically stated as such by one of our legal counsel. If your digital rights have been violated and you require legal assistance, please write to us at [email protected]