Online Gaming And Gambling Websites May Be Legally Risky In India: Perry4Law

India is presently gripped in the euphoria of digital India. This is also a time when many have started exploring the entrepreneurship instead of seeking an employment career. While this is a good move yet entrepreneurship without a legal framework or in derogation of the laws of India is not a thing to be encouraged. One such area where there is a need of urgent laws and regulations is online gaming and online gambling.

Online gaming has created great interest among the gaming stakeholders. India has also witnesses many companies and gaming stakeholders trying to establish their online gaming business. These include launch of online poker and rummy websites, online card games websites, etc. However, in the absence of a holistic and comprehensive regulatory framework in this regard, online card games and online games are still legally risky ventures.

In fact, online card games websites may be legally risky if not properly drafted and managed. Till now the position regarding playing rummy with stakes is not clear and different High Courts have given conflicting judgments in this regard. This has exposed all those who are playing card games with stakes to numerous litigations across the India.

For instance, a majority of online poker and rummy websites are flouting laws of India and they can be punished any time by the government. Perry4Law strongly recommends that till the time Indian Supreme Court or Central Government clarifies the legal position regarding online gaming in India, the online gaming/gambling stakeholders must comply with existing and applicable techno legal requirements of Indian laws.

Unfortunately, this is not happening as on date and online gaming websites are openly flouting the laws of India. They are not at all complying with the cyber law due diligence (PDF) requirements of Indian cyber law.

What is more surprising is the stand of Indian Government in this regard. Indian Government is neither clarifying its stand before the Supreme Court nor is bringing a suitable techno legal legislation to make the regulatory uncertainty clear.

Perry4Law believes that the least various online gaming stakeholders can do is to comply with the maximum possible laws of India. This compliance requirement must consider technological, traditional and commercial laws of India.

Digital India Has Severe Civil Liberties And Cyber Security Issues

We all are systematically, continuously and vigorously brainwashed with daily doses of social media and other forms of publicity regarding the digital India project of Indian government. However, when it comes to critical analysis of the digital India project, they are severely censored in India. Even the facets of digital India like smart cities are suffering from violation of civil liberties issues and facing dangers of inadequate cyber security.

In this guest post, Praveen Dalal has wonderfully analysed the shortcomings of digital India project that must be removed by Indian government. He believes that digital India is biggest panopticon of human race the moment it is clubbed with e-surveillance tool named Aadhaar.

According to Dalal, Digital India is a very ambitious and significant project by Indian Government. However, it is also suffering from some “Shortcomings” that have still not been tackled properly. As a result the Digital India project is heading towards rough waters and may face many legal and technological challenges in the near future.

I would not discuss all these shortcomings in this article but am focusing on a particular problem that has taken the shape of a “Civil Liberties Violations Menace”. Yes I am talking about the E-Surveillance and Eavesdropping aspects of Indian Government projects like Central Monitoring System (CMS), National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), Internet Spy System Network and Traffic Analysis System (NETRA), National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC), etc. To make the matter worst, Indian Government has been postponing Intelligence Agencies Reforms for many decades.

However, nothing can beat the draconian e-surveillance project named Aadhaar that has been designed to take a complete control over the digital lives of Indians. Surprisingly both the Indian Parliament and Supreme Court of India are watching helplessly while the Executive branch has usurped the “Legislative Powers” and literally mocked all sorts of Judicial Review.

Take the example of the interim order (PDF) issues by Supreme Court of India mandating that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for availing various public services. Although Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that Aadhaar is not mandatory for availing public services yet it has been made compulsory for almost all the digital and non digital services in India. As a result a wonderful project like Digital India would be heading for rough waters if our Judiciary is even “Remotely Sensitive” to Civil Liberties Violation issues.

This is also not the end of the story. When everything is clubbed with Aadhaar, it gives a complete control to our E-Surveillance loving Government over our digital and non digital lives. There is nothing left to claim Informational Privacy from our own Government. Privacy is our Human Right and not a Government charity and it should not be taken away with direct or indirect methods.

What is most anguishing is the “Deafening Silence” of the Parliament of India and Indian Supreme Court to resolve these issues. Why Parliament has abdicated its “Legislative Powers” in favour of the Executive and why Supreme Court has not taken the Executive stringently cannot be explained with any rationale explanation. However, in the absence of exercise of their “Constitutional Duties” we can safely conclude the “Separation of Powers” under the Indian Constitution has “ceased to exist” in the present and turbulent E-Surveillance era of India.

Online Petition And Survey By CCICI Regarding Cyber Law Due Diligence In India

Interpretation and analysis of the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24^th March 2015), Writ Petition (Criminal) No.167 Of 2012 (PDF) has already been started by various cyber law stakeholders of India. Most of them have based their observations upon Section 66A alone leaving aside other sections like Section 69A and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

However, it seems while doing justice to freedom of speech and expression in India, the Supreme Court has erred in reading down Section 79 and Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (PDF) that pertains to Internet Intermediary liability and observance of cyber law due diligence (PDF) by them. In fact, it has been claimed that Supreme Court has killed cyber law due diligence in India to a great extent.  

Cyber Crimes Investigation Centre of India (CCICI), the premier cyber crime investigation centre of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO), has been covering these issues from the very beginning. Now CCICI has taken this interpretation and effort to another level by starting an online petition and survey titled “Do We Need a Stronger Cyber Law Due Diligence in India?”

Unfortunately, most of the interpretations and observations regarding the judgment of Supreme Court were directed towards Section 66A alone and the issue of cyber law due diligence was totally ignored. This has serious ramifications for all cyber victims whose locus standi has been taken away by the Supreme Court to approach the Intermediary.

It is of utmost importance that this issue must be discussed in great detail and then taken up before the Supreme Court through a review petition. Similarly, the collective inputs can also be shared with Indian government and Parliament so that they can come up with a more potent and effective cyber law due diligence requirement in India.

If you are a cyber victim or you know a person who has been a cyber victim, please share your views through this petition and review. Your views would shape the cyber law of India and make it more meaningful. If you have ever suffered from harassment over e-mail, SMS, chatting, Social media, etc or you know a person who has been so harassed, then please share your views at the petition/survey page. Collectively let us make a responsible cyber society and culture in India.

Source: Cyber Law Blog.

Reading Down Of Section 79(3)(b) And Rule 3(4) is More Problem Than Solution: Praveen Dalal

Cyber law jurisprudence is still evolving in India despite the fact that Indian cyber law was enacted almost 15 years back. This is so because Indian Legislature and Executive are not at all comfortable to deal with technology related laws. Techno legal experts have been maintaining that India must establish a techno legal framework to deal with growing cases of cyber crimes and cyber attacks. Nevertheless the position has remained the same and India is still lagging far behind in formulating technology related laws.  

Not only Indian Parliament is not capable of enacting good and effective techno legal laws but it is also very keen in abdicating its duties to Executive. As a result successive Indian governments have used subordinate/delegated legislations to impose draconian and civil liberties violating laws upon Indians. Obviously, the Supreme Court of India is not pleased  to either such draconian laws or to the approach adopted by Indian Executive and Parliament.

Recently Supreme Court held that Aadhaar is not compulsory to avail government services in India. Now Supreme Court has struck down Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000) as unconstitutional. The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24^th March 2015), Writ Petition (Criminal) No.167 Of 2012 (PDF) can be analysed for more details in this regard.

However, the judgment is not just about Section 66A but many other sections and rules as well. For instance, Section 79 of IT Act 2000 and Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have also been analysed by Supreme Court. As the constitutionality of these provisions was challenged, Supreme Court had limited choices. Supreme Court preferred to narrow down these provisions to keep them operational and constitutional. But it has not been realised at what cost this has been done.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of ICT law firm Perry4Law, Supreme Court’s Judgment on Section 66A is a big blow for Cyber Law Due Diligence in India and reading down of Section 79(3) (b) and Rule 3(4) by Supreme Court in the present manner is “Counter Productive” in long run. He has also suggested that Modi Government must urgently bring suitable Amendments in the IT Act 2000 to tackle growing Cyber Threats and Cyber Crimes in India.

Indian cyber law has not been appropriate since its inception. Too much stress is given to suppress civil liberties and enhance e-surveillance. However, it has now reached a stage where immediate steps must be taken to protect civil liberties in cyberspace on the one hand and projects like Digital India on the other. This is also the high time to leave politics and do positive things for Indian masses.

Ed Note: This is the updated version of the article titled “Supreme Court Erred In Reading Down Section 79(3)(b) And Rule 3(4): Praveen Dalal” published by my friend Priyanka Sharma. For reasons unknown it failed to appear at Google News. Hence this updated article has been posted for our readers.

Supreme Court Erred In Reading Down Section 79(3)(b) And Rule 3(4): Praveen Dalal

The judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24^th March 2015), Writ Petition (Criminal) No.167 Of 2012 (PDF) is not just about Section 66A but many other sections and rules as well. For instance, Section 79 of IT Act 2000 and Rule 3 of Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have also been analysed by Supreme Court.

As the constitutionality of these provisions was challenged, Supreme Court had limited choices. Supreme Court preferred to narrow down these provisions to keep them operational and constitutional. But it has not been realised at what cost this has been done.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of ICT law firm Perry4Law, Supreme Court’s Judgment on Section 66A is a big blow for Cyber Law Due Diligence in India and reading down of Section 79(3) (b) and Rule 3(4) by Supreme Court in the present manner is “Counter Productive” in long run. He has also suggested that Modi Government must urgently bring suitable Amendments in the IT Act 2000 to tackle growing Cyber Threats and Cyber Crimes in India.

Indian cyber law has never been appropriate since its inception. Too much stress is given to suppress civil liberties and enhance e-surveillance. However, it has now reached a stage where immediate steps must be taken to protect civil liberties in cyberspace on the one hand and projects like Digital India on the other. This is also the high time to leave politics and do positive things for Indian masses.

Twitter Is Censoring Dissenting Digital India Related Tweets In Real Time

In a surprising disclosure, it has been revealed that Twitter is censoring digital India related dissenting tweets in India. Previously it was revealed that Twitter was censoring tweets pertaining to Aadhaar in similar fashion. In fact, aadhaar is a heavily censored subject in India for long.

Speech and expression in general and civil liberties in cyberspace in particular are under severe attack from none other than our own government.  Praveen Dalal, whose tweets on Digital India are censored on a regular basis, believes that far from digital empowerment, Digital India has become the Biggest Panopticon of Human Race. Any tweet about this “Digital Panopticon of India” is also censored by Twitter almost in “Real Time”.

It is not the purpose of Twitter to be a “Media Agent” of Indian Government and censor tweets that are criticising the Digital India project for its Weaknesses, Illegalities and Unconstitutionalities, suggests Dalal.

All this is happening because Indian Parliament and Supreme Court have failed to curb the growing constitutional violations through illegal and unconstitutional e-surveillance by our Executive. Supreme Court has also failed to declare Aadhaar as unconstitutional and this is the root cause of all troubles in India.

Even United Nations has failed to fulfill its duties in this regard. Human Rights protection in cyberspace must be internationally recognised by the United Nations that it has failed to do so far. Let us hope that good sense would prevail and Indian government would stop abusing civil liberties of Indians.

Digital Locker Is A Legal Project Based Upon Illegal Technology Named Aadhaar: Praveen Dalal

Modi Government has recently launched a beta version of the digital locker facility. This may be an attempt on the part of the Government to show its progress especially in the direction of fulfilling Digital India dream. However, not everything is smooth and legal in the digital locker project.

On a closer analysis, it becomes apparent that digital locker relies upon illegal and unconstitutional technology popularly known as Aadhaar. Till the time of writing of this article, Aadhaar project is not supported by any legal framework and is clearly violating the civil liberties and fundamental rights of Indian masses.

According to Praveen Dalal, managing partner of Perry4Law Organisation (P4LO) and leading techno legal expert of Asia, there is no doubt about the utility of Digital Locker project as it can save tremendous time, energy and resources. Its users would be spared from the troubles of showing again and again the certificates and documents in question. Further, chances of manipulation and forgery of such documents and certificates would also be lowered.

However, the moment Digital Locker is made dependent upon Aadhaar, it becomes a “Controversial and Unconstitutional” Project. This is more so when Aadhaar is the sole criteria to avail the service that is also in violation of the Supreme Court’s directions (PDF), opines Dalal. In short, Digital Locker Is a Legal Project Based upon Illegal Technology named Aadhaar, concludes Dalal.

As the matter is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India, it would only be wise and constitutionally required to declared Aadhaar project unconstitutional. The truth is that Aadhaar project in its present form has no welfare element but is purely an e-surveillance project that needs to be declared unconstitutional immediately. Neither Aadhaar nor Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has the legal status that can justify their existence at the expense of scarce financial resources.