Enjoy the Vindaloo

The problem is that, whether a matter is defamatory or not, is not something Police can judge.

It is a judicial matter. It should go through the Courts first, as they are competent authorities to determine what is defamatory and what is not.

If the Court determines that something is prima facie actionable (possibly defamatory), then and only then should there be a request for IP address.

This is not how it works in India. Police are themselves playing the role of the Court, while “investigating”. If the words are true, they will not be defamatory, and it is the business of the Courts, and not the Police, to establish that.

During the “investigation”, Indian Police send nasty letters like the one Simon received. Clearly another violation.

I donot understand what you mean when Police should not get involved in investigation of private disputes.

Then who else should be involved?

It is the duty of the police to uphold law and there is every right for any citizen of India to seek the Police help when his rights are trampled with.

As regards jurisdiction, I have already pointed out that the correct procedure could be to come through the Interpol.

But one thing we need to appreciate.In this case the Police is not charging the website with any offence. They are only asking for information in the possession of the ISP which is genuinely required in an investigation. By withholding the information, we only encourage misuse of the Internet by irresponsible persons.

As I have indicated earlier, I see justification for such withholding in cases where protection of individual’s rights against state oppression is involved. I donot see such justification in the instant case.

By with holding the information, the website would be contributing to the defamation of another person who may not deserve such a treatment.

Does the offended person not deserve support of the community? Is it only the offender who should get the support?

You said — “In the current case again it is related to some private defamation dispute and no larger interests of the society are involved.”

Exactly right.

Yes! It is a private defamation dispute between two parties. The State has no business in establishing or maintaining reputation of private parties. It is simply wrong for Police to get involved in this, on either side. No larger interests of society are involved.

There is no business for Indian Police to be getting involved in this. They should know their jurisdiction and their limits and operate within it, or else be prepared to be exposed and face the consequences of light being shined on them.

The link correction I suggested was at the second place (para after the four image links).

In the case of E2 labs, the complainant has used the comment made on this blog to draw the attention of the Court to strengthen his case. The victim if any however is the Court and at present the Court has simply responded with a notice to the relevant parties. Decision of any kind has not been taken.

A question may be asked if the Court could have summarily rejected even the sending of the notice?.. Perhaps yes. But in many cases the Court may not go into the merits in depth at the stage of issuing the notice.

I am sure that Indian Courts are not harsh on freedom of speech and I do hope that the request for the subject comment to be treated as “Contempt of Court” will be considered by the Court with due regard to the concept of freedom of speech.

As regards the Police asking for information in a pending investigation of a case, it is a routine duty. The question here is whether it was right for the Police to have contacted you directly or should they have come through the Interpol?.. Probably the correct procedure would have been to come through Interpol.But there is nothing seriously wrong in seeking the information to cut short the process time. Again one may ask, is the alleged offence serious enough to refuse provision of the IP address? Well you can take a view on this aspect if required but it will amount to taking the role of a judge. If the issue was something like a political battle between an activist and a Government, may be this approach is justified. In the current case again it is related to some private defamation dispute and no larger interests of the society are involved.
If all international ISPs take a view to block Indian investigators from doing their duty, it would hurt Indian interests in running a responsible Cyber Society. Hence a little give and take (I am only referring to provision of IP address in non political cases) may perhaps be OK.

1)The hyperlink is correct 124029, and that is the link referenced in the court documents.

2) I am sure that the situation is far more complex than I care to research. However, it is clear to me that not everyone is being as candid as they should. The first letter that I received was a ‘demand’ for information and the removal of a comment.

Needless to say I told them to go away! I would comply only if they could cite legal US statutes and that I recieve the request from a US based attorney or government entity.

None of these requests were satisfied. The second document concerns a civil suit between two entities that I could care less about.

Quite honestly it might be time to just switch on the great wall of Simon and ban all traffic from India.

Is there no ‘freedom of speech’ in India?

1. One of the hyperlinks in the article is incorrect. Article under reference is 124029 and not 12409. Kindly correct.
2.The above article refers to two different incidents. The E2 labs issue emanates because of a defamation complaint being heard by Delhi High Court. The Bangalore Cyber Crime PS case is different and pertains to a defamation charge on a doctor in Bangalore.