Internet Freedom Foundation

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Internet Freedom Foundation
AbbreviationIFF
PredecessorSaveTheInternet.in
FormationAugust 15, 2016; 8 years ago (2016-08-15)
FounderApar Gupta, Aravind Sulekha, Karthik Balakrishnan, Rachita Taneja, Raman Chima, Rohin Dharmakumar, Kiran Jonnalagadda, Nikhil Pahwa
TypeNonprofit
PurposeDigital rights
HeadquartersNew Delhi, India
Area served
India
Founder Director
Apar Gupta
Websiteinternetfreedom.in

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is a digital rights advocacy organisation that defends against threats to civil liberties and democracy in India due to digital technologies. Launched on August 15, 2016 it grounds its mission in the principles of the Constitution of India. IFF combines digital-first campaigning with policy advocacy. Its staff and volunteers run literacy projects such as online campaigns that inform citizens and engage government bodies about complex issues in technology policy. To supplement this it conducts strategic litigation. Based in New Delhi, India it's work is lead by Indian lawyer and it's Founder Director Apar Gupta.

Origins from SaveTheInternet.in

[edit]

Internet Freedom Foundation was established from the SaveTheInternet.in[1] which was a volunteer-driven campaign for net neutrality in India. IFF was formally launched on August 15, 2016.[2] The campaign in support of net neutrality garnered over 1.2 million signatures[3] and led the TRAI to prohibit discriminatory practices by companies on the internet.[4] Due to an absence of advocacy organisations working on digital rights in India and to enable sustained work the co-founders of the SaveTheInternet.in campaign established IFF[5] as an organisation to work on issues of privacy, free speech, net neutrality, and innovation on the internet.[6] IFF became a staffed organisation in April, 2018[7] and Apar Gupta took over as the Executive Director[8] where he served till March, 2023.[9] He resumed the role of it's Founder Director in November, 2024.[10]

IFF's Mission

[edit]

IFF's mission is to challenge the concentration of power and profit due to digital technologies and the advocacy of civil liberties of Indians. It undertakes digital first, mass literacy and advocacy campaigns and paris them with policy engagement. It undertakes work to ensure transparency and civic inclusion in policy and rule making through the Right to Information Act, 2005. In addition to which it has undertaken strategic litigation and offered pro-bono legal assistance to journalists, creators and media professionals in cases of surveillance such as spyware infections[11] and internet censorship[12][13][14] such as blocking of websites,[15]. It has also engaged on issues on the impact of technology on democracy[16] and the growth of digital authoritarianism in India.[17]

Projects

[edit]

Zombie Tracker

[edit]

Zombie Tracker is a tool built by IFF in partnership with Civic Data labs to track cases under Section 66A as a "data-driven evidence-based solution" to highlight the continued use of Section 66A, which was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.[18] The tracker along with strategic litigation lead to a closure of all 66A cases.[19]

Project Panoptic

[edit]

Project Panoptic tracks the development and implementation of facial recognition technology projects in India with an aim to increase transparency and accountability around the use of Facial recognition technology in India. The tracker was built by IFF along with volunteers from Datakind and Frappe. As of November 2021, Project Panoptic has been tracking 78 FRT projects across the country, with an estimated cost of 9.6 billion rupees.[20] IFF's Project Panoptic along with Amnesty International and Article 19, launched the Hyderabad leg of BanTheScan campaign. Hyderabad is one of the most surveilled cities in the world, with 600,000 cameras monitoring its citizens all the time.[21]

Digital Patrakar Defence Clinic

[edit]

Digital Patrakar Defense Clinic ( DPDC) offers pro-bono legal assistance and representation to Indian journalists, cartoonists, bloggers, and any individuals who use the medium of the internet to report on daily affairs.[22]

Public Campaigns

[edit]

Speech Bill

[edit]

In March 2017, IFF drafted a law to reform India's defamation law which was introduced in Lok Sabha as a Private Member's Bill by Tathagata Satpathy.[23] The bill garnered more than 2000 signatures and 54 organisational supporters, including India's largest publishing houses.

Keep Us Online

[edit]

In April 2017, IFF launched a campaign against internet shutdowns in India called KeepUsOnline. They petitioned the Prime Minister and the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology to introduce credible measures to stop arbitrary internet shutdowns in India.[24]

Save Our Privacy

[edit]

Launched in 2018, SaveOurPrivacy is a public initiative launched by a collective of 35 organizations including IFF, which put across a model draft law called "Indian Privacy Code, 2018".[25] The code has seven core principles, one of which calls for surveillance reform. It advocates for a law that limits mass or 'dragnet' surveillance, and lays down clear rules governing individual surveillance.[26] It also seeks the strengthening and protection of the right to information. After going through multiple revisions, the draft was filed as a private member's bill in the parliament, twice. The collective creates resources for public awareness and continuously engages with government representatives.[27]

Strategic Litigation

[edit]

(IFF) has engaged in a broad array of legal actions to uphold digital rights and civil liberties in India. These span multiple themes from online privacy and data protection to free expression, surveillance reform, and internet access. It includes cases where team members from IFF have acted as litigators, the organisation has been a petitioner, provided legal representation, intervened in ongoing matters, or supported other petitioners through amicus briefs and counsel. A separate section covers legal notices issued by IFF and their impact.

Privacy & Data Protection Cases

[edit]
  • Challenging WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy Changes (Karmanya Singh Sareen v. UOI) : In 2017, IFF intervened in a Supreme Court case challenging WhatsApp’s privacy policy, which allowed greater data sharing with Facebook.[28] IFF sought an interim stay on WhatsApp’s 2016 policy and later opposed the 2021 policy update on behalf of users, highlighting threats to data privacy. This matter is now before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, underscoring the need for a robust data protection regime in India.[29]
  • Mandatory COVID-19 Contact Tracing App (Jackson Mathew v. UOI) : IFF provided legal assistance to a petitioner challenging the mandatory use of the Aarogya Setu contact-tracing app for employees during the COVID-19 pandemic.[30] Filed in the Kerala High Court in 2020, the petition argued that forcing the app on private and public sector workers was a disproportionate invasion of privacy (violating Articles 14, 19, and 21).[31] Soon after the court admitted the case, the government revised its guidelines to make Aarogya Setu usage voluntary (“best efforts” basis) instead of mandatory.[32]
  • Health Data and Inclusive Consultation (Dr. Satendra Singh v. UOI) : In 2020, IFF’s legal team represented Dr. Satendra Singh in a Delhi High Court petition concerning the National Digital Health Mission’s Health Data Management policy. The case highlighted how rushed online consultations (with short deadlines and English-only materials) excluded persons with disabilities and those without internet access.[33] The High Court directed the government to consider the petitioner’s representation, pushing for more inclusive and accessible policymaking.[34]
  • Right to be Forgotten (Privacy vs. Free Speech) : IFF has intervened in multiple cases dealing with the “right to be forgotten” – the idea that individuals can have personal data or court records delisted or removed. In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (Delhi High Court), IFF joined as an intervenor to oppose creating a broad right to be forgotten via judicial order.[35] IFF argued that without a statutory framework, recognizing such a right could curtail the public’s right to information and free expression. Similarly, IFF supported Indian Kanoon (a legal database) in a Kerala High Court case where a litigant sought removal of a public court judgment from the website.[36] IFF’s position in these cases is that, while privacy is important, an unqualified right to be forgotten threatens transparency and Article 19(1)(a) freedoms.[37]

Free Speech & Online Content Regulation

[edit]
  • Website Blocking and Online Censorship (Tanul Thakur v. UOI) : IFF provided legal representation to Tanul Thakur, the creator of a satirical website “Dowry Calculator,” in his 2019 petition to the Delhi High Court challenging the arbitrary blocking of his website by the government.[38] The Ministry of Electronics & IT (MeitY) had blocked the site without prior notice, ostensibly under the Dowry Prohibition Act despite the site’s plainly satirical nature.[39] IFF argued that the blocking violated due process and free speech, as authorities failed to even attempt contacting the owner (despite his contact info being public). The case exposed how opaque website bans undermine transparency. The Delhi High Court issued notice in late 2019 and the matter is pending adjudication.[40]
  • Defending Digital News Media (IT Rules, 2021 Cases) : IFF has represented several parties in challenges to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which impose sweeping content regulation and moderation requirements. These cases have been transferred by the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court:[41]
    • LiveLaw Media Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (Kerala High Court): IFF’s lawyers represented LiveLaw, a legal news portal, in its constitutional challenge to the new IT Rules.[42] LiveLaw contends that the Rules especially the oversight mechanism for digital news and “content takedown” orders – violate freedom of speech and are ultra vires since news websites aren’t “intermediaries” at all. In March 2021, the Kerala High Court admitted the case and granted interim relief by barring coercive action against LiveLaw protecting the portal pending a final decision.[43]
    • T.M. Krishna v. UOI (Madras High Court): IFF provided legal assistance to renowned musician and activist T.M. Krishna in another petition challenging the IT Rules, 2021.[44] Krishna argues the Rules infringe upon Article 14 and 19(1)(a) rights by imposing a chilling effect on creative and journalistic expression. In mid-2021, the Madras High Court issued notice and stayed any punitive action under Part III of the Rules, noting the serious issues raised.[45]
  • Unconstitutional use of Section 66A of IT Act : Section 66A (which criminalized “offensive” online messages) was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 (Shreya Singhal v. UOI). Yet authorities kept arresting and charging people under it. IFF joined efforts to end this abuse. In 2018, IFF assisted People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in the Supreme Court by providing research and legal support for a Miscellaneous Application in the Shreya Singhal case.[46] IFF’s “Zombie Tracker” project had uncovered fresh 66A cases even after the ban.The Supreme Court took note and in 2019 directed the closure of all pending cases under 66A and ordered authorities not to register new ones.[47] When reports in 2021 showed continued 66A arrests, IFF again supported PUCL in filing M.A. No. 901/2021 in the Supreme Court. The Court issued notice to the Union government and demanded an explanation for ongoing prosecutions under the defunct law and directed that no new cases should be registered.[48]
  • Press Freedom in the #MeToo Context (Subodh Gupta v. HerdAndScene) : IFF’s legal team represented the interests of #MeToo whistle-blowers in a 2019 Delhi High Court defamation suit. Artist Subodh Gupta had sued the anonymous Instagram handle “Herdsceneand” (and media outlets) for publicizing sexual harassment allegations against him. IFF argued that gagging such reporting would undermine both free press and the #MeToo movement’s goal of accountability.[49]

Surveillance, Anonymity & Security

[edit]
  • Challenging Mass Surveillance (Internet Freedom Foundation v. UOI) : IFF itself is the lead petitioner in a case urging surveillance reform. In 2019, IFF filed a petition in the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of India’s current electronic surveillance framework, which allows broad telephone and internet interception under the Telegraph Act and IT Act.[50] The petition seeks systemic reform demanding safeguards like judicial oversight and challenging blanket surveillance orders that violate privacy (post Puttaswamy right to privacy precedent).[51] The Supreme Court issued notice in this case, which remains pending. This effort is aimed at bringing India’s surveillance practices in line with fundamental rights, marking one of the first post-privacy-verdict attempts to get judicial scrutiny over government spying programs.[52]
  • Defending Anonymity & Encryption (Antony Clement Rubin v. UOI) : IFF intervened in a high-profile case originally filed in the Madras High Court (later transferred to the Supreme Court) where the petitioner sought to link social media accounts with Aadhaar or government IDs as a way to curb online misinformation.[53] The Madras HC had expanded that PIL to examine whether platforms like WhatsApp could be forced to trace message originators. IFF opposed these measures, filing an intervention application emphasizing that mandatory ID linking and traceability would devastate online privacy and free speech.[54] In court, IFF provided a defense of end-to-end encryption and anonymous speech, arguing that any attempt to weaken encryption or eliminate anonymity would harm citizens’ fundamental rights.[55] Facebook (now Meta) had the various ID-linking cases consolidated and transferred to the Supreme Court, where this matter (commonly dubbed the “WhatsApp traceability/Aadhaar-social media linking” case) is pending final.[56]
  • Opposing Facial Recognition Surveillance (S.Q. Masood v. State of Telangana) : In what has been described as India’s first legal challenge to facial recognition technology, IFF provided legal support to petitioner S.Q. Masood in the Telangana High Court.[57] Masood, a Hyderabad-based activist, filed a PIL in 2021–22 arguing that the Hyderabad City Police’s expansive use of facial recognition lacks any legal basis, is unnecessary and disproportionate, and operates without safeguards.[58] IFF helped draft the petition and lend expertise from its Project Panoptic (which tracks FRT use). In January 2022, the High Court’s Chief Justice bench issued notice to the state and police, taking cognizance of the serious privacy issues raised.[59] This case is ongoing, but it has already prompted public debate about surveillance tech. Notably, the roots of this litigation trace back to an IFF-assisted legal notice Masood sent after police forcibly took his photograph on the street – an incident that showed the real-world harms of unregulated FRT.[60]

Internet Shutdowns & Network Access

[edit]
  • Restoring Internet in Jammu & Kashmir (Foundation for Media Professionals cases) : IFF has played a key role in litigation to end the protracted internet shutdown in J&K after August 2019. Notably, IFF provided legal assistance to the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP) in multiple proceedings:
    • Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI – Though IFF was not a formal party in journalist Anuradha Bhasin’s Supreme Court petition, it actively supported the effort by drafting representations and filing RTI requests about the government’s use of telecom suspension powers. The January 2020 Anuradha Bhasin judgment was a landmark: the Supreme Court held that indefinite internet bans violate telecom rules and that all shutdown orders must be published and legally justified. This established for the first time that internet access is integral to fundamental rights.
    • FMP v. UT of J&K (2020) – With IFF’s legal team assisting, FMP directly petitioned the Supreme Court to restore 4G mobile internet during the COVID-19 lockdowns, when only slow 2G service was allowed. In response, the Supreme Court in May 2020 ordered the government to form a Special Committee to review the blanket 4G restrictions. Under continued pressure, the government gradually lifted the 4G ban (first in two districts, then across J&K by February 2021). This was a significant victory for digital rights – IFF’s efforts helped catalyze the restoration of full internet services in the region.
    • Contempt Petition (FMP v. Bhalla, 2020) – When authorities delayed acting on the Court’s orders, IFF-supported counsel for FMP filed a contempt petition against the Union Home Secretary (Ajay Bhalla). This move kept the pressure on the government. Impact: During these proceedings, the government conceded to restore 4G on a trial basis. Eventually, the contempt matter was closed once compliance (restoration of internet) was underway, illustrating how strategic persistence by IFF and FMP achieved tangible relief.
  • Fighting State-Level Network Bans (Internet Freedom Foundation v. State of Gujarat) – In 2019, IFF itself filed a PIL in the Gujarat High Court challenging the preventive banning of a mobile app. Several districts in Gujarat had imposed orders under Section 144 of the CrPC to outlaw the game “PUBG Mobile,” leading to some arrests of students for simply playing the game. IFF’s petition argued that such bans on apps without clear legal basis or due process were an abuse of power and violated the right to access the internet freely. Although the Gujarat High Court ultimately refused to entertain the petition (declining to intervene in the police’s Section 144 orders), the case brought national attention to the issue of arbitrary digital bans. IFF’s advocacy here is cited as part of the impetus for clearer rules – it highlighted that knee-jerk app bans (absent legislation) threaten innovation and users’ rights.
  • Extending to Other Shutdown Contexts – IFF’s legal interventions have set important precedents used beyond J&K. For instance, courts and regulators have taken note that “access to the Internet is a fundamental right” as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025. That April 2025 judgment (in a case involving e-KYC barriers for disabled persons) built on the Anuradha Bhasin logic and declared digital access an intrinsic part of Article 21 (right to life)indiatoday.inindiatoday.in. IFF’s earlier litigation on shutdowns and its public advocacy were referenced in media discussions of this verdict, indicating its broader impact on India’s jurisprudence around internet access as a right.
[edit]

Apart from courtroom litigation, IFF frequently uses legal notices as a tool to protect digital rights. These are formal letters to government authorities or companies, often a precursor to litigation, highlighting unlawful actions and demanding remedies. Such notices sometimes achieve the desired outcome without needing a court case. Below are key instances of IFF’s legal notices and their outcomes:

  • Unblocking the VLC Media Player Website (2022): In 2022, IFF represented VideoLAN, the developer of VLC, after Indian ISPs mysteriously blocked VLC’s website nationwide. IFF helped VideoLAN serve a legal notice to the Department of Telecom (DoT) and MeitY in September 2022, demanding to know the legal order behind the ban and seeking an opportunity to be heardtechcrunch.comtechcrunch.com. Within a month, the government lifted the ban. In November 2022, MeitY removed the blocks on VLC’s site, a fact publicly confirmed by IFF and VideoLAN.
  • Facial Recognition Rollout by NCRB (2019): When the National Crime Records Bureau floated a revised Request For Proposals for a nationwide Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) in 2019, IFF raised the alarm. IFF sent a legal notice to NCRB in August 2019 urging it to halt and withdraw the tender, citing serious privacy and constitutional concerns. IFF argued that deploying facial recognition at such scale, without a data protection law or safeguards, would violate fundamental rights. NCRB responded to IFF’s notice though it did not cancel the project, the engagement forced the Bureau to acknowledge civil liberties concerns. The notice also generated media scrutiny on AFRS. Subsequently, the project’s implementation timelines saw delays, and the issue of facial recognition is now under examination in courts, as noted above in the Telangana case.
  • Delhi CCTV Surveillance Project (2019): In June 2019, IFF served a legal notice to the Delhi Government challenging its massive CCTV camera installation initiative. The notice, which was covered in the press, warned that the plan “will lead to a surveillance state” and is essentially a voyeur’s dream if not properly regulated. IFF demanded that the project be paused until a privacy impact assessment and legal framework were in place. The Delhi Government, while publicly defending the CCTV plan, set up a citizen monitoring committee and promised that footage would be subject to privacy norms. Although cameras were installed, IFF’s action seeded public debate on surveillance in Delhi and put authorities on notice that blanket monitoring would face legal challenge.
  • Employee Tracking & COVID-19 Surveillance (2020): On April 26, 2020, IFF sent a detailed legal notice to Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL), a government PSU, regarding its tender for procuring employee tracking smartwatches and a “COVID-19 Patient Tracking Tool.” IFF asserted that the proposed system involving GPS tracking wearables for health workers and a mass surveillance database for COVID patients would “certainly injure the constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, and security” of privacy. The notice demanded the tender be modified to include privacy safeguards or be withdrawn.
  • Hyderabad Police Stop-and-Search of Phones (2021): In late 2021, IFF assisted in drafting a legal notice to the Hyderabad City Police Commissioner after reports emerged of police officers randomly stopping people and searching their mobile phones for keywords like “ganja” (as part of a drug crackdown). The notice argued that these warrantless phone searches were illegal and violated privacy. Notably, IFF supported S.Q. Masood in sending this notice when he was forced to remove his mask and had his photo taken by police on the street.

Publications

[edit]

Over the past decade the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has produced a wide portfolio of policy briefs, open-data trackers, consultation submissions and advocacy research that underpin its litigation and campaigning. The publications are organised around several recurring themes such as data protection, surveillance, connectivity, platform governance and economic regulation. These have been cited by courts, regulators, parliamentary committees and the press. IFF also prepares “Parliamentarians’ Guides” ahead of the Budget, Monsoon and Winter sessions of Parliament, highlighting pressing digital rights issues like data privacy, platform regulation, and censorship for lawmakers’ attention.[61] According to IFF’s 2023 year-end review, the policy team’s output in the year included participating in multiple government consultations (9 in 2023) and authoring over a dozen policy briefs and public statements (16 in 2023) on various digital rights developments.[62] Key examples are summarised below.

Artificial Intelligence

[edit]

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) produces regular research and advocacy on artificial-intelligence policy in India, ranging from its 2019 comments on the Department of Telecommunications’ “Indian AI Stack” concept[63] and its critique of NITI Aayog’s draft #AIforAll enforcement framework[64] to more recent submissions on the Ministry of Electronics and IT’s 2025 AI Governance Guidelines.[65] IFF pairs these policy briefs with right-to-information campaigns that press public bodies to disclose details of state-led AI projects and procurement, culminating in an open letter to the National Institute for Smart Government that demanded proactive transparency for all pilot deployments.[66] Its thematic blog series has also examined private-sector uses of AI that implicate civil liberties such as Airtel’s machine-learning web-filter, which IFF argued could enable unchecked censorship.[67]

Data Protection, Surveillance and Privacy

[edit]

During Covid, IFF authored a comprehensive working paper to inform public policy formation in India, including a substantive analysis of the use and publication of health data, specific development of surveillance technologies and deployment of contact tracing through device applications.[68] IFF’s flagship Public Brief on the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 set out constitutional and procedural concerns and was publicly released during the consultation window.[69] Follow-up statements on the 2023 and 2025 iterations detailed loopholes around government exemptions and cross-border transfers.[70] The Economic Times,[71] Moneylife[72] and Global Government Forum[73] each quoted IFF’s analysis when reporting on the Bill’s “surveillance” risks. In 2022 IFF’s public advocacy against the national railway company’s plan to monetize passenger data (articulated through online briefs and social media) led the Indian Railways to withdraw the proposal, with the issue even being taken up by a Parliamentary committee for scrutiny.[74] Through the #SaveOurPrivacy campaign, IFF and allied groups drafted a model data protection law (the “Indian Privacy Code, 2018”), which was introduced twice in Parliament as a Private Member’s Bill by Shashi Tharoor and D. Ravi Kumar; this effort brought accountability and influence to the official drafting process of India’s personal data protection legislation.[75] Through Project Panoptic—an open database and series of city reports IFF has tracked more than 120 government FRT tenders. Media outlets such as WIRED,[76] Al Jazeera[77] and The Times of India[78] have relied on Panoptic data in stories highlighting low accuracy thresholds and privacy gaps in deployments by Delhi Police and school systems. Monthly RTI digests published on IFF’s site catalogue the information requests that feed the tracker and have spurred further press scrutiny of unregulated FRT trials.[79]

Digital Competition and Telecom Regulation

[edit]

In May 2024 IFF filed a detailed consultation submission on the draft Digital Competition Bill, focusing on user-choice frictions and due-process gaps; the submission forms part of the public record and complements sector commentary from think-tanks and trade media.[80] IFF has used similar briefs to critique AI-based content-filtering trials by telecom operators.[81] IFF has been one of the most prolific civil-society commentators on India’s overhaul of telecom law. Since the first consultation draft appeared in 2022,[82] it has issued a stream of public briefs, clause-by-clause submissions and explanatory blog posts on the Telecommunications Act 2023[83] and every set of draft rules[84] published under it. These documents critique expansive surveillance powers, argue for clearer definitions, and flag procedural gaps; they are routinely quoted by trade press and mainstream media[85] and have informed broader civil-society campaigns that persuaded the government to extend comment deadlines and release revised drafts.

Digital Public Infrastructure

[edit]

IFF treats India’s expanding “digital public infrastructure” as a distinct policy track and has built a small but visible body of publications around it. When MeitY floated its National Open Digital Ecosystem (NODE) strategy in 2020, IFF filed a formal consultation submission that called for privacy-by-design standards and independent audits of shared platforms.[86] From 2021 onward the foundation produced thematic explainers on individual DPI schemes: a primer on the agrarian data platform AgriStack,[87] a series dissecting the payment-layer model behind UPI and its proposed e-commerce clone ONDC,[88] and a budget-season brief analysing how flagship programmes such as Aadhaar, Digi Yatra and DigiLocker fit the government’s DPI narrative.[89] In 2023 IFF joined global debates by submitting detailed feedback to the UNDP “Universal DPI Safeguards” draft, urging stronger language on data-minimisation and algorithmic transparency.[90]

Internet shutdowns, censorship and connectivity

[edit]

In 2018, IFF supported a research paper by Nakul Nayak who studied the constitutional implications of internet shutdowns in India from the lens of administrative law.[91] Subsequently in 2023, IFF co-authored the 82-page report “No Internet Means No Work, No Pay, No Food” with Human Rights Watch, documenting the socioeconomic harm of shutdowns and providing district-level case studies.[92] IFF’s joint report on internet shutdowns with HRW garnered international attention, underscoring how shutdowns violate fundamental rights and bolstering calls for reform in India.[93] Findings from this study have been reproduced in national and international coverage of prolonged black-outs, including TIME’s examination of the 2023–25 Manipur crisis.[94] In addition to this, various members of it's team have published op-eds on internet shutdowns.[95] IFF also publishes a recurring “Connectivity Tracker.” Launched in 2021 under the hashtag #MapTheDigitalDivide, the project releases quarter-by-quarter briefs that pull TRAI and Census data on wireless subscriptions, broadband uptake, gender and rural-urban gaps, and the progress of government schemes such as BharatNet and PM-GDISHA.[96] Subsequent editions—second (January 2022) and third (December 2022)—extend the time-series back to January 2020 and add metrics on mobile download speeds and State-level smartphone penetration.

Platform governance, disinformation and free expression

[edit]

Policy briefs and legal analysis on intermediary liability informed IFF’s advocacy during the 2022 nine-month blocking of VLC Media Player. A TechCrunch investigation cited the brief when VideoLAN issued legal notice, and the block was ultimately lifted after government review. IFF’s Zombie Tracker dataset on prosecutions under the struck-down Section 66A fed into Supreme Court proceedings that ordered states to purge such cases in October 2022; major dailies reported on the order, referencing the underlying litigation. The Zombie Tracker data set was based off a sample sized emperical study in a research paper by Apar Gupta and Abhinav Sekhri called attention to the continued use of Section 66A of the IT Act, despite the Supreme Court striking it down.[97] A joint 2024 investigation with Global Witness tested reporting tools on YouTube and Koo, finding that misogynistic content stayed online despite policy violations; the results were published as a brief and widely covered by international media and NGOs.[98] When Karnataka released its draft Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, IFF published an explanatory note and coordinated an open letter urging redrafting; Deccan Herald quoted the brief in a front-page report on free-speech risks.(deccanherald.com)

Funding and Transparency

[edit]

IFF runs on a small budget primarily through a domestic, community-funded model.[99] Nearly all income comes from small, repeat donations by Indian citizens, channelled through a low-fee donation programmes and periodic crowdfunding pushes.[100] As per ILSS it, "excels at raising funds from individual donors and regularly engages them via monthly calls to discuss successes, failures, challenges, and plans, building ownership and emotional connections beyond just financial transactions."[101] This has been supplemented by organisational donations, grants and support by philanthropies and companies including Azim Premji Philanthropic Initiative, Block Survey, BCG India, Broadband Forum, Devfolio, Doosra, FOSS United Foundation, Frankly Wearing, Indian Kanoon, IndiaOS, Lawctopus, LiveLaw, MGA Lifestyle Private Limited, NC Media Networks, Nilenso, No Grey Area, Nullcon, Obvious, OML, Onward Foundation, Provakil, SaaSBooMi, Sensibull, ShareChat, UNESCO, Wingify Foundation, Zerodha.[102] It also publishes monthly transparency reports[103] and is rated by Guidestar[104] and Credibility Alliance.

Awards

[edit]
  • Prix Ars Electronica 2022 (Honorary Mention)[105]
  • Global Privacy Assembly (GPA) Privacy and Human Rights Award 2025[106]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "SaveTheInternet.in Coalition". Internet Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  2. ^ "Hello world - and happy Independence Day!". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2016-08-15. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
  3. ^ Mishra, Ashish K. (2015-05-09). "India’s Net neutrality crusaders". mint. Archived from the original on 2025-03-17. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  4. ^ "India's Net neutrality crusaders". livemint.com. Mint. 9 May 2015. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  5. ^ "Saving The Internet | Columbia Global Centers". globalcenters.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  6. ^ "Facing up to Facebook and others on net neutrality - Civil Society Magazine". www.civilsocietyonline.com. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  7. ^ "Looking towards the future". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2018-09-28. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  8. ^ "Apar Gupta - Executive Director at Internet Freedom Foundation". Rest of World. 2022-05-11. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  9. ^ "Transitions and achieving our true potential". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2023-07-18. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
  10. ^ "Thank you Prateek!". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2024-11-02. Retrieved 2024-12-24.
  11. ^ Bapat, Yashaswini Basu,Krishnesh (2021-07-20). "Pegasus spyware surveillance: The devil lies in what we don't know". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 2025-06-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Goel, Vindu (14 February 2019). "India Proposes Chinese-Style Internet Censorship". The New York Times. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  13. ^ "Netflix will regulate its content in India. It swears that's not a bad thing". CNN. 18 January 2019. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  14. ^ Martineau, Paris. "India is Cracking Down on Ecommerce and Free Speech". Wired. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  15. ^ "Not just porn, Indian telecom firms are blocking other websites, too". qz.com. Quartz India. 11 February 2019. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  16. ^ "WhatsApp is at risk in India. So are free speech and encryption". vox.com. Vox. 19 February 2019. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  17. ^ Chaturvedi, Anumeha. "Internet Freedom Foundation, Constitutional Conduct, ex CECs among others appeal to EC to reign in digital platforms". The Economic Times. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  18. ^ Zombie Tracker https://zombietracker.in/. Retrieved 29 November 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  19. ^ "SC's direction: Stop prosecuting people under S.66A". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2022-10-12. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
  20. ^ Panoptic Project https://panoptic.in/. Retrieved 29 November 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  21. ^ "Hyderabad". Ban the Scan: Hyderabad. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  22. ^ Digital Patrakar Defence Clinic https://patrakardefence.in/. Retrieved 29 November 2021. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  23. ^ "Now, debate on defamation law goes online". The Times of India. 14 September 2016. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  24. ^ "'Keep Us Online,' says a new campaign by the Internet Freedom Foundation against internet shutdowns in India". factordaily.com. Factor Daily. 20 March 2017. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  25. ^ "SaveOurPrivacy". SaveOurPrivacy. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  26. ^ "Citizens' group unveils draft law on data protection that safeguards the right to privacy". scroll.in. 8 June 2018. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  27. ^ "Save Our Privacy". SaveOurPrivacy. Retrieved 29 November 2021.
  28. ^ "Whatsapp-Facebook Privacy". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  29. ^ Team, LiveLaw Research (2017-04-18). "SC Forms Constitution Bench To hear The WhatsApp Case". Live Law. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  30. ^ Agrawal, Aditi (2020-05-13). "'Would Chief Justice of a HC be held liable if employees do not download Aarogya Setu?' petitioner asks in Kerala HC". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  31. ^ Saxena, Akshita (2020-05-11). "'Harmonise Contact Tracing With The Right To Privacy': New Plea In Kerala HC Against Mandatory Use Of 'Aarogya Setu' App For Employees". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  32. ^ "Mandatory to best effort basis: Aarogya Setu app rule eased for companies". The Economic Times. 2020-05-18. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  33. ^ Chandrasekhar, Ramya. "Datafication, Power, and Publics in India's National Digital Health Ecosystem". CNRS - Center for Internet and Society.
  34. ^ "Delhi HC directs govt to consider representation regarding national Health Data Management Policy". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2020-09-03. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  35. ^ Access Now (2016-11-09). "In India, the "right to be forgotten" is in the hands of the Delhi High Court". Access Now. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  36. ^ Benny, Navya (2022-12-22). "Right To Be Forgotten - Kerala High Court Allows Litigants To Seek Deletion Of Personal Identities In Family Cases & In-Camera Trials". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  37. ^ Bawa, Anmol Kaur (2024-07-24). "Supreme Court To Settle Law On 'Right To Be Forgotten'; Stays HC Direction To 'IndianKanoon' To Pull Down Judgment". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  38. ^ "The Court Case That Could Change the Way Government Blocks Info on Censorship". The Wire. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  39. ^ Aafaq, Zafar (2023-05-01). "The near-impossible task of restoring a blocked Twitter handle in India". Scroll.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  40. ^ Jain, Anushka (2022-05-19). "Show order for blocking website: Delhi High Court to IT Ministry". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  41. ^ "Supreme Court transfers challenges to IT Rules 2021 to the Delhi High Court". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  42. ^ NETWORK, LIVELAW NEWS (2021-03-10). "Breaking: Kerala High Court Issues Notice On LiveLaw's Plea Challenging New IT Rules, Orders No Coercive Action". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  43. ^ Editor (2021-03-13). "Ker HC | Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 challenged; HC restrains State from taking any coercive action for non-compliance of Part III of the impugned Rules". SCC Times. Retrieved 2025-06-27. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  44. ^ NETWORK, LIVELAW NEWS (2021-06-10). "'IT Rules Offend My Rights As An Artist & Cultural Commentator' : TM Krishna Moves Madras High Court". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  45. ^ "Madras High Court Stays IT Rules". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  46. ^ "'Terrible, shocking' that Sec 66A still used to arrest people: Supreme Court". The Times of India. 2021-07-06. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  47. ^ "PUCL approaches Supreme Court seeking directions against continued prosecutions under the unconstitutional Section 66A". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2021-07-05. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  48. ^ Sharma, Padmakshi (2022-10-12). "No Person Should Be Prosecuted Under Section 66A IT Act : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Shreya Singhal Judgment". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  49. ^ "Gupta v. Herdsceneand". Global Freedom of Expression. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  50. ^ "Supreme Court issues notice on IFF's petition for surveillance reform #SaveOurPrivacy". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2019-01-14. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  51. ^ "Cross-Border Data Access for Law Enforcement: What Are India's Strategic Options?". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  52. ^ Nojeim, Greg. "Encryption in India: Preserving the Online Engine of Privacy, Free Encryption in India: Preserving the Online Engine of Privacy, Free Expression, Security, and Economic Growth Expression, Security, and Economic Growth". Indian Journal of Law and Technology Indian Journal of Law.
  53. ^ "Aadhaar- Social Media Linking". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  54. ^ Agrawal, Aditi (2019-06-28). "Madras HC: Internet Freedom Foundation to act as an intervener in WhatsApp traceability case". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  55. ^ Sajeev, Upasana (2024-06-05). "Madras High Court Directs Govt To Consider Representation Seeking Regulation Of Pet Boarding Facilities Across State". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  56. ^ "SC allows Facebook's Transfer Petition in Antony Clement Rubin v. UoI". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2019-10-22. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  57. ^ "Telangana's facial recognition technology comes under scanner". Hindustan Times. 2022-01-06. Archived from the original on 2024-07-18. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  58. ^ "Facial recognition taken to court in India's surveillance hotspot". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  59. ^ Menon, Vandana (2023-12-22). "Hyderabad wants to be smart, efficient. But face recognition tech, CCTVs making it paranoid". ThePrint. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  60. ^ NT, Sarasvati (2023-01-05). "Hyderabad Police's rampant use of facial recognition challenged in court". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  61. ^ "Parliament". Internet Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  62. ^ "2023 Year in Review: Policy interventions for impact". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2023-12-27. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  63. ^ "Read our comments on the DoT's Paper to develop an Indian AI Stack". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2020-10-03. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  64. ^ "Going beyond hashtags: how to ensure AI technology truly benefits everyone". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2020-12-14. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  65. ^ Mimansa (2025-03-13). "List of Submissions on IT Ministry's AI Governance Guidelines". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  66. ^ Sanzgiri, Vallari (2024-03-27). "IFF seeks measures to make AI governance project details public". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  67. ^ "Your Internet, Their Rules: Airtel's AI-driven internet filter poses censorship risks". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2025-06-10. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  68. ^ "A comprehensive look at Covid Surveillance and Privacy in India". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  69. ^ "Read our public brief on the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2023-02-16. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  70. ^ "Internet Freedom Foundation Statement on the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2023-08-03. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  71. ^ "India data protection bill: What's the concern?". The Economic Times. 2023-08-03. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  72. ^ "DPDP Rules Are Too Little, Too Vague and Too Late: Internet Freedom Foundation". Moneylife NEWS & VIEWS. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  73. ^ "India's latest data protection bill provokes fresh privacy concerns". www.globalgovernmentforum.com. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  74. ^ Rudra, Tapanjana (2022-08-20). "IRCTC To Drop Plan To Monetise User Data Following Criticism: Report". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  75. ^ Mandhani, Apoorva (2018-06-08). "Civil Society Releases Draft Model Law On Privacy And Data Protection; Launches Community Project, #SaveOurPrivacy". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  76. ^ Bansal, Varsha. "The Low Threshold for Face Recognition in New Delhi". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  77. ^ "Privacy fears as India's gov't schools install facial recognition". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  78. ^ "Ministries & several states deploying facial recognition tech systems: Study". The Times of India. 2020-11-28. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  79. ^ Bose, Joydeep. "RTI filed on government use of 'facial recognition' in airports, Covid-19 vaccination". Hindustan Times.
  80. ^ "Summary of IFF's submission on the draft Digital Competition Bill". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2024-05-20. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  81. ^ Raghav, Dhruv (2025-06-12). "IFF Flags Censorship Risks in Airtel's New AI-Based Internet Filter". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  82. ^ Chawla, Akshit (2022-11-07). "Clarify definitions, limit govt powers: IFF comments on draft telecom bill". MEDIANAMA. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  83. ^ "The Telecom Act, 2023 is ready for (partial) take off: Outdated, colonial provisions to go into effect from June 26". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2024-06-25. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  84. ^ "TeleCon-ing us? - IFF's Submissions to the DoT on the draft 2024 Telecom Rules". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2024-10-07. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  85. ^ "Telecom Bill 2023: What powers it gives the government for 'national security'". The Indian Express. 2023-12-18. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  86. ^ "The National Digital Education Architecture: An explainer". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2021-12-01. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  87. ^ "The AgriStack: A Primer #SaveOurPrivacy". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2020-12-04. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  88. ^ "Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC): An Explainer". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2023-03-10. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  89. ^ "2024 Budget and Digital Rights: A Tech-onomic Survey". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2024-08-13. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  90. ^ "IFF submits feedback on UNDP's Interim Report on DPI Safeguards and Governance". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2024-07-08. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  91. ^ Nayak, Nakul (September 25, 2018). "The Legal Disconnect: An Analysis of India's Internet Shutdown Laws". SSRN 3254857. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  92. ^ Bajoria, Jayshree (2023-06-14). ""No Internet Means No Work, No Pay, No Food"". Human Rights Watch.
  93. ^ "Most internet shutdowns in last 3 years to curb protests: Report". Hindustan Times. 2023-06-15. Archived from the original on 2023-08-24. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  94. ^ Rajvanshi, Astha (2023-08-15). "How Internet Shutdowns Wreak Havoc in India". TIME. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  95. ^ "Apar Gupta writes: On Manipur, internet shutdown is no cure". The Indian Express. 2023-08-04. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  96. ^ "Introducing IFF's Connectivity Tracker #MapTheDigitalDivide". Internet Freedom Foundation. 2021-11-03. Retrieved 2025-06-27.
  97. ^ Sekhri, Abhinav; Gupta, Apar (October 31, 2018). "Section 66A and Other Legal Zombies". SSRN 3275893. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  98. ^ Elliott, Vittoria. "Hate Speech Proliferates on YouTube in India, Research Finds". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  99. ^ "Donate". internetfreedom.in. Internet Freedom Foundation. 19 February 2017. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  100. ^ Bhalla, Kritti (2021-05-26). "Internet Freedom Foundation Seeks Donation To Grow Its Network Of Litigators". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  101. ^ "Cover Story-3 – Leadership Inspired – ILSS Newsletter". Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  102. ^ "Organisational Donors and Supporters". Internet Freedom Foundation. Retrieved 2025-06-26.
  103. ^ "Transparency and Finances". internetfreedom.in. Internet Freedom Foundation. 25 September 2018. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
  104. ^ Guidestar. "Profile of, "Internet Freedom Foundation"".
  105. ^ "Prix Ars Electronica 2022". calls.ars.electronica.art. Retrieved 2024-12-24.
  106. ^ Campos, Elan Schwartz, Igor (2025-06-20). "Inaugural Privacy and Human Rights Award at RightsCon 2025". RightsCon Summit Series. Retrieved 2025-06-26.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
[edit]