---
layout: default
title: "Kapil Sibal to Sterilise Net but Undercover Sting Shows 6 of 7 Websites Already Trigger-Happy to Censor Under 'Chilling' IT Act"
description: "A Legally India report on a CIS undercover investigation revealing that six of seven major websites over-complied with fraudulent takedown notices under India's IT intermediary rules."
categories: [Media mentions]
date: 2011-12-07
authors: ["Kian Ganz"]
source: "Legally India"
permalink: /media/kapil-sibal-sterilise-net-cis-sting-websites-censor-it-act-legally-india/
created: 2026-04-29
---

**Kapil Sibal to Sterilise Net but Undercover Sting Shows 6 of 7 Websites Already Trigger-Happy to Censor Under 'Chilling' IT Act** is a *Legally India* article by Kian Ganz, published on 7 December 2011. The report reveals an undercover investigation conducted by the [Centre for Internet and Society](/cis/) (CIS), in which researchers sent fraudulent takedown notices to seven internet companies to test compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. It quotes [Sunil Abraham](/sunil/), then Executive Director of CIS, who described the findings as evidence of a "private censorship regime" operating in India.

## Contents

1. [Article Details](#article-details)
2. [Full Text](#full-text)
3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background)
4. [External Link](#external-link)

## Article Details

<dl class="media-details">
  <dt>📰 Published in:</dt>
  <dd><em>Legally India</em></dd>

  <dt>📅 Date:</dt>
  <dd>7 December 2011</dd>

  <dt>👤 Author:</dt>
  <dd>Kian Ganz</dd>

  <dt>📄 Type:</dt>
  <dd>News Report</dd>

  <dt>📰 Newspaper Link:</dt>
  <dd>
    <a class="btn" href="https://www.legallyindia.com/home/kapil-sibal-to-sterilise-net-but-cis-sting-shows-6-out-of-7-websites-already-trigger-happy-to-censor-content-under-chilling-it-act-20111207-2434">
      Read Online
    </a>
  </dd>
</dl>

## Full Text

<div class="highlighted-text" id="fulltext">

<p><strong>Breaking:</strong> The Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) has carried out an undercover investigation into the "chilling effects" of new information technology laws on freedom of expression online, with six out of seven major websites removing innocent content online without proper investigation, creating a "private censorship regime".</p>

<p>CIS' still unpublished draft report, a copy of which <em>Legally India</em> has seen, was prepared before yesterday's controversial announcement by India's minister of communications and IT Kapil Sibal, who said that he was talking to major intermediaries on the web, such as Facebook, Google and Yahoo, to actively prevent "blasphemous" content from being posted online by users.</p>

<p>Earlier this year a CIS researcher and lawyer had sent "fraudulent" takedown letters to seven internet companies making claims without providing any evidence that certain third-party content violated provisions under the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, explained Sunil Abraham, executive director of CIS.</p>

<p>The rules, which were came into force in April 2011, aimed to limit the liability of web sites acting as intermediary publishers of information, if they comply to a takedown mechanism, but CIS said in its report that the rules were "procedurally flawed" because they ignored all principles of "natural justice".</p>

<p>The researchers sent a notice to two Indian news website claiming without evidence that a reader's comment related to the Telengana movement under a news article was "disparaging", "racially and ethnically objectionable", "hateful" and "defamatory". One website removed two comments, while the other went even beyond the researcher's request to remove only one comment and within 72 hours removed all 15 comments left by readers on the article.</p>

<p>The researchers also successfully convinced other websites, including a search engine, to remove content and links that they claimed encouraged money laundering or gambling,</p>

<p>The only response that was rejected outright was a facetious takedown request to a shopping portal that an ad for baby's diapers "harmed minors" by potentially causing babies' rashes.</p>

<p>"Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," stated the draft report on the research. "From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression."</p>

<p>"This is just the tip of the iceberg," commented Abraham, adding that he was told by at least one major international intermediary company operating in India that it was "constantly" receiving takedown requests.</p>

<p>"Our empirical research demonstrates that intermediaries are unable to make the subjective test that is required of them," he added. "They are highly risk averse and they often choose to completely comply with the person sending a takedown notice."</p>

<p>"There is clear anecdotal evidence that […] the recently notified rules have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, and that there is no transparency or accountability."</p>

<p>"What we have is a private censorship regime that is alive and kicking in India."</p>

<p>Luthra &amp; Luthra partner Ameet Datta commented that many intermediaries in India might not have the "wherewithal or patience" to deal with takedown requests appropriately, unlike larger companies such as Google.</p>

<p>"They would rather take down information, because the user agreement would allow them that discretion – for them, perhaps they would rather remove it than face a legal dispute," said Datta.</p>

<p>In October <em>Legally India</em> reported that Congress Party secretary Digvijay Singh filed criminal cases and takedown requests via his lawyers Kochhar &amp; Co under the IT Act against Facebook, Twitter and other web sites.</p>

<p>In June 2011, <em>Legally India</em> faced an order obtained <em>ex parte</em> by a law firm in the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal, injuncting <em>Legally India</em> under the IT Act from publishing information for five weeks.</p>

</div>

<button class="copy-btn-full" data-copytarget="#fulltext">Copy Full Text</button>

{% include back-to-top.html %}

## Context and Background

The CIS investigation was conducted in the months following the notification of the IT (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules in April 2011, which required platforms to remove content flagged as objectionable within 36 hours. The rules placed the burden of content assessment on intermediaries but provided no clear procedural safeguards or appeals mechanism for affected users or publishers.

The sting findings showed that the practical effect of this framework was over-removal: platforms, unwilling to risk legal liability, took down content without scrutinising the merits of takedown requests. The findings pointed to a structural problem with the rules: by placing compliance obligations on intermediaries without any requirement to assess the merits of a request, the framework created strong incentives for platforms to remove content rather than risk a legal dispute.

## External Link

- [Read on Legally India](https://www.legallyindia.com/home/kapil-sibal-to-sterilise-net-but-cis-sting-shows-6-out-of-7-websites-already-trigger-happy-to-censor-content-under-chilling-it-act-20111207-2434)

<style>
.media-details {
  background: #f9fbfe;
  border: 1px solid #d8e2f0;
  border-radius: 10px;
  padding: 1.2rem 1.4rem;
  max-width: 700px;
  margin: 1.2rem auto;
  font-size: 0.96rem;
  line-height: 1.5;
  color: #333;
  box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.04);
}
.media-details dt {
  font-weight: 600;
  color: #1b2a49;
  margin-top: 0.7rem;
}
.media-details dd {
  margin: 0 0 0.3rem 0.3rem;
  color: #555;
}
.highlighted-text {
  background-color: #fffbea;
  border-left: 4px solid #f2ce61;
  padding: 1rem 1.2rem;
  border-radius: 8px;
  line-height: 1.65;
  color: #333;
  box-shadow: 0 1px 3px rgba(0,0,0,0.05);
  margin-bottom: 0.8rem;
}
.highlighted-text p {
  margin-bottom: 1rem;
}
.copy-btn-full {
  display: inline-block;
  background: #f1f1f1;
  border: 1px solid #ccc;
  font-size: 0.85rem;
  padding: 0.4rem 0.8rem;
  border-radius: 6px;
  cursor: pointer;
  transition: background 0.2s ease;
  margin-bottom: 1.5rem;
}
.copy-btn-full:hover {
  background: #e5e5e5;
}
</style>

<script>
document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', () => {
  document.querySelectorAll('.copy-btn-full').forEach(btn => {
    btn.addEventListener('click', async () => {
      const target = document.querySelector(btn.getAttribute('data-copytarget'));
      if (!target) return;
      try {
        await navigator.clipboard.writeText(target.innerText.trim());
        const original = btn.textContent;
        btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
        setTimeout(() => (btn.textContent = original), 1500);
      } catch (e) {
        btn.textContent = 'Copy failed';
        setTimeout(() => (btn.textContent = 'Copy Full Text'), 1500);
      }
    });
  });
});
</script>