Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
The right to information (RTI) is once again gaining global attention. September 28 marked the International Day for Universal Access to Information, a reminder of how vital transparency and accountability are. Numbers point to progress: 140 States have RTI laws; in 2024 alone, citizens filed 6.4 million (!) information requests worldwide.
And yet, RTI inquiries often stall. In a first-of-its-kind global “stress-test” report, the Centre for Law and Democracy showed that out of 146 RTI requests filed in 76 countries, only 42% resulted in full disclosures. Those in public offices – from India to Bulgaria to the US – continue to conceal compromising records.
In this India-focused issue, we feature Wikimedia Foundation v. Asian News International, a recent RTI victory: the Supreme Court of India upheld the public’s right to access and comment on court proceedings by setting aside an interim measure that ordered the removal of Wikipedia pages on an ongoing defamation lawsuit.
When it comes to information suppression, however, more powerful tools are in use: internet shutdowns. India is no stranger to them. SFLC.in has documented a total of 884 shutdowns in the country, with the most recent one taking place on October 2 in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh. “Information can save lives,” Guilherme Canela of UNESCO said in a recent interview. “But it needs to be available to people.”
This week, in an egregious disregard of rights, amidst one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the Taliban took Afghanistan offline. A few days before that, an Afghan legal scholar wrote, “Living in a land of darkness under the Taliban’s gender apartheid regime, the internet is the only light that helps us survive without choking.”
She asked, “Is this the last time you’ll hear from me?”
Are you in NYC next week? Do not miss our upcoming event!
On October 6, 2025, CGFoE and Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT) will co-host the launch of Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights by Natalie Alkiviadou. The panel will grapple with pressing questions: How do we distinguish offensive speech from true threats? What thresholds of harm justify legal restrictions in today’s technological environment? And how might regulation silence marginalized voices or amplify hate?
Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus, Open Society Foundations, will join author Natalie Alkiviadou, Senior Research Fellow, Future of Free Speech, Vanderbilt University, along with other panelists: Hawley Johnson, Associate Director, CGFoE; Richard Wilson, Professor of Anthropology, Princeton University; and Mishi Choudhary, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Virtru.
When? Monday, October 6, 2025, from 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM ET. Where? The DWT offices: 1251 6th Ave, 21st Floor, New York City. RSVP is required; the link is here.
India
Zubair v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Decision Date: May 22, 2025
The Allahabad High Court partly quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against journalist Mohammed Zubair, removing the charges levelled against him for endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, while allowing investigations to continue under other criminal procedure provisions. The case arose after Zubair’s tweets in early October 2024 – criticizing the State’s inaction against hate speech by Yati Narsinghanand Giri (Hindu Priest and Religious Leader) – which the complainant alleged incited an attack on the Dasna Devi Temple. The Court held that any act which endangers the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India requires a high threshold of deliberate intent to excite secession, armed rebellion, or subversive activity, which Zubair’s posts did not meet, as they largely reproduced Giri’s speeches and expressed disapproval. Thus, the Court found no prima facie material to link the tweets to national security threats, cautioned against equating criticism with incitement, and stressed the need to protect political and journalistic expression from misuse of penal law.
Mahmudabad v. State of Haryana
Decision Date: May 21, 2025
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a Political Science Professor, who published a post on Facebook concerning Operation Sindoor – a military operation in response to a terrorist attack in Kashmir, India. The case arose when Professor Mahmudabad published a Facebook post analyzing Operation Sindoor, which led to complaints alleging anti-national and communal remarks. He approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the complaints and his release. The Court granted interim bail, reasoning that no prima facie criminal intent was evident, and directed a Special Investigation Team to further investigate the matter, while imposing conditions on Professor Mahmudabad, such as refraining from posting on the matter and surrendering his passport.
Wikimedia Foundation v. Asian News International
Decision Date: May 9, 2025
The Supreme Court of India set aside an interim order of the High Court of Delhi that ordered the removal of Wikipedia pages detailing an ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by the news agency Asian News International (ANI) against Wikimedia Foundation. The case arose when the High Court considered Wikipedia’s publications as an interference with court proceedings and bordering on contempt. The Supreme Court held that the takedown order was a disproportionate infringement on freedom of speech and upheld the public’s right to access and comment on court proceedings. It emphasized that courts should not order blanket takedowns unless there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to justice and that takedown orders must meet a “test of necessity and proportionality” to be justified. Ultimately, the Court underscored the importance of open justice and freedom of expression, ruling in Wikimedia’s favor.
Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat
Decision Date: March 28, 2025
The Supreme Court of India quashed a criminal case against Member of Parliament Imran Pratapgarhi for sharing a video of a wedding event that featured a recitation of an Urdu poem, holding that the poem was a protected artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The case began when a complaint alleged the poem’s verses promoted disharmony and offended religious sentiments, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR). The Court found that the poem’s plain meaning and context did not target any religion or community, nor did it incite violence or hatred. It stressed that police must exercise their discretion under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (2023 Code of Criminal Procedure) to avoid mechanically registering FIRs in speech-related matters, as failure to do so chills free expression. Reaffirming that dissent and artistic expression enjoy constitutional protection unless they explicitly incite hatred, the Court held the FIR baseless, criticized the High Court for not safeguarding free speech, and emphasized that democracy depends on protecting such expressions.
● India: X Corp v. Union of India Judgment in K’taka HC. On September 24, in a judgment concerning digital rights in India, the Karnataka High Court upheld the use of the “Sahyog” portal to issue content takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. X (formerly Twitter) said it will appeal. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC.in) unpack the decision. In this explainer, IFF reviews the main submissions to the case: both X and intervenor DigiPub, an association of digital news publishers and journalists, argued that “deputizing intermediaries to remove content upon government notice without judicial oversight has a chilling effect on lawful speech.” In its analysis and separate statement, SFLC.in cites Shreya Singhal v. Union of India and observes that the recent judgment “sets a dangerous precedent that could have long-term implications on the fundamental rights of citizens.”
● India: Why New Tax Law Poses a “Severe Risk” to Journalists, by Somi Das. This past August, India’s parliament passed the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and drastically expanded the powers of authorities into the digital space by allowing access to email, cloud accounts, and encrypted devices during searches. In this interview, the Committee to Protect Journalists speaks to Apar Gupta, Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, on how the law fails to meet international standards and can be misused against the media. “India is now testing a legal architecture that normalizes extraordinary access to personal digital space on mere suspicion of tax evasion,” Gupta stressed, “and that by itself is alarming for press freedom.”
● Afghanistan: UN Appeals to the Taliban to Restore Internet Access. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan calls on the Taliban to urgently reinstate internet and telecommunications access. On September 29, without prior notice, the country’s de facto authorities imposed a nationwide internet shutdown. The UN mission emphasizes that this sweeping restriction of digital and mobile access further isolates women and girls, disrupts critical banking and financial services, endangers those in need of emergency assistance or medical care, and obstructs aviation work. The UN mission notes that, in addition to blatantly violating the rights to access information and freedom of expression, internet shutdowns can put lives at risk.
This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers
● Combating Misinformation: Practical Guide to Fact-Checking & Legal Resource. In partnership with the Association for Progressive Communications, the Software Freedom Law Center, India, published a two-part guide on combating misinformation. Section 1 explains how misinformation spreads and offers practical tools on identifying, verifying, and tackling false information. Section 2 surveys India’s relevant legal framework and outlines the remedies available to those who experience harm from misinformation. The guide breaks down harmful content by type – for example, gendered disinformation, discriminatory content, or defamatory statements – and reviews the corresponding protections for recourse.
● Global Comparative Testing of Responses to Requests for Information, by Toby Mendel and Raphael Vagliano. The Centre for Law and Democracy conducted a first-ever global “stress-test” of the right to information (RTI) laws and their implementation. The study builds on the participation of volunteers across 122 countries and the results of 146 RTI inquiries filed in 76 States. In the key findings, 38% of requests received “mute refusals” or “no substantive reply at all,” 54% resulted in some information disclosed, and only 42% could be described as “full disclosures.” While explicit rejections scored low, the high no-response rate presented a problem. “Mute responses are a fundamental denial of the right to information,” the authors underscored. “If requests go unanswered, the right exists only on paper.”
● New Report: User Awareness and Experience of Content Moderation on Meta Platforms in India. The Centre for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence, at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, India, compiled a report based on almost 300 responses to the survey, “Understanding User Awareness and Experience of Content Moderation on Meta Platforms in India.” Their findings point to problems with trust, transparency, and accessibility within Meta’s content moderation framework.
● Terms of Reference: Consultancy on Co-Creation of Complaint Mechanisms for Violations of Rights by Algorithmic Systems. IA Ciudadana, a coalition of 17 Spanish digital rights organizations, will hire a researcher to design an accessible redress-and-complaint guide for cases of rights violations by discriminatory algorithmic systems. The deadline for proposals is October 12. Learn more here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.