Statement by India at the 38th Session of the Human Rights Council (18 June to 06 July, 2018) on Agenda Item 3: ID with SR on Freedom of Expression, delivered by Dr. A. Sudhakara Reddy, Counsellor (Legal). [19 June 2018, Geneva]  Statement by India at the 38th Session of the Human Rights Council (18 June to 06 July, 2018) on Ag..

Statement by India at the 38th Session of the Human Rights Council (18 June to 06 July, 2018) on Agenda Item 3: ID with SR on Freedom of Expression, delivered by Dr. A. Sudhakara Reddy, Counsellor (Legal). [19 June 2018, Geneva] 

Statement by India at the 38th Session of the Human Rights Council (18 June to 06 July, 2018) on Agenda Item 3: ID with SR on Freedom of Expression, delivered by Dr. A. Sudhakara Reddy, Counsellor (Legal). [19 June 2018, Geneva] 

Mr. President,

My delegation thanks both the Special Rapporteurs for their reports. However, we would like to confine our remarks to the report of Special Rapporteur on ‘freedom of expression’.

2. My delegation attaches particular significance to this mandate and support the continuing work by the Special Rapporteur in highlighting the need for theregulation of user generated online content.We firmly believe that freedom of expression is one of the basic foundations of any democratic society. The objectives underpinning the ‘freedom of expression’ are of crucial significance. The law protects not only the freedom of expression which is non-controversial, but also those who may get ‘offended’ by expression of this freedom. A balanced approach taken bythe Special Rapporteur in emphasizing government regulations and their compliance by private companies with national laws, therefore assumes significance.

3. We are pleased to see that the Special Rapporteur endorses the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in respect of the liability of intermediaries. India practises ‘notice and take down’ approach regarding the liability of intermediaries. This practice is based on three fundamental concepts which are crucial in understanding freedom of expression, namely: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. The Supreme Court of India in the case ofShreya Singhal vs. Union of India(2015) held that“[m]ere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart” of the right. And, the law may curtail the freedom only when a discussion or advocacy amounts to incitement.

4. Special Rapporteur’s recommendations to ensure a multilateral, transparent, and democratic environment for online freedom of expression and compliance with human rights standards by ICT companies with accountability are worthy of further discussion and elaboration. However, we need to underscore the importance of privacy protection vis-à-vis freedom of expression.

Thank you, Mr. President.