S. No.

INDEX

Particulars

LA. No. of 2017: An application
for intervention with affidavit

ANNEXURE True copy of the
Trust Deed of the Applicant dated
02.05.2016

ANNEXURE A-2: True copy of the
resolution dated 04.06.2016 passed
by the Board of Trustees of the
Applicant

ANNEXURE A-3: True copy of the
Deed of Adherence dated
10.08.2016 

ANNEXURE A-4: Profile of Trustees
of the Applicant

 

- .

39?41

42?43

44-46

 

 

 

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. OF 2017

SLP (C) 804 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF

Karmanya Singh Sareen

Another I: Petitioners
Union of India and Others ReSpondents
AND

IN THE MATTER OF

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF)

A registered trust through its

Chairman, Mr. ikhil Pahwa

E-215, Third Floor

East of K?ailash,

New Delhi - 110 065 Applicant

AN APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION

TO

(?73

Hr 

THE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND HIS COMPANION IUSTICES OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE APPLICANT
ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH:

1. The instant Application is being filed by the Applicant

above named seeking the permission of this Hon?ble Court

 

 

 

 

 

to intervene in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition.
The captioned Petition has been filed by the Petitioners
against the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2016
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C)
No. 7663/ 2016, whereby their Writ Petition was partly
allowed and certain directions were issued to protect the
interests of the users of ?WhatsApp?. Furthermore, the
High Court directed Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to consider
the issues regarding the functioning of Internet Messaging

Applications such as ?WhatsApp?.

That by its order dated 16.01.2017, this Hon?ble Court was
pleased to issue notice on the subject Special Leave Petition.
By its further order dated 05.04.2017, this Hon?ble Court
Was pleased to post the matter for hearing before a
Constitution Bench, which has since been seized of the

matter.

The Applicant, the ?Internet Freedom Foundation?
[hereinafter is a registered Trust, bearing No. IN-
DL441961378996190, under the provisions of the Indian
Trust Act, 1882. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa is the current Chairman
of the Applicant and is authorized to sign and file the
present Application by virtue of the Trust Deed. True copy
of the Trust Deed of the Applicant dated 02.05.2016 is
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-1 (Page Nos. 20 to 38).
True copy of the Resolution dated 04.06.2016 passed by the
Board of Trustees of the Applicant is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE A-2 (Page Nos. 39 to 41). True copy of the Deed
of Adherence dated 10.08.2016 is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE A-3 (Page Nos. 42 to 43).

 

 

. ,That the Applicant is a non-profit organisation that has been
established to promote the rights of Indian Internet users
before policymakers, regulators, courts, and the wider
public sphere, With a specific focus on issues concerning
freedom of speech, privacy, net neutrality and freedom to
i innovate. It was formed as a volunteer organization on the
basis of the ?SavetheInternet.in" campaign on net
neutrality. The campaign for net neutrality composed of
f. volunteers from across India who were lawyers, engineers,
policy professionals, journalists, and academics who had
if been working on issues of law, technology and policy
related to the Internet. These volunteers had organized and
established the Applicant trust to work on issues of privacy,
free speech, network neutrality, and innovation on the

Internet.

i 5. .That the present board of trustees of the Applicant
comprises of diverse and accomplished professionals, who

are experts in field of Internet, law, public policy, and

 

I community engagement. The Applicant?s trustees share an

I interest and expertise on Internet policy issues. It is
(I submitted that at present, all the trustees are volunteers to
IFF, who work part time, and do not draw any salaries. The
i . names and professional expertise of the Applicant?s trustees

are given below:

 

 

No. Name Profession
5: 1. Apar Gupta Advocate
I 2. Aravind Ravi Sulekha Engineer

3. Karthik Balakrishnan Engineer

 

 

 

 

4. ikhil Pahwa Journalist
5. Kiran Ionnalgadda Startup Founder
6. Rachita Taneja Activist

7. Raman Iit Singh Chima Advocate and Policy
Professional

8. Robin Dharmakumar Journalist and
Entrepreneur

A Profile of Trustees of the Applicant are annexed herewith

as ANNEXURE A-4 (Page Nos. 44 to 46).

That as per the trust deed, the objectives of the Applicant

Trust include,

to create awareness among general
public about the Constitution of India and
the rights of citizens enshrined therein,
human rights of all peoples, through
campaigns, shows and other interactive

medium;

to advocate and promote the use of open
source software, security
research, file sharing tools, civil liberties and
a world of emerging technologies which
further the values of the Constitution of

India;

to advocate and defend freedom of
speech, privacy, innovation, rights to access

of information which furthers the freedom of

 

 

 

 

"i arm" 

speech and expression under the

Constitution of India;

(I) To provide legal assistance, support
organisations in research and advocacy on

the Trusts objects contained.?

That as part of its work on net neutrality, the Applicant
started the ?SavetheInternet.in? campaign that countered
the commercial practices of some telecom and Internet
companies, which intended to limit the true scope and
breadth of the Internet to a handful of websites. This would
have decreased the diversity of content, as well the ability of
individuals and small companies to use the internet, to not
only access, but to provide information. Inter alia, based on
1.2 million signatures of Indians sent through the
SavetheInternet.in platform, the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India [hereinafter Respondent No. 5
herein, made a regulatory intervention by prohibiting such
practices under the Differential Tariff Regulations, 2016 in
exercise of powers under Section 36(1) read with Sub-clause
of clause of Section 11 of the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India Act, 1997 [hereinafter Act?].

That apart from this, the Applicant has filed an application
for impleadment and or intervention in the Hon?ble High
Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 1021/2016 ?Laksh Vir Singh
Yadav vs Union of India 8 Ors", a case related to the
creation of the Right to be Forgotten? in India. The Hon?ble
High Court of Delhi was pleased to issue notice on the
Applicant?s application on 19.09.2016 and arguments on the

intervention will be heard after pleadings are complete.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.- 
?i

 


?4 .
. . .

10.

11.

That the Applicant has further contributed to over five
TRAI consultations, by writing responses to the same, and
has provided additional expert oral'inputs, through its
trustees, to Respondent No. 5 (TRAI), Parliamentary

Standing Committees, and other authorities. The Applicant

also runs educational and online advocacy efforts and has

provided a platform, for users to
increase their understanding on issues such as incidents of
the internet being shut down in India and take down action,
which has been endorsed by over ?fteen thousand citizens

and about a hundred organisations.

In addition to its trustees, the Applicant has volunteers from
across the country, including experts from diverse fields
such as telecommunications, academia, law, technology
development, and entrepreneurship, who have chosen to
donate their time and expertise to the Applicant?s mission.
The Applicant has helped co-organise the
?privacyisaright.in? platform, which collected several
hundred endorsements from experts and other individuals
keen to defend and further the right of all Indian citizens to

privacy.

That the Applicant and its trustees herein, are accomplished
professionals and have achieved significant success in their
respective fields. As it is evident form the record, the
Trustees have been involved in various digital rights?
causes. It is humbly submitted that the instant case raises
substantial questions of law centred around privacy, data
sharing and data protection, the rights of digital users, and

the freedom of Speech and expression online. It is further

 

 

 

 

 

12.

13.

submitted that reliefs and directions prayed for, concern the
public interest and the fundamental rights of Indian citizens
vis-a-vis the Internet medium. Moreover, the Applicant
believes that the outcome of the instant proceedings has
overarching ramifications on the rights of internet users, the
obligations of Internet Messaging Applications, and the
future of data protection regulation in India. Thus, the
issues falling squarely within the mission and activity of the
Applicant, the instant Application seeks the leave of this
Hon'ble Court to intervene in this Petition to assist it on the

aforesaid issues, which have been elaborated below.

At the very outset, the Applicant submits that the right to
privacy is a fundamental right that is implicit in the right to
life and personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. It may be considered by this Hon?ble
Court that regardless of the pendency of the reference to the
Constitution Bench on the constitutional status of the right
to privacy in KS. Puttuswamy vs Union of India, (2015) 8
SCC 735, the privacy of Indian citizens and internet users
needs to be protected in recognition of the legal right to

privacy and data protection.

It is submitted that the contours of the right to privacy
include the right to be left alone; the right to respect for
private and family life, home, and correspondence;
protection against intrusion and surveillance; and a
recognition of an individual?s decisional autonomy. This
Hon'ble Court has repeatedly recognised the idea that the
right to privacy deals with ?persons and not places?,
including in District Registrar 8? Collector vs, Canara

Bank, (2005) 1 496.

 

 

 

14.

15.

 

In View of the same, and in the present context, it is
submitted that privacy would include not just the protection
of the contents of our conversations and communications
over ?WhatsApp?, but also the protection of the users?
metadata data about data). The metadata provides
additional information or context to the messages that are
corresponded through any Internet Messaging Application,
such as the title, author, size, conditions of storage of the
data, call detail records etc. In the instant case, thus, the
metadata of WhatsApp users? would include their profile
name, phone number, display picture, status message,
device and location information, and log records, which are

being shared with Facebook in the present case.

It is submitted that access, and sharing of, metadata of
WhatsApp users in India by private actors such as
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, affects their right to privacy.
Although, such access to metadata may be permissible in
certain cases, the purpose and terms?thereof must be spelt
out clearly by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in their privacy policy
to users, which is compliant with Indian law and standard
data protection norms, and is subject to regulatory
oversight. That apart, the Indian laws, including the I
Information Technology Act, 2000 [hereinafter Act?] and
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended by the
Commercial Cdurts, Commercial Division and Commercial
Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015) contains
limited recognition of, and regulates access to, metadata of

users .

 

 

 

 16.

17.

a)

 

It is submitted that the present petition demonstrates the
significance of the right to privacy in the digital era, and the
problems caused by the absence of a data protection
framework or a privacy law in India. India is one of the few
countries in the world that has not enacted any privacy or
data protection legislation. Although, there have been
several attempts to introduce a comprehensive legislation
on Privacy in India, no such Bill has ever been introduced in
Parliament nor have the authorities conducted any pre?
legislative consultation on the subject. Consequently, there
are no privacy norms that statutorily govern the actions of
private actors such as Respondent Nos. 2-4, nor are there
any defined circumstances under which the State or private
actors may lawfully interfere with an individual's digital

rights and freedoms.

Significantly, the Flaming Commission
constituted a ?Small Group of Experts? under the
Chairmanship of Justice A. P. Shah (Retd.), Former Chief
Justice, Delhi High Court, to identify the privacy issues and
prepare a paper to facilitate the enactment of Privacy Bill,

on 26.12.2011. After a detailed deliberation,-the ?Report of

the Group of Experts on Privacy? was submitted to the .

Planning Commission, wherein the Experts recognised and
recommended nine globally?accepted privacy principles
that should form the foundation of a data protection regime

in India. These comprise of the following:

Notice: of information practices to be given by the data

controller WhatsApp) during collection of

information;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

b) Choice and Consent: to be provided to users through opt
in/opt out provisions and only after proper notice has been
given;

c) Collection limitation: limiting the amount of personal
information that can be collected from the data subject {the
user) by the data controller WhatsApp);

Purpose limitation: which limits the use of data collected
and processed by the data controller only for the purpose

specified

 

e) Access and Correction: that allows users to access, verify,
and correct personal information about them held by the
data controller;

f) Disclosure of information: which obliges the data
controller to provide notice and seek informed consent
from the user before disclosing their personal information
to third parties, which are also bound by the relevant
privacy principles;

g) Security: requiring the data controller to enact safeguards
to prevent unauthorised access, use, modification.
disclosure etc.

h) Openness: of internal privacy policies and practices of the

data controller in a transparent manner that is accessible

J.


and understandable to all users; and

i) Accountability: of data controllers to ensure their

compliance with these privacy principles.

18. That the privacy principles elaborated above are part of a
general consensus amongst countries on internationally
accepted privacy principles, whether it is the APEC Privacy
Framework of 2005, the Privacy Principles of 2013, or

the European Union?s legal instruments on data protection

 

 

Wraw: :v-i - -

(the earlier Directive 95/ 46/ BC, the new 2016 General Data
Protection Regulation, and the e-Privacy Directive). Most
Common Law jurisdiction too, have enacted data protection
or privacy laws, recognising some or all of these principles.
These include the UK Data Protection Act of 1998, the
Australian Privacy Act of 1988 (as amended by the Privacy
Amendment Enhancing Privacy Protection Act 2012), the
Canadian Personal Information Protection of Electronic
Documents Act 2000 (as amended by the Digital Privacy Act
of 2015), and the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap.
486 of the Laws of Hong Kong) of 1996.

It is submitted that the unilateral actions of Respondent
Nos. 2-4 and the change in the terms of WhatsApp?s privacy
policy elaborated in the captioned petition raise important
questions of their compliance with these privacy principles,
specifically with the principles of (effective and informed)
Consent, collection and purpose limitation, disclosure of
information, and accountability. They I highlight the
problems caused by the failure of Respondent No. 1 and 5 to
enact a specific privacy and/ or data protection law or to
take actions under the current legislative framework to
regulate the functioning of Internet Messaging Applications
such as those provided by Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The
Applicant craves the leave of this Honrble Court to rely and
refer to these principles and other international
standards/ norms to assist this Hon?ble Court on the

questions of law raised in the captioned Special Leave

Petition.

It is submitted that in most jurisdictions across the world,

the statutory data protection regime has created a ?Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

a.


12

Protection Authority?, whether in the form of an
Information Commissioner with responsibilities for data
protection England and Australia), a Privacy
Commissioner Canada and Hong Kong), or a
Commissioner for Data Protection in Germany at the
state level such as the Hamburg Commissioner). At the pan?
European, level too, there exists the EU Data Protection
Supervisor and the ?Article 29 Working Party?
(comprising of representatives of the national data
protection supervisory authorities in the Member States, the
EDPS, and the European Commission). In the United States,
the Federal Trade Commission looks at issues relating to
consumer privacy, in addition to privacy and data
protection laws at the State levels. These Data Protection
Authorities are specialised agencies tasked with resolving
consumer complaints, and more importantly,
independently examining issues pertaining to data
protection, data privacy, openness of data controllers, and
upholding and protecting information rights. In many cases,
the Data Protection Authorities would directly engage with
data controllers such as Respondent Nos. 2-4. Thus, in
recognition of the need for specialised agencies and the
complexity of the issues pertaining to data privacy, the role
of the courts in these countries is limited and comes at a
later stage, for instance, when the decision of the Data
Protection Authority is appealed against. In India, on the
other hand, the lack of any Data Protection Authority has
left citizens remediless in case of any breach or violation of
data, with no option but to try and seek relief through writ
remedies before this Hon?ble Court and the High Courts.

 

 



21?xr- m. 

In View of the aforesaid, the Applicant agrees with the
Petitioner that there is an urgent need to bring into existence
a statutory law or a regulatory framework to ensure the
privacy of users online, and in their use of Internet
Messaging Services. This is particularly important given the
developments in big data that have made large-scale and
efficient data collection, storage, processing, and use
possible. It is submitted that directions may be issued to
Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 to consider framing new
regulations guidelines under the existing statutory regime
to provide a foundational basis and theoretical clarity to the
right to privacy and to give effect to the various privacy
principles, which will determine the nature of interaction
between data subjects (users) and data controllers (such as

WhatsApp) .

That given the absence of any statutory or regulatory
regime, the Applicant submits that any directions that may
be passed in this matter should only be temporary in nature
in View of the complexity of issues involved, inter alia - the
frequent updates and changes in technological products and
services and the development of big data analytics - all
which requires constant oversight and regulatory
supervision. Given the recent media reports suggesting
that the Government of India is in the process of enacting a
data protection law it is expected that Wide consultations
may be held to obtain comments/ views from various
stakeholders who are at present not represented before this

Hon?ble Court.

Further, the Applicant strongly contests the arguments

advanced by the Petitioner that Internet Messaging Services

 

 

.. 

urnconstitute ?telecommunication services? under Indian law.
It is humbly submitted that Internet Messaging Services are
not within the purview of the Telegraph Act and are
instead, at presently governed under the Information

Technology Act, 2000.

It is the admitted position of Respondent Nos. 1 and 5, even
before the Delhi High Court, that the functioning of internet
service providers is regulated under the TRAI Act, 1997 and
the regulations made thereunder. On the other hand, the
Internet Messaging Applications (such as Respondent Nos.
2-4) have not yet been brought within the purview of the
statutory telecom regulatory framework. This stand has also
been acknowledged by an expert committee constituted by
Respondent No. 1 in August 2015, to produce a report on
network neutrality.

Section 4 of the Telegraph Act of 1885 clarifies that the scope
of regulatory power for the Union Government pertains to
"telegraphs", which are further defined under Section
of the Telegraph Act. It is submitted that the
definition of ?telegraph? would not include Internet
Messaging Services (such as WhatsApp and Facebook),
which telecommunication providers describe as being
?Over-The?Top" [hereinafter services that are
provided over the top layer of the network and are carried
over the facilities provided by the licensed telecom service
providers. OTT services are the? subject matter of a TRAI

Consultation paper of March 2015.

That support for the aforesaid proposition can also be found

in the contents of the Unified Service License, which does

 

 

27.

28.

1"?7 u'a-f-f'wu'rx" 7 n? 

not include Internet Messaging Services Within its scope, if
not provided by a telecommunications service provider. The
Unified Service License indeed would treat such services as

Internet content related traffic.

It is thus submitted that the current language of the
Telegraph Act and the TRAI Act do not provide any
legislative sanction for any regulatory action over Internet
content, including Internet Messaging Services to either
Respondent Nos. 1 or 5. Any change in status quo would
have a deep impact on the rights under Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution since it would mean that offering any
Internet Messaging Service or any other online platform
would then potentially require a telecorn license, which
would not only increase entry costs to Internet creators but
also go against global best practices followed by most

democratic nations with respect to Internet applications.

In addition to the aforesaid submissions, the Applicant
submits that this Hon?ble Court may issue notice to the
Ministry of Electronics Information Technology
[hereinafter ?MeitY?] inasmuch as it is the concerned nodal
ministry for aspects relating to the IT Act, in accordance
with the Allocation of Business Rules [as modified Vide
Amendment series No.327 dated 16.07.2016] .I It is submitted
that the subject matter of Internet Messaging Services, as
with other Internet content and ICT applications related
issues, falls currently within the competence and purview of
MeitY, and the role of Respondent No. 1 the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications (Department of
Telecommunications)] is limited to telecommunication

services.

 

 

 




. .- ?further submitted that the present petition raises
important issues on the regulation of Internet Messaging
Applications such as Respondent Nos. 2-4. However, any
decision by this I-Ion?ble' Court will have a far reaching
effect on the functioning of all OTT services, whether Video
on Demand, Voice over Internet Protocol mobile

messaging etc.

The Applicant is representing the interests of part of the
internet community. in India. That considering the
significance and constitutional importance of this matter,
the Applicant craves leave of this Hon?ble Court to
intervene and be permitted to make submissions before this

Hon?ble Court on the propositions that maybe formulated.

That no prejudice will be caused to the parties if the

Applicant is permitted to intervene in this matter.

This application is made bona?de and in the interests of
justice and it is therefore submitted that the Applicant
should be permitted to intervene in the present Special
Leave Petition and assist this Hon'ble Court on the

questions of law raised.

 

 

 c.
x" 
r4. .Ag?

- t- -- 'mwavszsa-?ra" .. -

17

PRAYER
In the premises it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon?ble Court may be pleased to:

a. Permit the Applicant to intervene and assist this Hon?ble

Court in the present Special Leave Petition; and

b. Pass any other order or direction as this?I?Ion?ble Court
may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances

of the instant case and in the interest of justice.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT AS
IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY

Filed By:
Drawn By: Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate

TVS. RAGHAVENDRA SREYAS
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT

Drawn on 23.04.2017
Filed on 25.04.2017

 

 

. consultation.

 


Amuexonc A-?y

INTERNET

FREEDOM
FOUNDATION

 

 

 

 

   

Profile of Trustees

Apar Gupta

Enrolled with the Delhi Bar Council and practising law since 2007. Apar is a
graduate of Amity Law School, Delhi and completed his master?s degree at
I Columbia Law School. He has subsequently took seminar courses at National Law
School India University, Bangalore and National Law University, Delhi on
Information Technology and Media Laws. He has also extensively written on these
subjects in journals and more popular publications including the Indian Express,
Times of India, the Telegraph amongst many others.

Apar has authored a book on the Information Technology Act, 2000 published by
Lexisnexis that is presently in its 3rd Edition. His public interest work includes:

i 0 Junior counsel in People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in Shreya Singhal
. v. Union ofIndia(W.P.Crl. 199/2013).
- 0 Junior counsel in Foundation for Media Professionals'(FMP) in Subramanium
Swamy v. Union of India (WP. Crl. 106/2015) challenging the constitutionality
of criminal defamation. I
Counsel in Gaurav Sureshbhai Vyas v. Union of India (SLP 601/2016) special
leave petition challenging a Gujarat High Court judgement upholding the
legality of internet shutdowns.
i Drafted the Protection of Speech and Reputation Bill, 2016 that aims to
repeal criminal defamation and codify civil defamation law.
0 Was part of the drafting team. on the, ?SaveTheInternet? campaign and c0-
authored the answers, briefs and submissions. Is a cb?foundeder of the
Internet Freedom Foundation.

 

. 
- 

 



For his work he has been listed in by Forbes India magazine in its list of 30 Indians
under 30 years of age for work on internet and media law and policy. He was
previously worked in the law of offices of Karanjawala Co. and Advani C0.



Aravind Ravi Sulekha

Is the co?founder of Belong, a startup that provides a neighbourhood chat service.
He is a technologist, trained as an engineer with degrees from Kharagpur 
(BTech) and IIM Ahmedabad (MBA). He previously founded and ran Scrollback, a A,
service inspired by Twitter and Internet Relay Chat that transformed online forums ?1
into light-weight, mobile friendly micro-forums. He previously worked with
startups including lctoban Online Services, Notion Ink, and Capillary Technologies.
He has provided expert inputs on Internet and mobile technologies, including most
recently to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India?s mobile wi-fi hotspots

 

 

 

 

. (1)



V.



INTERNET

FREEDO 
FOUNDATION

 

 

Karthik Balakrishnan

Is a member of HasGeek and helped create the Chennai Rains crisis response
platform which crowdsourced information and emergency response resources via
the internet. Karthik was a founding volunteer with the Savethelnternetin
campaign, having helped with the technology platform that allowed 1 million+
Indians to contriute to the TRAI consultative process on net neutrality.

Kiran Jonnalagadda

Co?founder of HasGeek, a platform for people in technology to learn from their
peers and find new opportunities. HasGeek hosts several popular technology
conferences including The Fifth Elephant, Rootconf, and 50p. Previously,
Kiran was a Program Manager at Comat, overseeing technology for the Nemmadi
telecentre network in Karnataka, with 800 rural telepresence kiosks offering
government and commercial services to rural citizens.

Kiran has a long background with the FOSS movement in India, and has worked on
technology projects in sectors including media, academia, research, government
and the private sector. Kiran is also a co-founder of the SaveTheInternet campaign
and the Internet Freedom Foundation.

Nikhil Pahwa

Founder and Editor of MediaNama, a publication chronicling the growth of India?s
digital ecosystem. MediaNama was awarded as an Ecosystem Builder as a part of
the ?40 under 40? awards from Fortune Magazine in 2016. He is a TED Fellow, and
co-founded the Savetheinternetin campaign for Net Neutrality.

Rachita Taneja

Campaigns Manager and founding team member at Jha:kaa.org, a multi issue
advocacy organisation. She is a founding volunteer with the Save The Internet
campaign and a volunteer trustee with the Internet Freedom Foundation. Her main
areas of work include women's rights, and environmental rights, and digital rights.

Rachita runs the popular feminist webcomic Sanitary Panels which comments on
politics, current affairs, women?s rights, society and culture. In the past, Rachita
worked with Greenpeace India where she launched - tools for distributed
campaigning and volunteer engagement and managed their social media
presenceRachita graduated from Delhi University with a Bachelors in Mass Media
and Mass Communication.

 

 

 

 

  

 

- 
. o. . .





.27 3'
5634-2:





INTERNET

FREEDOM
FOUNDATION

 

 

Raman Jit Singh Chima

Serves as Policy Director at Access Now, leading the organisation's team of global
public policy staff in protecting an open Internet and advancing the rights of users
at risk across the world . He is a founding volunteer with the SaveThelnternet.in net
neutrality coalition, a co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, and assisted
the legal team involved in the Supreme Court of India's landmark Shreya Singhal v.
Union of lndia judgment on Internet free speech. He has been included in Forbes
Magazine?s 30-Under-30 list of leaders in India under the Law and Policy category.

Prior to this, he served as Policy Counsel and Government Affairs Manager with
Google based in Delhi across 2010-2014 and advised government, industry bodies
and academia on technology policy issues. He is an India quali?ed lawyer enrolled
with the Bar Council of Delhi and clerked for Justice V.S. Sirpurkar of the Supreme
Court of India, in addition to training with India's National Judicial Academy and
National Human Rights Commission. Raman has studied Internet regulation as an
independent research fellow with the Sarai programme of the Centre for the Study
of Developing Societies, and contributed to Freedom House's inaugural Freedom 0n
the Internet report in 2009. He holds a Bachelors in Arts and Law (Honours) from
the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, where he was Chief Editor
of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology.

Rohin Dharmakuma'r I

Co?founder and CEO of The Ken, a new, digital, subscription-driven publication
headquartered out of Bangalore. He has also been a senior journalist with Forbes
India magazine for over 5 years, during which he specialized in investigative and
deeply?reported features on technology, telecom, e?commerce and startups. Robin
has over 15 years of experience across journalism, entrepreneurship, marketing and
consulting.

He holds an MBA from the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta and an
engineering degree in Computer Sciences from the R.V.C.E., Bangalore.

not MP7