DIGITAL PATRAKAR DEFENCE CLINIC - LEGAL ADVICE, ASSISTANCE, AND REPRESENTATION TO INDIAN JOURNALISTS. PRO BONO. https://patrakardefence.in/

https://patrakardefence.in/blog/dpdc-practical-guide-series-rtis-3/ https://patrakardefence.in/blog/dpdc-practical-guide-series-rtis-3/  it is important to conduct thorough independent research on the subject at hand and to ask detailed, precise questions to limit the ability of the Public Information Officer (PIO) to misunderstand or refuse to answer.

PROTECTION OF SOURCES FOR JOURNALISTS    https://patrakardefence.in/blog/protection-of-source-for-journalists/  India does not have any comprehensive law that protects journalists from being made to reveal their sources in legal proceedings. Some laws offer protection to sources in specific contexts. The 93rd and 185th Reports of the Law Commission of India recommended that journalistic privilege, subject to reasonable restrictions, should be codified into law. There has been no development on this, since, unfortunately.

Supreme Court directs Central Government to reply to petition seeking comprehensive regulation of search & seizure powers for electronic devices    https://internetfreedom.in/supreme-court-directs-central-government-to-reply-to-petition-seeking-comprehensive-regulation-of-search-seizure-powers-for-electronic-devices/ existing laws do not regulate the police’s power to search or seize electronic devices. The lack of regulation enables the police to engage in dubious practices such as mandating individuals, with or without reasonable suspicion, to grant access to mobile devices; making clones of those devices; and sharing the information they obtain with third parties or governmental agencies. These practices violate the right to privacy and the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination.

Since mobile devices are essentially an extension of ourselves, the lack of regulation on how they should be searched has enabled police to access troves of anyone’s personal information to the detriment of their right to privacy.

Full petition:   https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HoZuNGM6pkAePSayDXMucHZy_1wAnbBE/view?ref=static.internetfreedom.in 

Mobile Phones and Criminal Investigations in India   https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3590996

Mahua Moitra Withdraws Defamation Case Against Media | Marya Shakil | The Last Word  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNHdLvDiTXQ

Thirty-six hours ahead of the second sitting of the Lok Sabha Ethics committee probing the cash-for-query scam, Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra, in the line of fire, dropped the defamation plea against media houses. Ms Moitra's counsel told the Delhi High Court that the lawsuit would only continue against the BJP and two other defendants - MP Nishikant Dubey and lawyer Jai Anant Dehadrai. Fifteen media houses were made a party to Mahua Moitra's suit. She has also sought relief against X, Google, and YouTube to remove the allegedly defamatory content against her from these platforms. In another U-Turn, the MP said she will appear before the ethics panel on November 2. When the Lok Sabha panel issued the date for her appearance, she had said she wouldn't be available till November 4. From crying foul to withdrawing the defamation plea, what's changed for Mahua Moitra