Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is an Indian digital rights advocacy organisation that defends against threats to civil liberties and democracy in India. Launched on 15 August 2016 — India's Independence Day, — it grounds its mission in the principles of the Constitution of India, reflecting its commitment to democratic rights and civic participation. IFF combines digital-first campaigning with policy advocacy. Its staff and volunteers run literacy projects such as online campaigns that inform citizens and engage government bodies about complex issues in technology policy. It conducts strategic litigation in matters of censorship, digital surveillance, and digital privacy. Based in New Delhi, it is led by Indian lawyer and founder director Apar Gupta.
History
Internet Freedom Foundation emerged from the SaveTheInternet.in, a volunteer-driven advocacy campaign for Net neutrality in India. The SaveTheInternet.in campaign gathered over 1.2 million signatures from Indian citizens opposing discriminatory pricing practices by telecom companies. In response to this mobilization and other stakeholder input, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued regulations prohibiting discriminatory data pricing, commonly known as zero-rating practices. IFF was formally launched on August 15, 2016.
Absent advocacy organisations working on digital rights in India, and to enable sustained work the co-founders of the SaveTheInternet.in campaign established IFF as an organisation to work on issues of privacy, free speech, net neutrality, and innovation on the internet. IFF became a staffed organisation in April, 2018 and Apar Gupta took over as the Executive Director. Gupta served in this capacity until July 2023. Following a transition period, Gupta returned to lead the organization as Founder Director in November 2024.
Mission
IFF's mission is threefold: to challenge the concentration of power and profit in digital technology markets, to defend civil liberties in the digital sphere, and to ensure transparency and accountability in technology policy affecting Indian citizens. For this it leverages the Right to Information Act, 2005. It has also undertaken strategic litigation and offered pro-bono legal assistance to journalists, creators and media professionals in cases of surveillance such as spyware infections and internet censorship such as blocking of websites,. It has also engaged on issues on the impact of technology on democracy and the growth of digital authoritarianism in India.
Projects
Zombie Tracker Zombie Tracker is a public database developed by IFF in partnership with Civic Data Labs that documents cases still being prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, despite the Supreme Court striking down the provision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The tool is named 'Zombie Tracker' as a metaphor for the 'zombie' nature of the legal provision—officially killed by judicial order but continuing to haunt the criminal justice system through ongoing prosecutions. The tracker along with strategic litigation lead to a closure of all 66A cases. Newslaundry reported on the order, referencing the underlying litigation. The dataset was based on an empirical study in a research paper by Apar Gupta and Abhinav Sekhri calling attention to the continued use of Section 66A of the IT Act, despite the Supreme Court striking it down.
Project Panoptic Project Panoptic tracks the development and implementation of facial recognition technology projects in India with an aim to increase transparency and accountability around the use of Facial recognition technology in India. The tracker was built by IFF along with volunteers from Datakind and Frappe. As of November 2021, Project Panoptic tracked 78 facial recognition technology (FRT) projects across India, with the tracked projects collectively budgeted at approximately 9.6 billion Indian rupees. Project Panoptic along with Amnesty International and Article 19, launched the Hyderabad leg of BanTheScan campaign. Hyderabad is one of the most surveilled cities in the world, with 600,000 cameras monitoring its citizens all the time. By 2024, the tracker had expanded to document over 120 government FRT tenders, providing the most comprehensive public database of India's facial recognition procurement and deployment.
Digital Patrakar Defence Clinic Digital Patrakar Defense Clinic (DPDC)—'patrakar' meaning 'journalist' in Hindi—offers pro-bono legal assistance and representation to Indian journalists, cartoonists, bloggers, and other digital content creators facing legal threats, including defamation suits, obscenity charges, or censorship orders.
Public Campaigns
Speech Bill In March 2017, IFF drafted a law to reform India's defamation law which was introduced in Lok Sabha as a Private Member's Bill by Tathagata Satpathy. The bill garnered more than 2000 signatures and 54 organisational supporters, including India's largest publishing houses. However, like most Private Member's Bills, this legislation did not advance to passage
Keep Us Online In April 2017, IFF launched a campaign against internet shutdowns in India called KeepUsOnline. They petitioned the Prime Minister and the Union Minister for Electronics and Information Technology to introduce credible measures to stop arbitrary internet shutdowns in India.
Save Our Privacy Launched in 2018, SaveOurPrivacy is a public initiative launched by a collective of 35 organizations including IFF, which put across a model draft law called "Indian Privacy Code, 2018". The code has seven core principles, one of which calls for surveillance reform. It advocates for a law that limits mass or 'dragnet' surveillance, and lays down clear rules governing individual surveillance. It also seeks the strengthening and protection of the right to information. After going through multiple revisions, the draft was filed as a private member's bill in the parliament, twice. The collective creates resources for public awareness and continuously engages with government representatives.
Litigation IFF has engaged in a broad array of legal actions — as petitioner, intervener, legal representative, and amicus curiae — to uphold digital rights and civil liberties in India. These span multiple themes from online privacy and data protection to free expression, surveillance reform, and internet access. It includes cases where team members from IFF have acted as litigators, the organisation has been a petitioner, provided legal representation, intervened in ongoing matters, or supported other petitioners through amicus briefs and counsel. A separate section covers legal notices issued by IFF and their impact.
Privacy and Data Protection
In 2017, IFF intervened in a Supreme Court case challenging WhatsApp’s privacy policy, which allowed greater data sharing with Facebook. IFF sought an interim stay on WhatsApp’s 2016 policy and later opposed the 2021 policy update on behalf of users, highlighting threats to data privacy. This matter is now before a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, underscoring the need for a robust data protection regime in India.
IFF provided legal assistance to a petitioner challenging the mandatory use of the Aarogya Setu contact-tracing app for employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Filed in the Kerala High Court in 2020, the petition argued that forcing the app on private and public sector workers was a disproportionate invasion of privacy (violating Articles 14, 19, and 21). Soon after the court admitted the case, the government revised its guidelines to make Aarogya Setu usage voluntary (“best efforts” basis) instead of mandatory.
In 2020, IFF's legal team represented Dr. Satendra Singh in a Delhi High Court petition concerning the National Digital Health Mission’s Health Data Management policy. The case highlighted how rushed online consultations (with short deadlines and English-only materials) excluded persons with disabilities and those without internet access. The High Court directed the government to consider the petitioner’s representation, pushing for more inclusive and accessible policymaking.
IFF has intervened in multiple cases dealing with the “right to be forgotten” – the idea that individuals can have personal data or court records delisted or removed. In Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (Delhi High Court), IFF joined as an intervenor to oppose creating a broad right to be forgotten via judicial order. IFF argued that without a statutory framework, recognizing such a right could curtail the public’s right to information and free expression. Similarly, IFF supported Indian Kanoon (a legal database) in a Kerala High Court case where a litigant sought removal of a public court judgment from the website. IFF’s position in these cases is that, while privacy is important, an unqualified right to be forgotten threatens transparency and Article 19(1)(a) freedoms.
Free Speech and Online Content Regulation
IFF provided legal representation to Tanul Thakur, the creator of a satirical website “Dowry Calculator”, in his 2019 petition to the Delhi High Court challenging the arbitrary blocking of his website by the government. The Ministry of Electronics & IT (MeitY) had blocked the site without prior notice, ostensibly under the Dowry Prohibition Act despite the site's plainly satirical nature. IFF argued that the blocking violated due process and free speech, as authorities failed to even attempt contacting the owner (despite his contact info being public). The case exposed how opaque website bans undermine transparency. The Delhi High Court issued notice in late 2019 and the matter is pending adjudication.
IFF has represented several parties in challenges to the IT Rules, 2021, which impose sweeping content regulation and moderation requirements. These cases have been transferred by the Supreme Court to the Delhi High Court: In LiveLaw Media Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (Kerala High Court), IFF's lawyers represented LiveLaw in its constitutional challenge to the new IT Rules. LiveLaw contends that the Rules especially the oversight mechanism for digital news and “content takedown” orders – violate freedom of speech and are ultra vires since news websites aren't “intermediaries” at all. In March 2021, the Kerala High Court admitted the case and granted interim relief by barring coercive action against LiveLaw protecting the portal pending a final decision. In T.M. Krishna v. UOI (Madras High Court), IFF provided legal assistance to renowned musician and activist T.M. Krishna in another petition challenging the IT Rules, 2021. Krishna argues the Rules infringe upon Article 14 and 19(1)(a) rights by imposing a chilling effect on creative and journalistic expression. In mid-2021, the Madras High Court issued notice and stayed any punitive action under Part III of the Rules, noting the serious issues raised.
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized “offensive” online messages, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. UOI. Yet authorities kept arresting and charging people under it. In 2018, IFF assisted People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in the Supreme Court by providing research and legal support for a Miscellaneous Application in the Shreya Singhal case. IFF's “Zombie Tracker” project had uncovered fresh 66A cases even after the ban.The Supreme Court took note and in 2019 directed the closure of all pending cases under 66A and ordered authorities not to register new ones. When reports in 2021 showed continued 66A arrests, IFF again supported PUCL in filing M.A. No. 901/2021 in the Supreme Court. The Court issued notice to the Union government and demanded an explanation for ongoing prosecutions under the defunct law and directed that no new cases should be registered.