Slapping off the SLAPP, No Time To Take a Nap! (An Online Mass Petition)

Posted on 30th July, 2025 (GMT 03:45 hrs)

ABSTRACT

In light of growing threats to democratic dissent in India, this petition urgently calls for the enactment of Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation and a robust data protection framework to safeguard whistleblowers, journalists, and public-interest advocates from legal intimidation and digital surveillance. With SLAPPs weaponized by state-corporate entities to suppress dissent through defamation suits and privacy breaches, and in a context of declining press freedom, weak accountability, and widespread misuse of laws like UAPA and Section 69A, the petition highlights the need for judicial oversight, tort remedies, procedural safeguards, and an independent Data Protection Authority. Drawing on international precedents and constitutional protections under Article 19, it calls on India’s highest authorities to defend free speech, uphold privacy rights, and end the culture of legal harassment.

Dear Defenders of Democracy,

In the contemporary Indian republic, our fundamental right to speak truth to power is under attack. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are being used by powerful state-corporate interests to silence whistleblowers, journalists, and activists exposing corruption and injustice. These lawsuits drain resources, intimidate voices, and threaten our democracy.

We urgently need Anti-SLAPP legislation in India to protect free speech, prevent legal harassment, and safeguard those who dare to hold the powerful accountable.

Your voice matters. By signing this petition, you join a growing movement demanding justice, transparency, and the protection of our democratic rights.

Stand with us.

Sign and share now to defend free speech and empower public-interest voices:
https://www.change.org/p/enact-anti-slapp-legislation-in-india-to-protect-free-speech-and-whistleblowers

In Solidarity,

Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA) ⤡

P.S. Additionally, it is to be noted that India ranks 159 out of 180 in the 2024 World Press Freedom Index, with a slight ranking improvement from 2023 but a worsening overall score compared to 2021. Since 2014, thirteen journalists have been killed, including five in 2024. Laws such as the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and the IT Rules 2021 have led to over 25,000 content takedowns and 200+ legal cases against journalists. Media ownership is heavily concentrated, with about 70% of major outlets linked to BJP-affiliated conglomerates, compromising editorial independence. The marginal ranking rise reflects global trends rather than domestic progress, while protecting journalists and reforming restrictive laws remain critical.

India is ranked 13th on the 2024 CPJ Global Impunity Index, with 17 unsolved journalist murders over the past decade. No convictions have been upheld for journalist killings related to their work since 1992. Corruption, political interference, and organized crime hinder justice, and India’s refusal to engage with UNESCO’s impunity mechanism worsens the problem. The 2023 Atlas of Impunity notes India’s poor human rights record, including violence against women and environmental degradation. The 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index places India 96th, highlighting ongoing corruption and weak enforcement. Custodial violence and police impunity remain widespread, exacerbated by governance complexities and cultural acceptance of punitive policing. Public frustration over press freedom failures is evident on social media, reflecting deep concern across civil society.

We are citing a recent instance of censorship directed at a Non-Godi Media journalist who highlighted religious polarization within electoral rolls in Bihar:

PETITION TEXT

This Petition is Being Submitted To Protect Dissenting Whistleblowers and Public-Interest Speakers from Vexatious Defamation, Legal Harassment, and Digital Surveillance 

To:

The Hon’ble President of India
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
The Hon’ble Prime Minister of India
The Hon’ble Union Minister of Law and Justice
The Hon’ble Chairperson, Law Commission of India

 
Subject: 
Urgent enactment of Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) legislation and robust privacy safeguards to protect free expression, civil society, and fundamental rights from legal and digital intimidation in India

 
Context 
India faces a rising tide of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs)—legal actions particularly filed by crony tycoons or state actors (as representatives of a given political formation) to censor, intimidate, and silence public-interest voices rather than seek genuine redress. Cronies’ legal firms are citing provisions like Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC and Section 499 IPC, with initial demands for damages up to ₹100 crore. These suits, often filed in remote jurisdictions, exemplify lawfare designed to suppress dissent and “truth”-telling, especially those utilizing the fifth pillar of democracy (social media) to vocalize dissent.

Additionally, India’s digital privacy framework is questionable. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, criticized by Justice B.N. Srikrishna (who himself drafted this act) as risking an “Orwellian State”⤡, included broad state-corporate exemptions for data processing, diminished Data Protection Authority (DPA) independence, and oversight of non-personal data, raising surveillance concerns (Panopticon). Such risks persist in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. 

See Also:

Media Under Attack: India’s New Data Protection Law VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 22nd July, 2025 ©The Wire)

India (2014-23): Mass Media, Censorship and the DHFL Scam VIEW HERE ⤡ 

Integration of Tort Law: Civil Liability for Legal Harassment 
SLAPP suits violate constitutional rights and constitute tortious wrongs, including the following:

• Malicious Prosecution: Civil and criminal litigation initiated without reasonable cause to suppress free speech—resulting in financial, emotional, and reputational harm—has been evident in the DHFL case, where financially victimized individuals faced attempts by legal firms representing crony tycoons to silence them for exposing alleged state-corporate collusion. View more as follows: 

1. Piramal’s Legal Firm vs DHFL Victims: A Chronological Collage VIEW HERE ⤡  
2. Silencing the Digital Dawn: India’s Censorship Crusade vs. Musk, Youth, and the Defrauded VIEW HERE ⤡ 
3. Justice via Intimidation? A Financially Abused Citizen vs. the Corporate-State Nexus VIEW HERE ⤡ 

• Abuse of Process: Misusing legal processes to intimidate civic actors rather than seek distributive justice.
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Severe anxiety, reputational damage, and health deterioration caused by punitive legal harassment, as observed in the case of financially distressed victims like the DHFL victims.

We demand that Anti-SLAPP legislation incorporate these torts, with remedies including compensatory and punitive damages, cost-shifting, and mandatory public retractions or apologies.

Digital Privacy Risks 
India lacks a robust privacy law to protect citizens from government overreach. Key concerns include:

• Broad exemptions for state data access on vague (being open-to-interpretation) grounds like “sovereignty”, “unity and integrity” or “public order,” without necessity, proportionality, or parliamentary oversight.
• Lack of independence for the Data Protection Authority, with government control over appointments and decisions.
• Risks of misuse of non-personal data under central oversight without safeguards.

Demands for Legal and Privacy Safeguards 

We call for the enactment of a unified Protection and Data Privacy Act with the following key components:

1. Tort Remedies & Definitions

• Explicit recognition of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and data privacy violations as actionable harms.
• Clear definition of SLAPP suits as lawsuits aimed at suppressing public-interest speech, including torts such as civil and criminal defamation.

2. Procedural Safeguards & Judicial Oversight 

• Preliminary screening hearings to filter SLAPP suits and frivolous cases early, shifting the burden of proof to plaintiffs.
• Mechanisms for early dismissal of baseless defamation and related claims, with protective costs and sanctions imposed on vexatious litigants.
• Legislated, narrow grounds for state access to personal data, subject to strict necessity and proportionality tests with mandatory judicial and parliamentary oversight.

3. Independent Data Protection Authority (DPA)

• Establish a fully autonomous DPA empowered to adjudicate violations, enforce privacy rights, and provide transparent grievance redressal.

4. Remedies & Enforcement 

• Award compensatory and punitive damages, including legal costs, to victims of SLAPP suits and data/privacy abuses.
• Orders for public apologies or retractions in cases of defamation or misuse of data.

5. Additional Legal Protections: Clarifying the Legal Framework Supporting Free Speech and Digital Activism

Constitutional Safeguards
The right of citizens to communicate dissent and critique public policy is protected under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly—including digital protests. Criticism made in good faith on public interest matters is protected from defamation claims under Section 499 IPC.

We have also observed that the Right to Information (RTI) in India is often hindered by a persistent “will to hide” (erit celare, jugupsa), as public authorities frequently withhold crucial information of public interest. The following links provide evidence of this pattern:

1. Autopsy of RTI in the Police Universe of the Indian Polity VIEW HERE ⤡ 
2. RTI DECEASED: THE STATE OF DEMOCRATIC UNFREEDOM VIEW HERE ⤡ 

Invalidation of Section 66A of the IT Act
Section 66A, which criminalized “offensive” online speech, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for violating free speech rights. Any FIRs, charges, or notices invoking this repealed provision are void ab initio and violate the Supreme Court’s orders. However, the aforementioned Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, reincarnates this quashed legal sanction. 

Other Legal Provisions
Provisions such as Section 69A (website blocking), Section 124A (sedition – currently unenforceable), Sections 153/153A (promoting enmity), and Section 505 (public mischief) are sometimes misused to suppress political speech and activism. If the activists’ lawful actions avoid hacking, violence, hate speech, and personal data misuse, they remain within constitutional and cyber law protections and should not face SLAPP whatsoever.

Misuse of Draconian Laws: UAPA and the Silencing of Dissent 

In addition to vexatious defamation and digital surveillance, we raise urgent concern over the arbitrary and prolonged incarceration of dissenting voices under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA)—a statute originally intended to combat terrorism, now frequently weaponized against students, activists, and scholars expressing legitimate political critique.

The continued imprisonment of individuals like Umar Khalid, a former JNU scholar, and Sharjeel Imam, a PhD student at the same university, signals a profound constitutional crisis. Both have been detained for over 1,400 days without trial, under broadly worded conspiracy charges linked to peaceful anti-CAA protests. The excessive reliance on UAPA, which allows extended pre-trial detention and limits bail, contradicts international human rights norms and domestic principles of natural justice.

We emphasize:

• Peaceful dissent is not sedition, nor terrorism.
• Pretrial incarceration without substantive judicial review under UAPA is a threat to democracy.
• Free expression, even when critical of state policy, must not be criminalized under vaguely framed national security charges.

We therefore call for:

• Urgent judicial review of UAPA detentions lacking evidentiary basis.
• Legislative amendment or repeal of provisions enabling abuse of UAPA against public-interest speech.
• Release or bail of individuals incarcerated for non-violent dissent under the pretext of terrorism.

India must honor the constitutional promise of liberty, especially for those who speak truth to power.

Institutional Violence and the Bhima Koregaon Case: When Justice Becomes Punishment 
The Bhima Koregaon case stands as one of the most disturbing reminders of how India’s legal process can itself become a punishment—particularly for those advocating for the marginalized, Dalits, Adivasis, and political prisoners.

Father Stan Swamy, an 84-year-old Jesuit priest and tribal rights defender suffering from Parkinson’s disease, died in judicial custody in July 2021. He was repeatedly denied basic medical support and bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) despite his deteriorating condition. His death was not a mere tragedy—it was, as many have argued, a form of institutional murder, inflicted through neglect, delay, and a punitive denial of dignity.

Prof. G.N. Saibaba, a wheelchair-bound academic and human rights advocate with 90% disability, passed away on July 31, 2025, in Hyderabad after years of incarceration under the UAPA. Despite persistent appeals citing his deteriorating health—including multiple life-threatening conditions—he was repeatedly denied regular bail, proper medical care, and dignified conditions in prison. His death, following prolonged institutional neglect and judicial indifference, underscores the inhumanity of a system where disability and dissent are both criminalized. The fact that an ailing professor—who posed no flight risk or proven threat—was kept behind bars until death raises serious ethical, legal, and humanitarian questions about India’s carceral logic and selective cruelty. His passing joins that of Father Stan Swamy as a grim indictment of custodial injustice in the world’s largest democracy.

These cases reveal:

• A systemic erosion of bail jurisprudence, where pretrial incarceration becomes indefinite punishment.
• The use of digitally questionable evidence, such as allegedly planted documents later discredited by forensic experts, to justify prolonged detentions.
• The normalization of denying humanitarian and constitutional safeguards to those labelled dissenters.

We submit that no democracy can thrive where frailty is punished, truth is incarcerated, and critique is criminalized.

India must reckon with these deaths—not as isolated lapses, but as symptoms of a deeper structural failure in the interface between law, state power, and human dignity.

International Human Rights Standards
India’s obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 12) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17) protect individuals from arbitrary attacks on reputation and privacy. 

Supreme Court’s Role

We urge the Hon’ble Supreme Court to issue binding guidelines to curb legal and digital abuse by:

• Requiring High Court review of credible SLAPP defenses.
• Facilitating early dismissal of frivolous defamation suits.
• Imposing protective costs and liability on vexatious litigants.
• Exercising judicial oversight over all state requests for personal data access.

International Precedents 

India should adopt best practices from jurisdictions such as the USA, Canada, and EU, which feature:

• Early dismissal procedures and burden-shifting in anti-SLAPP laws.
• Robust damage awards and sanctions for abuse of process.
• GDPR-style data privacy safeguards with independent enforcement authorities.

Call to Action 
We demand:

• Introduction of a comprehensive Anti-SLAPP and Data Protection Law in Parliament.
• Judicial guidelines to curb misuse of defamation and data powers by state or corporate entities.
• Review or quashing of ongoing SLAPP suits against activists, journalists, students, researchers, and whistleblowers, including the aforementioned DHFL victims.

 
Sign This Petition If You Believe:
 Transparent “truth”-telling through democratic dissent is essential to keep the pressure-cooker of democracy alive, not a threat to be silenced.
 Justice must defend people, not privilege, in courtrooms and cyberspace.

In Solidarity,

Once in a Blue Moon Academia (OBMA) ⤡

#ProtectFreeSpeechIndia, #AntiSLAPPIndia, #DefendWhistleblowersIndia, #StopLegalHarassmentIndia, #DataPrivacyNowIndia, #JusticeForActivistsIndia, #SaveDemocracyIndia, #DigitalRightsIndia, #EndVexatiousLitigationIndia, #TransparencyMatters, #UndeclaredEmergency,#Save_Indian_Constitution