Internet Freedom Foundation

Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is an Indian digital-rights advocacy organisation focused on the relationship between technology, law, democracy and civil liberties. Based in New Delhi, it works on issues including privacy, free expression, internet access, net neutrality, surveillance, data protection, platform regulation and the social effects of emerging technologies. Rather than operating as a conventional commercial brand, IFF functions as a public-interest organisation whose work combines legal advocacy, research, civic education, public campaigning and support for people facing technology-related legal threats. IFF was formally launched on 15 August 2016, India's Independence Day. Its origins lie in SaveTheInternet.in, a volunteer-led campaign opposing discriminatory internet pricing and zero-rating arrangements. That campaign mobilised more than one million Indian citizens and helped build public and policy pressure around net neutrality. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India subsequently issued rules prohibiting discriminatory data-pricing practices. The campaign's organisers established IFF to provide a continuing institutional structure for digital-rights work beyond the immediate net-neutrality debate. The organisation became staffed in April 2018. Lawyer Apar Gupta served as Executive Director from 2018 until July 2023 and later returned to the organisation as Founder Director in November 2024. IFF describes its mission in terms of challenging excessive concentration of power in technology markets, defending civil liberties in digital spaces, and promoting transparency and accountability in technology policy. Its advocacy frequently invokes constitutional rights and India's Right to Information Act, 2005. A substantial part of IFF's work is strategic litigation. It has acted as a petitioner, intervener, legal representative, research partner or amicus-support organisation in cases concerning website blocking, online speech, internet shutdowns, digital surveillance, facial recognition, data protection, encryption, anonymity, health-data governance and the right to be forgotten. Its legal assistance has included support for journalists, artists, bloggers, cartoonists, creators and other people exposed to defamation claims, censorship orders or surveillance-related risks. Examples include challenges involving the 2021 Information Technology Rules, the mandatory use of the Aarogya Setu contact-tracing application, WhatsApp privacy policies, and the continued prosecution of people under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act after that provision was struck down by the Supreme Court. IFF also develops public-interest tools and campaigns. Zombie Tracker documents prosecutions that continued under Section 66A after its invalidation. Project Panoptic records the development and procurement of facial-recognition systems by Indian public authorities, with the stated aim of improving transparency. The Digital Patrakar Defence Clinic provides pro-bono legal support to digital journalists and content creators. Earlier public campaigns included KeepUsOnline, which opposed arbitrary internet shutdowns, Save Our Privacy, which promoted a model privacy framework, and a campaign for reform of India's criminal-defamation regime. The organisation's present identity is therefore defined less by a consumer product than by public-interest intervention. It seeks to make technology policy understandable to citizens, contest opaque or disproportionate state and corporate power, and use courts, public data, coalition-building and policy engagement to protect constitutional freedoms in India's digital environment.

Internet Freedom Foundation developed out of India's SaveTheInternet.in campaign, a volunteer mobilisation focused on net neutrality and discriminatory data pricing. The campaign opposed arrangements that would allow telecom operators or platform companies to provide selected online services on preferential pricing terms. It attracted more than one million signatures and helped make internet access and network neutrality prominent public-policy issues in India. The resulting regulatory response from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India prohibited discriminatory data-pricing practices, including forms of zero-rating. The campaign's organisers concluded that a permanent organisation was needed to address the wider consequences of digital technology for rights and democracy. IFF was launched on 15 August 2016, deliberately associated with India's Independence Day and the constitutional values invoked in its public-interest work. Its remit expanded from net neutrality to privacy, free expression, surveillance, innovation, internet access and accountability in technology policy. The organisation became staffed in April 2018, with lawyer Apar Gupta taking the Executive Director position. IFF's institutional model has combined public communication with legal and policy intervention. It uses explainers, campaigns, research and coalition work to make complex technology-law questions accessible to citizens, while also pursuing court proceedings and formal representations. Its work has addressed both state action and private-sector practices. In privacy and data protection, it intervened in litigation over WhatsApp's sharing policies, challenged compulsory use of the Aarogya Setu application during the COVID-19 period, and participated in disputes concerning health-data policy and the proposed right to be forgotten. In free-expression matters, it supported challenges to website blocking, online-content regulation, criminal defamation and the Information Technology Rules, 2021. Surveillance and anonymity became another major area of activity. IFF filed a Supreme Court challenge seeking reform of India's electronic-surveillance framework and argued against proposals requiring identity linking or message traceability on social-media services. It has also supported public scrutiny of facial-recognition deployments. Project Panoptic, developed with civic-technology collaborators and volunteers, tracks government facial-recognition projects, tenders and procurement activity. The project is intended to help researchers and the public assess the scale, cost and accountability of biometric surveillance. IFF's Zombie Tracker addresses a different institutional problem: the persistence of invalidated law within the criminal-justice system. The database records cases continuing under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act after the Supreme Court struck that provision down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. IFF's research and litigation support contributed to renewed judicial attention to the continued use of Section 66A and to directions concerning the closure of pending cases and prevention of new prosecutions. Public campaigning has remained central to the organisation's approach. KeepUsOnline challenged arbitrary internet shutdowns, while Save Our Privacy promoted a model privacy code through a coalition of civil-society groups. IFF also supported a proposed reform of criminal defamation law and operates the Digital Patrakar Defence Clinic, which provides pro-bono assistance to journalists, bloggers, cartoonists and other digital creators facing legal threats. Apar Gupta left the Executive Director position in July 2023. After a transition period, he returned as Founder Director in November 2024. IFF continues to present itself as an Indian public-interest organisation concerned with the constitutional, democratic and social consequences of digital governance.

• 2024

  Founder Director role resumed

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  Apar Gupta returned to lead IFF as Founder Director in November.

• 2023

  Executive Director transition

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  Apar Gupta's tenure as Executive Director ended in July.

• 2019

  Surveillance-reform petition

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  IFF filed a Supreme Court petition challenging India's electronic-surveillance framework and seeking stronger safeguards.

• 2018

  IFF becomes a staffed organisation

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  The organisation became staffed in April, with Apar Gupta taking the Executive Director role.

• 2018

  Save Our Privacy initiative

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  IFF joined a 35-organisation collective promoting the Indian Privacy Code, 2018.

• 2017

  KeepUsOnline campaign begins

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  IFF launched a campaign calling for credible safeguards against arbitrary internet shutdowns.

• 2016

  Organisation launched

  [1]Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org

  Internet Freedom Foundation was formally launched on 15 August 2016, growing out of the SaveTheInternet.in net-neutrality campaign.

A public-interest digital-rights organisation combining litigation, policy advocacy, research, civic education and campaigns to defend privacy, free expression, internet access and democratic accountability in India.

• Public-interest research and transparency database

  Project Panoptic

  A tracker documenting facial-recognition technology projects, tenders and deployments by Indian public authorities. IFF developed it with Civic Data Labs, DataKind volunteers and Frappe. The project is designed to expose the scale, procurement patterns and accountability gaps associated with biometric surveillance.

• Legal-research database

  Zombie Tracker

  A public database recording cases that continued under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act after the Supreme Court invalidated the provision. Its findings supported advocacy and litigation seeking closure of residual prosecutions and compliance with the court's judgment.

• Pro-bono legal assistance

  Digital Patrakar Defence Clinic

  A legal-support initiative for Indian journalists, cartoonists, bloggers and other digital content creators facing threats such as defamation proceedings, obscenity allegations, censorship orders or other technology-related legal action.

• 2018Save Our Privacy

  India

  A coalition initiative involving IFF and other organisations that promoted the Indian Privacy Code, 2018, including limits on mass surveillance and stronger information rights.

  Outcome. The proposed code underwent revisions and was introduced as a Private Member's Bill on two occasions, without becoming law.

  Source
• 2017Speech Bill

  India

  IFF drafted a proposal to reform India's criminal-defamation law. It was introduced in the Lok Sabha as a Private Member's Bill and received support from civil-society and publishing organisations.

  Outcome. The bill did not advance to passage.

  Source
• 2017KeepUsOnline

  India

  A campaign calling on India's government to create credible safeguards against arbitrary internet shutdowns.

  Source
• 2016SaveTheInternet.in

  India

  The volunteer campaign that preceded IFF opposed discriminatory data pricing and zero-rating practices, mobilising more than one million signatures and contributing to public pressure for net-neutrality rules.

  Outcome. TRAI issued regulations prohibiting discriminatory data-pricing practices.

  Source
• BanTheScan Hyderabad

  Hyderabad, India

  IFF collaborated with Amnesty International and Article 19 on the Hyderabad component of BanTheScan, raising awareness about extensive facial-recognition and camera surveillance.

  Source

• 2021

  Renewed action over Section 66A prosecutionsStrategy

  Background

  Research showed that people were still being arrested or prosecuted under Section 66A despite its invalidation by the Supreme Court.

  Action taken

  IFF supported the People's Union for Civil Liberties in renewed Supreme Court proceedings and used Zombie Tracker research to document continuing cases.

  Aftermath

  The Court sought an explanation from the Union government and directed that new cases should not be registered under the struck-down provision.

  Source

• 2020

  Challenge to mandatory Aarogya Setu useStrategy

  Background

  IFF supported a petition arguing that requiring workers to use the COVID-19 contact-tracing application could disproportionately infringe privacy and constitutional rights.

  Action taken

  It provided legal assistance in proceedings before the Kerala High Court.

  Aftermath

  The government's guidance was revised so that use was encouraged on a best-efforts basis rather than treated as mandatory.

  Source

• 2019

  Challenge to India's electronic-surveillance frameworkStrategy

  Background

  IFF argued that the statutory framework governing telephone and internet interception lacks sufficient safeguards and judicial oversight in light of constitutional privacy protections.

  Action taken

  It filed a Supreme Court petition seeking systemic surveillance reform and stronger accountability requirements.

  Aftermath

  The Supreme Court issued notice and the matter remained pending according to the supplied reference material.

  Source

1. 1Internet Freedom Foundationen.wikipedia.org
2. 2Internet Freedom Foundation official websiteinternetfreedom.in