Constitutional, Privacy, and Free Speech: The Legal Expertise of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya's Chambers
The Chambers of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya has extensively contributed in the dynamic evolution of constitutional law in India. Today’s digital age threw various questions about the ambit of right to privacy, the limits that must be imposed on the state or how leading social media intermediaries handle user’s date.
Mr Poovayya has represented world’s leading technology platforms and social media companies in intermediary liability cases at the constitutional courts in India, including the Supreme Court of India, top global search engines facing content removal requests, individual petitioners in constitutional challenges to legislation and various entities navigating complex regulatory requirements
The Chambers of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya stands at the intersection of constitutional law, technology, and regulatory compliance, offering unparalleled expertise in matters concerning privacy, free speech, intermediary liability, and data protection. With a track record of landmark victories and significant contributions to Indian jurisprudence, the Chambers continues to shape the legal landscape in these critical areas, serving clients ranging from major technology platforms to individual petitioners seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights.
Constitutional law forms the bedrock of democratic societies, establishing fundamental rights and creating the framework within which governments and citizens interact. The Chambers of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya has established itself as a leader in constitutional litigation, particularly in matters concerning privacy rights and freedom of expression in the digital age.
In a landmark ruling that reshaped India's legal landscape, the Supreme Court established privacy as a fundamental right. The Chambers represented a Petitioner who argued persuasively that privacy is indispensable to human dignity and liberty. This resulted in the Court's unanimous holding that privacy is intrinsic to Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This watershed judgment introduced a three-part test for permissible intrusions into privacy: legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. This framework now guides all privacy-related adjudication in the country, reflecting the Chambers' contribution to this pivotal area of constitutional jurisprudence.
The Chambers has been at the forefront of defending free speech rights, particularly in the digital domain. In a landmark case, they successfully argued that vague and overbroad speech restrictions violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This resulted in the Supreme Court striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which had criminalized sending information deemed "grossly offensive" or causing "annoyance."
The Court held that restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored to the enumerated grounds in Article 19(2), effectively removing a blunt instrument that had been used to suppress debate and dissent. This victory underscores the Chambers' commitment to preserving constitutional freedoms in the digital age.
The Chambers has also addressed the delicate balance between commercial expression and public health imperatives. They appeared and argued a challenge to the Karnataka High Court's order regarding the 2014 amendment of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Packaging and Labelling Rules, which mandated 85% pictorial health warnings on tobacco products.
This case examined whether such requirements constituted "reasonable restrictions" on commercial expression, highlighting the Chambers' expertise in navigating the nuanced terrain where different constitutional rights and public interests intersect.
In the increasingly important domain of data protection, the Chambers has contributed significantly to jurisprudence on cross-border data transfers. They appeared and argued a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011.
The case addressed contentions that the SPDI Rules did not provide adequate safeguards for international data transfers despite requiring "the same level of data protection," demonstrating the Chambers' expertise in emerging technology law issues with constitutional dimensions.
The Chambers has successfully represented major technology platforms in cases clarifying the scope of intermediary liability. They argued that safe harbor protections require careful interpretation, examining a criminal complaint filed by a leading asbestos company alleging defamatory articles published on an online forum.
In subsequent cases, they represented social media platforms and search engines, establishing important precedents on intermediary obligations. The Delhi High Court recognized, based on their arguments, that search engines function as intermediaries that merely index existing information rather than create or control it.
Similarly, they successfully argued that intermediaries cannot be compelled to act as arbiters of acceptable content, with the Kerala High Court acknowledging the right to privacy and right to be forgotten as fundamental rights while suggesting that search engines should utilize AI tools to de-index sensitive personal information.
The Chambers has demonstrated expertise in regulatory matters affecting technology companies. They successfully argued that regulatory compliance with complex mandates requires practical timelines, with the Delhi High Court adopting a pragmatic approach regarding compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The Court recognized the complexities of aligning global corporate structures with Indian regulatory requirements, relying on the platform's affidavit rather than rushing into punitive directions, showing the Chambers' ability to secure practical outcomes for clients navigating complex regulatory frameworks.
The Chambers is recognized for pioneering arguments that protect fundamental rights while guiding technology companies through India’s evolving constitutional and regulatory landscape.
Mr Poovayya has represented world’s leading technology platforms and social media companies in intermediary liability cases at the constitutional courts in India, including the Supreme Court of India, top global search engines facing content removal requests, individual petitioners in constitutional challenges to legislation and various entities navigating complex regulatory requirements
The Chambers of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya stands at the intersection of constitutional law, technology, and regulatory compliance, offering unparalleled expertise in matters concerning privacy, free speech, intermediary liability, and data protection. With a track record of landmark victories and significant contributions to Indian jurisprudence, the Chambers continues to shape the legal landscape in these critical areas, serving clients ranging from major technology platforms to individual petitioners seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights.
Constitutional law forms the bedrock of democratic societies, establishing fundamental rights and creating the framework within which governments and citizens interact. The Chambers of Senior Advocate Sajan Poovayya has established itself as a leader in constitutional litigation, particularly in matters concerning privacy rights and freedom of expression in the digital age.
In a landmark ruling that reshaped India's legal landscape, the Supreme Court established privacy as a fundamental right. The Chambers represented a Petitioner who argued persuasively that privacy is indispensable to human dignity and liberty. This resulted in the Court's unanimous holding that privacy is intrinsic to Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This watershed judgment introduced a three-part test for permissible intrusions into privacy: legality, legitimate aim, and proportionality. This framework now guides all privacy-related adjudication in the country, reflecting the Chambers' contribution to this pivotal area of constitutional jurisprudence.
The Chambers has been at the forefront of defending free speech rights, particularly in the digital domain. In a landmark case, they successfully argued that vague and overbroad speech restrictions violate Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This resulted in the Supreme Court striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which had criminalized sending information deemed "grossly offensive" or causing "annoyance."
The Court held that restrictions on speech must be narrowly tailored to the enumerated grounds in Article 19(2), effectively removing a blunt instrument that had been used to suppress debate and dissent. This victory underscores the Chambers' commitment to preserving constitutional freedoms in the digital age.
The Chambers has also addressed the delicate balance between commercial expression and public health imperatives. They appeared and argued a challenge to the Karnataka High Court's order regarding the 2014 amendment of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Packaging and Labelling Rules, which mandated 85% pictorial health warnings on tobacco products.
This case examined whether such requirements constituted "reasonable restrictions" on commercial expression, highlighting the Chambers' expertise in navigating the nuanced terrain where different constitutional rights and public interests intersect.
In the increasingly important domain of data protection, the Chambers has contributed significantly to jurisprudence on cross-border data transfers. They appeared and argued a Public Interest Litigation challenging the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011.
The case addressed contentions that the SPDI Rules did not provide adequate safeguards for international data transfers despite requiring "the same level of data protection," demonstrating the Chambers' expertise in emerging technology law issues with constitutional dimensions.
The Chambers has successfully represented major technology platforms in cases clarifying the scope of intermediary liability. They argued that safe harbor protections require careful interpretation, examining a criminal complaint filed by a leading asbestos company alleging defamatory articles published on an online forum.
In subsequent cases, they represented social media platforms and search engines, establishing important precedents on intermediary obligations. The Delhi High Court recognized, based on their arguments, that search engines function as intermediaries that merely index existing information rather than create or control it.
Similarly, they successfully argued that intermediaries cannot be compelled to act as arbiters of acceptable content, with the Kerala High Court acknowledging the right to privacy and right to be forgotten as fundamental rights while suggesting that search engines should utilize AI tools to de-index sensitive personal information.
The Chambers has demonstrated expertise in regulatory matters affecting technology companies. They successfully argued that regulatory compliance with complex mandates requires practical timelines, with the Delhi High Court adopting a pragmatic approach regarding compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The Court recognized the complexities of aligning global corporate structures with Indian regulatory requirements, relying on the platform's affidavit rather than rushing into punitive directions, showing the Chambers' ability to secure practical outcomes for clients navigating complex regulatory frameworks.
The Chambers is recognized for pioneering arguments that protect fundamental rights while guiding technology companies through India’s evolving constitutional and regulatory landscape.