( CNN ) Like many of his counterparts across the world , Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quick to stand with France in the wake of the deadly attack on the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo . While most people in India were equally disgusted by the events in Paris , others felt it was preventable . Opposition National Congress Party lawmaker Mani Shankar Aiyar wrote an opinion piece claiming the magazine was `` virtually inviting a reaction week after week . '' Kiran Bedi , a politician and former senior police officer , tweeted : `` France Terror-Shoot-Out sends a message : why deliberately provoke or poke ? Be respectful and civil . Do n't hurt people 's sensitivities ! '' But in a post on its Facebook page , the country 's Aam Aadmi Party , or the `` Common Man 's Party '' that just swept state elections in Delhi in an unprecedented victory , pointed to an issue much closer to home . `` A lot of you have expressed shock at the attack on satirists Charlie Hebdo and have shared some of their cartoons as well . But did you know that doing so can get you jailed here in India ? '' The use of controversial cartoons had reignited a furious debate about freedom of expression in the world 's most populous democracy . Take the case of Ambikesh Mahapatra . In 2012 , the chemistry professor was arrested for circulating by email a cartoon that poked fun at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee . The cartoon , which was a parody of a scene in a popular Indian movie , went viral on social media . He was charged with a range of offenses including defamation , insulting a woman and sending offensive messages from a computer . Mahapatra called the charges a misuse of the law `` in the name of surveillance , to curb democratic rights , freedom of speech and human rights of common people . '' Cyber law in India stipulates that alleged offenders could face up to three years in jail for posting material that is `` grossly offensive , '' has `` menacing character , '' -- or perhaps even more ambiguously -- causes `` annoyance or inconvenience . '' Delhi went one step further in its digital crackdown in 2011 . The so-called `` intermediary guidelines '' implicated web platforms themselves . The rules now require Internet companies to take down any content seen as `` disparaging , '' `` blasphemous , '' or `` defamatory '' within 36 hours of a user submitting a formal request for removal . In Mumbai , India 's financial center , police spokesman Dhananjay Kulkarni told CNN that some 650 posts and pages were blocked last year under these regulations . Google says that in the last half of 2013 , it removed 540 items from its pages in compliance with orders issued by Indian courts , government agencies , and law enforcement . It 's a similar story with Facebook . The social networking site took down nearly 5,000 pieces of content reported by the Indian government in the first half of 2014 . Meanwhile , MouthShut.com -- an Indian equivalent of Yelp , which allows online users to write reviews of products and services -- has taken its case to the country 's Supreme Court to protect what it says are the rights of Indian citizens and consumers enshrined by the Indian constitution . A number of companies had objected to negative feedback and applied to have comments removed under the guise of `` harmful speech '' in current legislation . The question marks over India 's Internet freedom come at a time when Modi is planning to splash out $ 17 billion to build a fiber optic `` broadband highway '' that will cover the entire country . If the prime minister 's ambitious plan bears fruit , more than a billion Indians will be surfing the web for the first time within three years . But a rapid rise in access to the web potentially exposes millions of ordinary Indians to a new threat . `` Schemes like this will bring the bulk of Indian communications online and therefore , open to interception , unless we regulate this before we start . Unless we have proper laws , '' said constitutional lawyer Bhairav Acharya . Ultimately India is an important case study in how developing markets deal with regulating an increasingly connected society . `` A lot of people do n't see the relationship between free speech and privacy , '' explained Acharya . `` But when you survey communications and intercept private communications ... this has a chilling effect on free speech . '' In 2013 , the Indian government rolled out the Central Monitoring System , a mass surveillance system capable of intercepting all phone and Internet-based communications . Human Rights Watch warned of its potential to threaten civilian rights , given the Indian government 's `` reckless and irresponsible use of the sedition and Internet laws . '' As of the time of writing , India 's Telecom Minister had not responded to multiple requests for comment on this issue . Later this year , an Internet surveillance mechanism called NETRA -- an acronym for network traffic analysis -- is expected to go live . Its exact functions have n't yet been spelled out by the government , but Acharya pointed to its possible use as a tool for untargeted , dragnet surveillance . The Defense Research and Development Organization -- reportedly the architect of NETRA -- has refused to comment on the project . Where privacy rules dovetail with Modi 's digital aspirations is especially troubling . `` If you have Digital India and NETRA hand-in-hand -- in effect , what this scheme will become is a large , massive surveillance project , '' warned Acharya . It 's not all necessarily bad news for India 's future Internet users . In the latest Freedom on the Net report , of all 65 countries surveyed , India showed the biggest improvement worldwide where Internet freedom was concerned . Relaxed restrictions on access and content -- plus a drop in the number of arrests for social media posts -- pushed India up in the rankings . Behind the gains -- the country was not , as regularly , calling into action its existing Internet controls . So , it was n't that policy was being reformed ; it 's that these controversial provisions were being called upon with less frequency than in past years . A more lenient approach was reinforced only last week when Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta -- India 's third most senior law officer -- said posts made `` on any Internet medium which were not grossly offensive would not be treated as a criminal act . '' In effect , that could mean dramatically reduced restrictions over what can be freely said in posts made on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter . But ultimately , the government is bound only by its written submissions , so it remains to be seen whether these verbal concessions will find their place in ink in the Indian penal code . For now , this spate of embroiled cyber legislation is under deliberation in the country 's highest court . Cyber security expert , Vijay Mukhi , will be among those looking to see where the anvil falls on digital freedoms . For him , the answer is simple : `` Let society or the legal system decide what must be seen on the Internet , not the state or the police . ''
Attack on Charlie Hebdo sparked a furious debate about freedom of expression in India . Offenders can be prosecuted for posting material that is ` ` grossly offensive , '' causes ` ` annoyance or annoyance '' Facebook took down nearly all posts made by the Indian government in the first half of 2014 .