In a 6 June 2000 letter to Home Affairs Minister Lal Krishna Advani, RSF expressed concern about the adoption by the Lower House of Parliament of a law on Internet use, and the presentation of a bill concerning terrorist activities. According to Robert Ménard, the organisation's secretary-general, "these two laws contain some clauses which are in contradiction with India's international commitments, and especially the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees press freedom." RSF asked the minister to ensure that the two laws were amended in more liberal terms, and especially that they should no longer include jail sentences for press offences. Finally, RSF asked the minister to guarantee journalists' right to protect their sources.
According to the information collected by RSF, the Lower House adopted a law on Internet use (the Information Technology Bill) on 17 May, after only three hours of discussion. It allows policemen to make searches without a warrant and to close down any cybercafé if they think an "electronic crime" might be committed there. During the debate, the government was obliged to drop one of the clauses, which would have forced all owners of cybercafés to keep a record of their customers and the web sites they visited. Moreover, anyone who ran an "anti-Indian" web site - a very vague notion that includes pornographic and "subversive" web sites - faces a maximum sentence of five years in jail.
On 18 May the government also presented a draft bill which could replace the law on terrorism (the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act). The proposals currently being discussed include two clauses concerning the press. Journalists would be obliged to pass on to the police any information concerning "terrorist activities", or face a maximum sentence of three years in jail. Those who refused to supply information or who gave false information to the authorities concerning "terrorist activities" would be liable to a one-year sentence. Both clauses are in contradiction with journalists' right to protect their sources and could severely restrict the work of the media in areas where armed groups are in conflict with the Indian army, such as Kashmir.
