IPC Section 66A: Just demolished by the Supreme Court
 |
| Source: Takshashila Institute |
The Supreme Court of India has just declared that the IT Act, formally known as the IPC Section 66A, is constitutionally invalid. According to the court, IPC Section 66A is a threat to the Fundamental Right of ‘Right to Freedom of speech,’ guaranteed by the constitution of India to all the citizens of India.
Do you know about this law? If not, read the article below:
What is Section 66A of the IT Act?
Section 66A defines the punishment for sending “offensive” messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A convict can get a maximum of three years in jail alongwith or without a fine. The convict can be arrested and put up in jail on the command of an Inspector of Police of a police station on the commencement of an FIR.What is the problem with that?
The problem of the Section 66A of the IT Act is the vagueness about what is “offensive”. The word has a very wide connotation and allows distinctive and varied interpretations. It is subjective, and what may be ‘okay’ for one person, may lead to a complaint from someone else and, consequently, an arrest under Section 66A if the police accept the person’s view.How did the controversy begin?
The first petition came up in the court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post. The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. The arrests outraged people over the manner in which the cyber law was used.A girl named Shreya Singhal had filed the case about the constitutional legality of the law. Now she has won the case and proved that this was not legal, atleast in the views of the Supreme Court judge.
How frequently has 66A been used?
Most cases of arrest were reported in 2012. The professor of the Jadavpur University, Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested for forwarding caricatures on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook. Activist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for drawing cartoons mocking the Indian Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness. Air India employee Mayank Sharma and K V Rao from Mumbai were arrested for allegedly posting offensive comments against politicians on their Facebook group.I think that this was not a serious offense. I say bad about politicians every day, even the Political Science book of class 10 mocks the politicians and political parties! (Yes, I’ve read it).
Businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested by Puducherry police for an allegedly posting an offensive tweet against the son of a former cabinet minister.
What are the grounds for the challenge?
While the objective behind the 2008 amendment was to prevent the misuse of information technology, particularly through social media, Section 66A comes with extremely wide parameters, which allow unusual interpretations by law enforcement agencies. Most of the terms used in the section have not been specifically defined under the Act. A lot of part has been left blurred in the law.The petitions have argued that it is a potential tool to suppress legitimate free speech online, and to continue freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under the Constitution, going far beyond the ambit of “reasonable restrictions” on that freedom.And now, the recent arresting of an 11th class student by the UP police for posting an “offensive” post about the UP cabinet minister Mohd. Azam Khan has again ignited the fuel against the section 66A of the IT act.
(The information has been taken from indianexpress, Wikipedia and from News Channels).
What are your views about the act and Supreme Court judgment about it? Feel free to comment!
If there is a mistake in any of our article’s points, please comment here. We look forward to our readers’ suggestions.
