In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court said Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which had provisions for arrest for posting allegedly “offensive” content, was “unconstitutional” and affects freedom of speech
What politicians couldn’t muster enough will to do, the Supreme Court did. The apex court struck down a controversial provision in the cyber law providing for arrest for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites saying, it is “unconstitutional” and affects freedom of speech and expression.
The junked Section 66A of the Information Technology Act made any message sent through an electronic device or means punishable by fine or imprisonment, if found “offensive”, “annoying” or “inconvenient” among others. Pic/AFP
ADVERTISEMENT
The law in question is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was brought through an amendment by the previous UPA government and defended by the present NDA regime. Terming liberty of thought and expression as “cardinal”, a bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman said, “The public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.”
The verdict was pronounced on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law. The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two Palghar girls Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan were arrested for a Facebook post against the shutdown in Mumbai following Bal Thackeray’s death.
The bench said terms like “annoying”, “inconvenient” and “grossly offensive” used in the provision are vague. “Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed, so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,” it said.
“We, therefore, hold that the section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of over breadth,” the court said.
The bench also rejected the assurance given by the NDA government during the hearing that certain procedures may be laid down to ensure that the law in question is not abused. “Governments may come and governments may go but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor government.
It must, therefore, be held that Section 66A must be judged on its own merits without any reference to how well it may be administered,” Justice Nariman said. Dhananjay Kulkarni, spokesman for Mumbai police, said they would be able to comment on the matter only after studying the court order.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
