I/III. http://www.igovernment.in/editorial/1002701/a-section-struck-down?utm_source=newsletter-core&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20150324
A section struck down By Sameer Sachdeva | [email protected]| 24th March 2015 Supreme Court upholds the fundamental right to freedom of expression by striking the section 66A of IT Act The Supreme Court of India has held the contentious section 66A of Information Technology Act as unconstitutional and stuck it down. The section of the Act read thus, “Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine." The issue with the section was not only the vague language with words like grossly offensive, menacing character remained undefined but also the misuse of the act by the state police. The section has been misused by the state authorities many a times. The incidents include arrest of two young women for critical comments of shutdown after death of Bal Thackeray; arrest of a Jadavpur University Professor for forwarding a cartoon in West Bengal; arrest of a teen on Facebook post on Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan; arrest of man for a tweet regarding Karti Chidambram, son of then union minister and many more. What came out was that the section was misinterpreted by the law enforcement agencies. The gist remained that what is grossly offensive to one individual, may not be grossly offensive to some one else and the term remained vague. The bench pronouncing the judgement also referred to two judgements of separate UK courts which reached different conclusions as to whether some material was offensive or grossly offensive. The bench observed that, when judicially trained minds can reach on different conclusions while going through the same content, then how is it possible for law enforcement agency (police) and others to decide as to what is grossly offensive. The activist feel that fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed in the Article 19 of the constitution is violated by the section 66A. In the case of Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and it carries with it the right of a citizen to gather information and to exchange thought with others not only in India but abroad also. So, it was a matter of time actually that the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right of citizens and struck down the section which came in way of freedom of expression over the internet. The government held that the section was necessary to combat abuse and defamation on the internet but was actually misused by political parties to silence dissent. The Supreme Court however has not struck down the sections 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, the other sections which were also under question. Section 69A of the IT Act authorises the Central government, the power to direct either a government agency or an intermediary to block access to any website under a list of specific circumstances. Section 79 provides for exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases. The assurance of the current government that it will not misuse the provisions of the section 66A also could not convenience the Supreme Court which felt that governments come and go but section 66A will remain forever. It observed that the present government cannot give an undertaking about its successor that they will not abuse the said section of the Act and hence decided to stuck down the section. II/III. Updated: March 24, 2015 17:31 IST Section 66 A of IT Act unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules JAYANT SRIRAM Petitioner Shreya Singhal flashes the victory sign in New Delhi after the Supreme Court struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act on Tuesday. Photo: R.V. Moorthy The section gives police powers to arrest people for posting “offensive content” online The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66 A of the Information and Technology Act, which allows police to arrest people for posting “offensive content” on the internet. The court, however, allowed the government to block websites if their content had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India's relationship with other countries. The bench said the public's right to know is directly affected by Section 66 A and the Section clearly affects the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under the Constitution of India. Further, the court said Section 66 A was unconstitutional because it failed two major tests - the clear and present danger test and the tendency to create public disorder test. The court also found the language used in the Section vague and nebulous saying it doesn't properly define words like 'offensive' or even 'persistent'. The court said it can't go by government assurances that the Section won't be misused as any assurance would not bind on successive governments. Section 66 A it said, would have to be judged on its own merits. The court said there is a difference between discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion & advocacy, no matter if annoying to some people, has to be allowed, it said. [Box] A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman had on 26 February reserved its judgement on one of the most controversial issues regarding the freedom of expression that the court has had to deal with in recent times. The verdict was reserved after the government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be declared unconstitutional merely because of the possibility of its “abuse”. The government said it did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression but contended that the cyber space could not be allowed to remain unregulated. During hearing however, the court had found several issues with the wording of the law. In particular, it said that terms like ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘of menacing character’, used to classify content as illegal, were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused. The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls — Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan — were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it. The apex court had on 16 May 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like the IG or the DCP. III. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-strikes-down-Section-66A-of-IT-Act-which-allowed-arrests-for-objectionable-content-online/articleshow/46672244.cms Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online Amit Choudhary & Dhananjay Mahapatra,TNN | Mar 24, 2015, 10.50 AM IST NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Section 66A of Information Technology Act as unconstitutional and struck it down. This section had been widely misused by police in various states to arrest innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political issues and political leaders on social networking sites. The court said such a law hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, two cardinal pillars of democracy. READ ALSO: Section 66A of IT Act quashed: Full text of SC verdict All you need to know about Section 66A of IT Act Section 66A quashed: Key points of SC verdict The court said such a law hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression, the two cardinal pillars of democracy. The court said the section has to be erased from the law books as it has gone much beyond the reasonable restrictions put by the Constitution on freedom of speech. The Supreme Court said section 66A was vaguely worded and allowed its misuse by police. The court, however, upheld the validity of section 69B and the 2011 guidelines for the implementation of the I-T Act that allowed the government to block websites if their content had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India's relationship with other countries. However, the court watered down section 79 of the I-T Act making it further difficult for the police to harass innocent for their comments on social network sites. READ ALSO: Centre defends Section 66A of IT Act Sec 66A draconian, but is needed: Govt Class 11 student sent to jail for Facebook post against UP minister Azam Khan Blog: Repeal section 66A: Law that permits jailing school kid for Facebook post is objectionable and absurd The SC delivered its judgment on a bunch of petitions filed in the light of misuse of the penal provision by government authorities against persons who allegedly uploaded offensive posts on social networking sites. The petitioners, including NGOs, civil rights groups and a law student, had argued that Section 66A violated citizens' fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The first petition was however filed by a law student Shreya Singhal. The government had opposed the plea for quashing the provision saying it is meant to deter people from uploading grossly offensive material which can lead to lawlessness by inciting public anger and violence. Justifying the retention of the provision, the Centre had told the apex court that the impact of the internet is much wider and restriction on this medium should be higher in comparison to print and TV. It had said, unlike print and electronic media, the internet did not operate in an institutional form and there was need for some mechanism to put checks and balances. The government had said the provision could not be quashed just because of its potential misuse. Posting pictures and comments on social networking sites which hurt religious sentiments could not be tolerated and people must be prosecuted, it said. Read this in Hindi: सुप्रीम कोर्ट का बड़ा फैसला, सोशल मीडिया पोस्ट पर तुरंत नहीं होगी जेल Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee, who appeared for one of the petitioners, termed the judgment a 'glorious vindication' of right to free speech. He spoke to the TOI after SC bench of Justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman struck down section 66A as unconstitutional. Sorabjee said: "The judgment is well researched, well reasoned and erudite in expression. It is a glorious vindication of freedom of expression. -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
