Advertisement
Home ArticlesSpecial Articles

Opinion: A Draconian Law Put To Rest!

Millions of netizens across the nation heaved a sigh of relief as the Supreme Court struck down section 66A of the Information Technology Act, terming it highly unconstitutional. So, what exactly is section 66A?

Note: The Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended in 2008. The amended Act which received the assent of the President on February 5, 2009, contains section 66A.

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

As one can see, the provisions of the law are highly vague and unclear. Under the pretext of 66A, the government virtually has carte blanche to arrest anybody for anything it deems offensive.

For example, an article in a website not in favor of a political party or celebrity may attract action under section 66A. In fact, imprisonment is possible only under 66A and there are countless cases filed on the basis of this. After reading an article or watching a video, if the reader/viewer posts a negative opinion, then he can be arrested, for it is all about perception. It is a toll to silence all and any kinds of dissent.

Two schoolchildren were arrested in Maharashtra! Why? They had the guts to question on Facebook the need for Mumbai to shut down for Bal Thackeray’s funeral. A professor in West Bengal was arrested for a cartoon ridiculing Mamata Banerjee. There are umpteen such cases.

Hence,  in a judgment that will have far reaching consequences for civil liberties and the right to freedom of speech on the Internet in India, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the controversial Section 66A the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman has held the section to be unconstitutional in its entirety. However, the bench has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A (dealing with blocking of websites) and Section 79 and the rules made under it dealing with liability of intermediaries.

Quoting from the preamble to the Indian Constitution, the judgment emphasized the “paramount significance” of the “cardinal value” of the liberty of thought, expression and belief. The apex court held that Section 66A is “clearly vague” with every expression used in it being “nebulous in meaning”.

The next time that you are all worked up against something and wish to make known your point of view, but have previously been scared to do so, the decks have been cleared for you! No longer can politicians, film stars or any other people rely on 66A as a tool of vendetta to get back at the media for adverse publicity or simply reporting the truth.

Enveloped in an ambience of fear, the Supreme Court judgment is like a blast of fresh oxygen to the cause of free speech in Inda.

RELATED ARTICLES