#section 66a

Flashback 2015- India’s year of free speech online

New Delhi, Dec 17: The year 2015 witnessed a landmark judgment from the Supreme Court in which a controversial law which was considered to be an infringement on free speech was scrapped.

The contentious Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act was declared ultra vires and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India.

Read more 

New Post has been published on http://www.newsnish.com/technology/web-social/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a/

SC Strikes Down ‘Draconian’ Section 66A

India’s Supreme Court has struck down a controversial law which allowed police to arrest people for comments on social networks and other internet sites.

The court ruled that the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was unconstitutional.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the Internet.

“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said.

In recent years, several people have been arrested for their comments on Facebook or Twitter, sparking outrage.

The government had defended the law, saying it was meant to deter people from uploading offensive material.

In recent years, several people have been arrested for their comments on Facebook or Twitter, sparking outrage.

The government had defended the law, saying it was meant to deter people from uploading offensive material.

The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a ‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court held.

Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as “open-ended, undefined and vague”, the court said: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”

आजम खां को यूपी सरकार संतुलित भाषा इस्तेमाल करने की हिदायतदे- अतुल अंजान

Politicos react as UP tells SC that prosecution against boy for posting against Azam Khan will continue

New Delhi, April 25 (ANI): Political leaders on Saturday react as Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court that it would go ahead with the prosecution of the Bareilly boy for allegedly posting objectionable comments on Facebook against senior SP leader Azam Khan.

The state government…

SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66(A) »

New Post has been published on http://www.everyupdates.org/india/news-india/sec-66a-scrapped-sc-move-like-fresh-air-but-it-doesnt-mean-a-free-for-all-in-cyber-space/

Sec 66A scrapped: SC move like fresh air, but it doesn't mean a free-for-all in cyber space

The Supreme Court has finally struck down the notorious Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, often misused by police against innocent citizens exercising free speech on social media.

Added to the IT Act, 2000, by an amendment in 2008, the provision had gained infamy not just for blatant misuse but also for the “chilling effect” it had on freedom of speech and expression, particularly on the internet.

The verdict is important for more than one reason. First, it has come at a time when there is a general atmosphere of despondency and despair following recent state actions that gave an impression of intolerance towards dissent. The SC move is like a breath of fresh air.

Sec 66A scrapped SC move like fresh air, but it doesn’t mean a free-for-all in cyber space

Second, it instills confidence among citizens that they have the judiciary to safeguard their fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of 2015 is much more mature and confident than it was in the 1970s when it notoriously ruled in ADM Jabalpur versus Shivakant Shukla that right to life and liberty can be suspended during Emergency, only to regret it later.

Third, the law was too vague to survive a constitutional challenge. It suffered from the vice of non-application of mind. It prescribed a maximum punishment of three-year jail with fine for sending information that is “grossly offensive” or has “menacing character” and for sending e-mails causing “annoyance or “inconvenience” to the recipient. But none of these expressions was defined in the law making it prone to misuse by the police.

“If judicially trained minds can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same set of facts it is obvious that expressions such as “grossly offensive” or “menacing” are so vague that there is no manageable standard by which a person can be said to have committed an offence or not to have committed an offence,” the apex court noted.

The top court has rightly refused to buy the government’s assurance that it would not misuse the law. The validity of a law can’t be left to be judged by the level of benevolence of the executive which may come and go. It must be tested on the touchstones of well-established constitutional principles.

By holding that free speech guaranteed to citizens under Article 19(1)(a) can be restricted only on the grounds mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the SC has once again asserted its power of judicial review and reminded the legislature and the executive of their limits in making and enforcing laws that can potentially violate fundamental rights.

Finally, a word of caution for cyber zealots! Section 66A is gone. But it doesn’t mean it’s a free-for-all in the cyber space. One is free to discuss any issue and indulge in advocacy. But when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement to an offence, criminal law kicks in. There are ample such provisions in the Indian Penal Code.