Free Speech: SC Scraps Section 66A of IT Act, calls it unconstitutional

swatkats

swatkats

Skilled
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act has been struck down by the Supreme Court for being "unconstitutional and untenable". The apex court delivered the landmark judgement on Tuesday on a petition filed by Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the IT Act.

How Section 66A impacts you
The Act itself provides “Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.”, and states that any person who, via a communication device, sends

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 makes 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.


Source: medianama
Click to expand...


Singhal filed the petition after two girls - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan - were arrested in Palghar in Thane district of Maharashtra 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 court said that the section affected the freedom of speech and expression, adding that the definition for grounds of arrest under the section were vague.

The court termed the provision as vague and said "what may be offensive to a person, may not be offensive to others".

While welcoming the judgement, the petitioner said, "The Act was being misused. The government has its own political agenda. This is a big victory for the people."

Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/sc-strik...-unconstitutional-and-untenable/535858-3.html
 
Yess :cool:

watch what the independent RS MP rajeev chandrashekar had to say about 66a in the video i linked in the digital india thread.

Its draconian because we don't even have a definition for defamation or incitement so what ever the plaintiff claims has to be acted upon. Play it safe.
 
Last edited:
^^ Unfortunately, that is true only in a few instances. There are lot of bad judgements from SC as well. The reason most criminals in heinous crimes haven't got their deserved due despite good sentences in lower courts is quite often because of SC.
 
Back
Top