alvida section 66a

Alvida!!! SECTIon 66a

Villainous law is gone. Hope it doesn’t return

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, marks a major victory for free speech in this country. The section militated against the principles that lie at the core of our democratic nation and threatened the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

 Since it was incorporated into the IT Act in 2008, Section 66A had been repeatedly used to scuttle dissenting voices on the Internet and had become a convenient tool for politicians to lash out, not just at critics, but just about anyone who expressed an opinion or shared a fact that they found inconvenient. In fact, the public was being so harassed that, in May 2013, the Supreme Court had to intervene and advise that arrests could only be made with the permission of a senior-level police officer.

 On Tuesday, the Supreme Court pointed out two major flaws with Section 66A. First, that it was poorly worded. Section 66A prescribes a maximum jail term of three years for anybody who sends an electronic message (an SMS, a Facebook post, a tweet etc) that could be seen by another as “grossly offensive” or having “menacing character” or even merely “causing annoyance”.

 The Section did not define any of these terms, leaving them open to interpretation and abuse. Moreover, the rights to offend and annoy, irk and oppose are all parts of the larger free speech guarantee. If these are not protected by law, the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression has no meaning. In this context, some may point out, and rightly so, that Article 19(2) does impose certain “reasonable restrictions” on free speech.

But let us not forget that even for these “reasonable restrictions” to apply, the matter at hand must pass two tests. The contentious text or speech or post must pose a clear and present danger to public safety, and it must have a tendency to create public disorder. Section 66A did not incorporate either of these checks and balances. This was its second major flaw.

To understand the kind of damage that Section 66A had the potential to cause, one only needs to go through some of the cases in which it has been invoked. At the top of the list is the 2012 case of Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, who were arrested from Palghar in Thane district for criticising the shutdown of Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death.

 Based on this case, Ms Shreya Singhal filed a public interest litigation against Section 66A, which led to the law being stuck down. There have been many other cases too. A university professor who shared cartoons of West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and a high school student who recently commented against Uttar Pradesh Minister Azam Khan, had to face the police brunt on account of Section 66A.

That said, given the tremendous power of social media and the Internet in general, there is also a case to be made for regulating and monitoring forums of mass communication. Additionally, laws are also required to protect the people and the state from cyber crimes and attacks. However, these rules and laws should be framed in a manner that does not impinge on the freedoms that the Constitution of India provides.