Problems with the recents events relating to Section 66A of IT Act
Section 66A was recently declared vague in its entirety and quashed down by Honorable Supreme court in WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF 2012 filed by Shreya Singhal a law student and other similar petitions. So lets ask what is Section 66A and why the Supreme court exercised its special powers to quash a section of an act of parliament.
The Information Technology Act 2000 is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on October 17, 2000. this act was further amended in 2008. Section 66A was added in 2008. The basic act was to provide legal status to ever increasing use of information technology and issues arising because of it.
few of the issues it addressed were Legal recognition of electronic documents,Legal Recognition of digital signatures,Offenses and contraventions,Justice dispensation systems for cyber crimes.validation of e-contracts.
The Preamble of the Constitution of India inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It also says that India is a sovereign democratic republic. It cannot be overemphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.
Now the question raised was vagueness in handling the complaints to police which were redressed by stating that a police officer of certain rank would only handle this cases. But the effect of many arrests of simple civil persons just criticizing certains events of politicians and high power people who won't take criticism in a right way.
So short the section is declared null, that means it doesn't have any legal standing right now.
But after studying the supreme court case order in detail, I think it will be a matter of time before our government is going to find out another method to exercise its power under article 19(2)
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India states as follows:
“Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All
citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;”
Article 19(2) states:
“Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(2) Nothing in
sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The reason this verdict is not going to withstand is that whole petition is based on arrest of a few people that was publicised because of overactive social media and some media houses. Some other arrests of religious fanatics and sexual offenders were also done through this section.The only thing which I believe other then the vagueness of "offensive" and its definition, the process of application of section was left in the hands of policemen , there lies the real problem, see that police is state body whose job is to maintain law and order , law and order as defined as the government in power at a particular time.
Two examples Arvind Kejriwal was beaten down by the same police before his party came into power, and other one Baba Ramdev was also beaten by the same police before change of government, so the right or wrong is decided by the the chosen government at the time and government is elected representatives and favours.
.jpg)
Above images from various media sources available from internet states the general public perception.
The media portrayed a particular image of Section 66A as instrument of censorship, and Honorable supreme court bought it.
It is welcome decision but it provides government to issue another amendment to exercise powers under Article 19(2)
Section 66A was not wrong but it use or say misuse was wrong , the handling of powers by police and administration needs to change with times , but that is going to be a slow process, so meanwhile Supreme court has given citizens a safety.
The problem lies in application of section 66A or any other similar section or acts, and that process improves itself through participation of general public at large and it's member who become part of government machinery. Lets see that the government tried to modify the process that complaint won't be registered before approval of officer of DCP rank in urban and rural areas and IG in metros. These methods are susceptible to fail.
If interested in the view of Supreme Court while giving its order Supreme court order
Lets hope government find a effective method to exercise its power without interfering with individual citizens right.
Section 66A was recently declared vague in its entirety and quashed down by Honorable Supreme court in WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF 2012 filed by Shreya Singhal a law student and other similar petitions. So lets ask what is Section 66A and why the Supreme court exercised its special powers to quash a section of an act of parliament.
 |
| Rise of over 350 % in crimes |
The Information Technology Act 2000 is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on October 17, 2000. this act was further amended in 2008. Section 66A was added in 2008. The basic act was to provide legal status to ever increasing use of information technology and issues arising because of it.
few of the issues it addressed were Legal recognition of electronic documents,Legal Recognition of digital signatures,Offenses and contraventions,Justice dispensation systems for cyber crimes.validation of e-contracts.
“66-A. 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; or
(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 purposes 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, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.”
The Preamble of the Constitution of India inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It also says that India is a sovereign democratic republic. It cannot be overemphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.
Now the question raised was vagueness in handling the complaints to police which were redressed by stating that a police officer of certain rank would only handle this cases. But the effect of many arrests of simple civil persons just criticizing certains events of politicians and high power people who won't take criticism in a right way.
So short the section is declared null, that means it doesn't have any legal standing right now.
But after studying the supreme court case order in detail, I think it will be a matter of time before our government is going to find out another method to exercise its power under article 19(2)
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India states as follows:
“Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(1) All
citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;”
Article 19(2) states:
“Article 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.—(2) Nothing in
sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State
from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right
conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of
the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to
contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”
The reason this verdict is not going to withstand is that whole petition is based on arrest of a few people that was publicised because of overactive social media and some media houses. Some other arrests of religious fanatics and sexual offenders were also done through this section.The only thing which I believe other then the vagueness of "offensive" and its definition, the process of application of section was left in the hands of policemen , there lies the real problem, see that police is state body whose job is to maintain law and order , law and order as defined as the government in power at a particular time.
Two examples Arvind Kejriwal was beaten down by the same police before his party came into power, and other one Baba Ramdev was also beaten by the same police before change of government, so the right or wrong is decided by the the chosen government at the time and government is elected representatives and favours.
.jpg)
Above images from various media sources available from internet states the general public perception.
The media portrayed a particular image of Section 66A as instrument of censorship, and Honorable supreme court bought it.
It is welcome decision but it provides government to issue another amendment to exercise powers under Article 19(2)
Section 66A was not wrong but it use or say misuse was wrong , the handling of powers by police and administration needs to change with times , but that is going to be a slow process, so meanwhile Supreme court has given citizens a safety.
The problem lies in application of section 66A or any other similar section or acts, and that process improves itself through participation of general public at large and it's member who become part of government machinery. Lets see that the government tried to modify the process that complaint won't be registered before approval of officer of DCP rank in urban and rural areas and IG in metros. These methods are susceptible to fail.
If interested in the view of Supreme Court while giving its order Supreme court order
Lets hope government find a effective method to exercise its power without interfering with individual citizens right.
No comments:
Post a Comment