“Section 66A is unconstitutional and we have no hesitation in striking it down,” said justice RF Nariman, reading out the judgement. “The public’s right to know is directly affected by section 66A.” The Supreme Court had been asked to examine the legality of section 66A, which makes sending information of “grossly offensive or menacing character” punishable by up to three years in jail. The bench of justice J Chelameswar and justice RF Nariman while pronouncing the verdict said the offences laid down under sec 66A does not lay down clearly defined lines.
The court said that the controversial section was being misused by the police to arrest those who posted their opinion on websites. Governments come and go but section 66A will remain forever, the court said, while refusing to consider Centre’s assurance that the law in question will not be abused. Sec 66 A has “no element to create public disorder, as claimed by the govt defending the section,” the judges said. The Supreme Court, however, refused to strike down two other provisions of the IT Act that provide blocking of sites
The challenge to the validity of section 66A was raised by Shreya Singhal, following the arrest of two girls – Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan – for posting comments critical of the Mumbai bandh in the wake of the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray. The hearing saw NGOs Common Cause, People Union for Civil Liberty and individuals including self-exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen joining the challenge which saw a repeat hearing after an earlier hearing by a bench of justice J Chelameswar and justice SA Bobde remained inconclusive. Broadly, the contention by most of the petitioners was that section 66A was vague which gave ample scope for an arbitrary interpretation and misuse of the provision by police.
Leave a Reply