WHAT IF SECTION 66A OF IT ACT 2000 WAS NOT BEEN REPEALED ?

INTRODUCTION?

The section 66A of information technology act 2000 was inacted in the statute of IT ACT? 2008. This section generally penalise those who sends ‘OFFENSIVE MESSAGES’ through online communication or any online platform. Seeing the excessive vagueness in the laws? relating to the provision was actually had been misused by the enforcement authorities and? that spread a thrill of risk for the users and their speech.??

In the year 2015 , the section 66A was declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble SC of India? in the case of https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/. (Shreya singhal v. UOI.)?

After repeated directions by the Supreme Court , the last and most recent declaration in 2009? by the court says the provision continues to be invoked across the country.??

THE ISSUES RAISED ON 66A –?

The IT ACT 2000 was enacted for the help and promotion of e-commerce and also for e transaction in India. In the year 2005, an expert committee was set to held the IT act to? review and address the need for regulation for the cyber crime and complying with the? international security practices and procedures. The committee reported with? recommendations for a sum of issues regarding the computer crime and electronic evidence.?

On December 15, 2006 the information technology Amendment Bill 2006, was introduced in? lok sabha where it reffered to introducing new provisions for some new crimes like child? pornography, sending offensive message or emails, cyber terrorism, publishing sexually? unappropriate materials in electronic forms, e-commerce frauds, and identity thefts etc.??

For these reasons behind the section 66A was enacted into the IT ACT. This provision was? introduced for the safeguarding of womens and punish those sending vulgar documentaries in? any form to womens or any other persons whoever gets offended.?

The Lok Sabha passed eight bills in the sans debate on December 22, 2008. One of those was? the amended IT ACT 2008 by introducing the section 66A which formally penalises those? sending ‘offensive message’. The bill of this act was passes in the Rjya sabha on the next day? itself.?

In the aftermath of Mumbai attack on 26th November, 2008 the session of committee? immidiately began to prioritise the legislations or provisions relating to National investigation? agency act,Unlawful activities prevention act, and Information Technology Act, 2008 when? passed it were subjected as to anti-terrorism amendment to protect the future terrorist attacks? such as November 26, 2008 the terror attack Mumbai. It was amended with a view in the? session that ot will allow the authorities to intercept message from mobile phones, computer?and other devices as well and to block any website or any social platform which comes in the? interest of the authorities and national security.?

After the terror of Mumbai attack , in consequence the amendment was discussed and? approved in both the houses that is Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha after a 20-25 minutes of? discussion only. Hence the amendment came in force from the date of 27th October,2009.?

CRITICISMS RAISED ON SECTION 66A OF IT ACT – This section 66A of IT ACT was criticised on the grounds that ;?

? This section went against the peoples rights and violative of their freedom of speech? and expression ; and??

? It allowed and permitted the enforcement agencies to mold it and change its definition? as per their desire and willingness to interpret it also act on it to punish peoples as? offenders on simple grounds.?

The misuse of the section 66A and its power was misused often and frequently to settle? political disputes or to use it as a weapon to defame another for the speech. One of the? perticular case was about the two girls belonging from Mumbai posted some speeches which? were against and unethical on the death of Shiv Sena chief , Bal Thakrey in November, 2012.? And within hours of posting the illigal content , the two were arrested and charged under? section 295A 0f Indian Penal Code and section 66A of the IT ACT. Although they were? released later but it went against the police that they misused the power by invoking s.66A as? a weapon. For this invocation and misuse of the power of law , a Public Interest Litigation? petition was filed , seeking to declare that section 66A of IT ACT was unconstitutional.?

The Supreme Court of India in challenging the validity of section 66A , directed all the state? territories and union territories to ensure compliance with the advisory board nefore? performing any detention under S.66A of the IT act. Which the central board isuued for the? prohibition of any arrest under section 66A on the date 9th July 2013.?

On 24th March 2015, the Hon’ble Justice of Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement on? the matter of issues in section 66A in the case of shreya singhalv. union of india. The SC held? that section 66A of Information Technology Act is arbitrary in nature and disproportionately??

affected peoples fundamental rights to speech and expression. The SC relied on the Human? Rights and Constitutional benchmarks to declare so.?

The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner’s contention that the section 66A of IT ACT is? making no particular interpretation to the definition of section 66A as a mere discussion may? be on particular point of view which may be annoying or inconvenient or grossly offensive to? some people which may cause or lead to public disorder, harm security or state etc.?

The effect of this decision tended to be as all the cases relating to section 66A will be hence? onwards dismissed and no any such case will be filed under section 66A of IT ACT.?

THE AFTERMATH ON REPEAL OF 66A-

People’s Union for Civil Liberties , one of the original petitioner in case of? Shreya Singhal v UOI approached the Supreme? Court on the matter and directions to apply implementation of the court’s original decision in? January,2019.?

The UOI in a counter affidavit had taken some steps to generate awereness on section 66A. In? response Kerala stated that there were 19 cases that were filed under section 66A of the IT? ACT was held to be unconstitutional and they would be closing all of the cases. Also the? Supreme Court further directed the Shreya Singhal case and forwaded it to all the courts and? senior administrative and enforcement authorities to act on it and to not register cases? regarding the act.?

Despite the declarations made by the Supreme Court , cases continued to be filed under? section 66A. In January 2020 Karnataka High Court imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/- each on? two of the police officer for registering case FIR under the repealed section 66A of the? Information Technology Act. In the year 2020 , a guest faculty at a college in Assam, was? charged, arrested and later sent to the judicial custody for posting some kind of degradory? remarks against the prime minister Narendra Modi, BJP, the RSS and also for ‘sanatan? dharma’. In march 2020 , the Patna High Court granted bail to two petitioner who had been in? custody for 6 months. These instances shows the gradual invocation of section 66A.?

WHAT IF IT HAS NOT BEEN REPEALED?

Though it has been arbitrarily used by the enforcement authority it was introduced to? safeguard the cyber crime, illegal misrepresentations via online platforms. It can be said that? in my view that section 66A of IT ACT 2000 infringes the rights of freedom of speech and? expression as enshrined under Article 19(a) of the constitution. As the section 66A of? information technology act left the gates open for the interpretations of this section? accordingly molded by the enforcement authority this section can be said to as vague in? nature and infirmity comes by this section as it does not properly define the terminology used? under this section.??

This section also violates article 14 of the Indian Constitution as there is no intelligible? differentia which regards to why those methods for communication are only focused by? section 66A. This further results in self-discrimination which in law violates article 14 and 21? of the Indian Constitution. As the section gives arbitrary powers to the authorities for its? interpretation regardless or the offenders the security of states and a governance on the? security is been missed for it has been repealed which in instance should be there for the anti terrorism and to take control for cyber attacks internationally. Though in control of power not? to use arbitrarily and infringe people’s fundamental rights but to safeguard the.?

Conclusion-?

(MY PERSPECTIVE)?

Crucially the Court discussed the chilling effect of the vague and excessively broad statutory? language which can have effect on citizens’ speech. And this has deleterious ramifications for?the well being of the democracy, which is why it is one of a reason to struck down the? provision as it is violative of article 19 (1)(a). An officer from cyber department said that? prior to the section being struck down by the Supreme Court, it was being used widely as the? words used in it to define that the section has some wide scope. “Police stations across the? state had continued to use it in cases. Now that it has sensitised the police stations to no? longer uses the section”, the officer claimed.?

Also he added that after this section was struck down even if it was used erraneously, it was? mostly along with other sections. For example “in a case of cyber crime, a police personel? may have added the section 66A but along with sections of cheating and forgery or so. So? even if section 66A is dropped, the chargesheet will be filled for other sections as a crime has? been commited”, the officer claimed. Which as we can see is true that section 66A is widely? misinterpreted by the enforcement aithority to punish beforehand from being discussed in the? higher authority. Though it has been repealed still the use of it is in need of some areas and? as safety measures for the country alongside with the provisions of IPC where it has not been? questioned.