![WISDOM CRUX [ISSN 2456-6233]](https://www.wisdomcrux.lawtimesjournal.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WISDOM-CRUX-ISSN-2456-6233.png)
[Volume 1, Issue 3] – November 2016
Author – Annanya Goyal, 1st Year, Amity Law School, Amity University, Noida.
In 2012, two women were arrested by the Mumbai Police in connection with expressing their disapproval at a bandh called for the death of Bal Thakrey, Shiv Sena leader. The women expressed their displeasure towards the bandh on Facebook. Criminal cases were charged against these women and they were arrested. The arrests attracted protests and support for the women and due to pressure, the police had no option but to release them and withdraw the criminal cases charged against them. Widespread public protests were attracted in wake of the misuse of section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The basic reason behind the protests was that it was thought that section 66A is unconstitutional and violates the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression((B.M.Gandhi. Indian Penal Code. India: Eastern Book Company. p. 41. ISBN 9788170128922.)).
Section 66A of the IT Act talks about sending offensive messages through communication services and a punishment for the same is prescribed in the Act.
ARGUMENTS IN AND AGAINST FAVOUR
The petitioner’s counsels raised important issues on the validity and constitutionality of section 66A of IT Act. According to them, the section violates article 19(1) of the constitution which is the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. They also contend that such section is not covered under the eight subjects of article 19(2) which are annoyance, hatred or ill will, insult, danger, obstruction, inconvenience, injury, enmity, criminal intimidation(( “IT Act to come into force from Aug 15”. Rediff. 9 August 2000. Retrieved 14 April 2016.)).
Another issue they raised was that the section was vague and that a lot of instances have happened where innocent people have been booked under this section. Some of those instances were notified to the court. They claim that authorities have used this section to arbitrarily book innocents according to their whims and fancies. Hence, a clear view on the same is the need of the hour((Section 66A of the Information Technology Act”. Centre for Internet and Society (India). Retrieved 14 April 2016)).
The counsels contend that this section is unconstitutional and subtly promotes censorship in its cruellest form in the country. Not only the rights of the writers but the rights of the readers are also being affected((Yes, snooping’s allowed”. The Indian Express. 6 February 2009.)).
It was argued that the court only has a right to interfere in declaring a legislation unconstitutional if it violates the rights conferred on the citizens under Constitution, Part III.
They further argued that it is only a presumption that the section is unconstitutional and that the abuse of a provision does not and should not mean that such provision is unconstitutional(( “Deaf, Dumb & Dangerous – 21 Minutes: That was the time our MPs spent on Section 66A. How they played”. The Telegraph (India).)).
It was also argued that vagueness of a section does not make it unconstitutional and that loose language could have been used to describe the provision thus bringing forward the justifiable conclusion of the provision. A number of judgements were cited in favour of his submissions.
JUDGEMENT
The court held that the defences given by the counsel to prove the validity of section 66A of IT Act are not capable of proving the same and suggest otherwise. None of the eight grounds given under article 19(2) can be used to establish that the section is legitimate. Justice Nariman wrote, “Any law seeking to impose a restriction on the freedom of speech can only pass muster.” Hence, the court quashed the provision of section 66A of the IT Act as illegitimate and unconstitutional and being violative of article 19(1) of the constitution.
Along with this, section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is also struck down for being violative of article 19(1)(a) and not being saved under article 19(2)((The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008″ (PDF). Department of Electronics and Information Technology.))
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
With the striking down of section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the court has proved that the constitution and the freedom of speech and expression that it provides to the citizens of this country are extremely important. The authoritarian behaviour of a few by hiding behind section 66A of IT Act for anything spoken against them has been given a full stop by the court prevailing the freedom of speech and expression. The Court said that there are various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act that are stable to deal with such acts and it is unfair to say that the removal of section 66A has given rise to new crimes((‘If Speaking The Truth Is Sedition, Then I Am Guilty'”. Outlook India.)).
The court was apt in noticing that section 66A does not fall under any reasonable restriction given in article 19(2) of the Constitution.
When looked upon from a humanitarian point of view, earlier, the punishment for exercising the freedom of speech and expression by sending offensive messages through communication services was imprisonment extending upto 3 years or with fine or both.
Internet is a vast arena and gives a right to the people to express their views. Most of those views are only to express and not to take offence from. However the draconian law of section 66A of IT Act gave right to the authorities to book someone or anyone for any views which go against the authorities. Innocents were arrested because of the same and was a big threat to the democratic nature of the country. The law also covered the recipients of any such offensive message with or without their knowledge which was way too dictatorial in nature(( “After Mumbai FB case, writ filed in Lucknow to declare section 66A, IT Act 2000 as ultra-vires”. The Times of India.)).
Not just section 66A, there are a lot more provisions, statutes and acts that either are of dictatorial nature or should be repealed at the earliest because of them being orthodox. The quashing of this section brings hope to the public that democracy and democratic values always prevail and that the orthodox and draconian laws in our country which are being misused to a great extent shall always be looked down upon(( “Centre working on new law similar to Section 66A: Devendra Fadnavis”. The Times of India)).