Issue
Supreme Court has expressed disappointment over continued usage of Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000. even after 6 years of its judgment to strike it off.
Background
The Supreme Court had given a landmark judgment in what is known as Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, which struck off section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000.
Details
-
The central government has asked states to withdraw all cases filed under Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and also not register such cases in future.
-
The Supreme Court had given a landmark judgment in 2015 to remove the unconstitutional and vague provisions under the Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000.
Provisions under section 66A
-
The provisions allowed the government to arrest an individual for online posts that are maligning and offensive. It was introduced in 2008.
-
The police were given powers to arrest based on their discretion. There were no clear cut guidelines for using these provisions as it was subjective.
-
The provisions specified that messages sent through digital devices such as mobiles, computers and tablets could be punished with a maximum term of 3 years.
Criticism
-
The word ‘offensive’ was used in the law. There was no clear definition of what could qualify as ‘offensive’. It was open to interpretation and misuse.
-
It was seen as subjective, which allowed individuals to be targeted based on the interpretation by another person.
Shreya Singhal case
-
The issue came to notice of Supreme Court when two girls were arrested in Maharashtra for critiquing shutdown of Mumbai for funeral of Balasaheb Thackeray.
-
A law student, Shreya Singhal had filed a case in Supreme Court opposing the provisions under the law. Further petitions were filed by other affected individuals.
Grounds for challenge
-
The law was made to prevent misuse of digital platforms to spread hate and malign image of people. It was however wide for misinterpretations.
-
Petitioners had argued that the law was used for choking free speech through online platforms. It was said to be a tool to curtail freedom of expression.
Supreme Court decision
-
A bench of Supreme Court said that Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 was unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1) (A) and Article 19(2).
-
The court also made key rules for partnership between social media platforms and government under Section 79.