Saying that ‘the public’s right to know is directly affected by section 66A of the Information Technology Act’, the Supreme Court today struck down a provision in the cyber law (Section 66A).
A batch of petitions challenging constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law were filed on which the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict today.
Here are 5 things you should know:
1. The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls – Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan – were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it.
2. In the wake of numerous complaints of harassment and arrests, the apex court had on May 16, 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like IG or DCP.
3. Section 66A of IT Act provides power police to arrest a person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites.
4. Provision affects the Fundamental Right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under the Constitution.
5. Provision uses terms like ‘annoying’, ‘inconvenient’ and ‘grossly offensive’, which are vague. Supreme Court had this to say, “What may be offensive to a person may not be offensive to the other”, making it difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to know the ingredients of the offense.