Supreme Court Issues Notice to State, UTs Over Filing Cases Under Outdated Law Sec 66A Of IT Act
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Despite the fact that Apex Court had struck down the controversial section 66 A of IT Act seven years ag, states have been registering the cases under this outdated law section. The Apex Court Bench hearing the PIL in this connection have expressed shock towards the ignorance of state governments and Union territories.
In a petition filed by an NGO People Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) seeking directions and guidelines against FIRs under provision of section 66A of IT Act.
In this case the Apex Court had issued a notice on July,5 expressing displeasure over the ignorant practice of registering FIRs under section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was struck down by the top court in 2015 judgement in the Shreya Singhal case.
The petitioner had contended that in 2013, the Petitioner became aware of the widespread abuse of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act [“IT Act”] to stifle dissent. The provision, which criminalised “offensive messages” was vague and overbroad, resulting in widespread chilling effect on protected speech.
It sends a message that in spite of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India having declared a provision unconstitutional, the enjoyment of basic fundamental rights by ordinary citizens remains subject to wanton abuse by police, and sheer ignorance of law within the legal system.
The plea further seeking directions to the Union of India to Collect data of all FIRs registered invoking section 66 A of the IT Act stuck down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India.
The BGO is seeking directions to the Union of India through the NCRB or any other agency, to collect all data and information regarding the section 66 A of IT Act.
The petitioner further contended that it is reasonable to believe that situations akin to those that have been highlighted by way of the above illustrative examples are being faced across the country and certainly in respect of the eleven states in respect of which data exists revealing pendency of cases where Section 66A has been invoked. The Petitioner submits that the Respondent-Union of India should put on record the present situation with regard to invocation of Section 66A by the police during registration of FIR/investigation as well as the trials pending in the 11 States but also other States/UTs as the continued use of Section 66A of the IT Act.
Direct the Registry of the Supreme Court to communicate to all the District Courts throughout the country (through respective High Courts) to take cognizance of the judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, by which Section 66A of the IT Act has been struck down in its entirety – in all proceedings where Section 66A has been invoked either at the stage of framing of charge or subsequent thereto, so that no person should suffer or face any adverse consequences which violate his Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. direct violation of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, including the right to fair trial, of the persons against whom the provision is invoked.
The Plea filed through Advocate Aparna Bhatt and settled through Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh kas also sought directions to the Union of India Through its Ministry of Home Affairs to issue an advisory to all the police stations not to register cases under the repealed section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
Petitioner further sought directions Union of India to ensure publication in major vernacular language newspapers on quarterly basis informing the public that Section 66A of the IT Act is no longer in force in light of the judgment in Shreya Singhal.
The Sherya Singhal Judgement was delivered by a bench comprising of J. Chalmeshwar and FR Nariman striking down the section 66 A as violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (a) of the constitution. The judgement authored by Justice Nariman held the provision to be vague, overboard and creating a chilling effect on free speech.
We have already held that Section 66A creates an offence which is vague and overbroad, and, therefore, unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2).
We have also held that the wider range of circulation over the internet cannot restrict the content of the right under Article 19(1)(a) nor can it justify its denial. However, when we come to discrimination under Article 14, we are unable to agree with counsel for the petitioners that there is no intelligible differentia between the medium of print, broadcast and real live speech as opposed to speech on the internet.
The intelligible differentia is clear – the internet gives any individual a platform which requires very little or no payment through which to air his views. The learned Additional Solicitor General has correctly said that something posted on a site or website travels like lightning and can reach millions of persons all over the world. If the petitioners were right, this Article 14 argument would apply equally to all other offences created by the Information Technology Act which are not the subject matter of challenge in these petitions. We make it clear that there is an intelligible differentia between speech on the internet and other mediums of communication for which separate offences can certainly be created by legislation. We find, therefore, that the challenge on the ground of Article 14 must fail.
it is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right.
