Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    We Do Not Like

    Uploaded by

    Samar Singh
    Section 66A of the IT Act is being used to curb political dissent and freedom of expression, which violates constitutional rights. It defines vague offenses like "grossly offensive" and "menacing" messages that could be subject to arbitrary interpretation. The penalties are also too harsh, with up to 3 years imprisonment for offenses that would be minor under other laws. The law has been used to arrest people for political statements and views posted online. There are calls for reviewing the constitutionality of Section 66A and concerns that internet laws in India are not keeping pace with the changing nature of the internet.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    We Do Not Like

    Uploaded by

    Samar Singh
    15 views1 page
    Section 66A of the IT Act is being used to curb political dissent and freedom of expression, which violates constitutional rights. It defines vague offenses like "grossly offensive" and "menacing" messages that could be subject to arbitrary interpretation. The penalties are also too harsh, with up to 3 years imprisonment for offenses that would be minor under other laws. The law has been used to arrest people for political statements and views posted online. There are calls for reviewing the constitutionality of Section 66A and concerns that internet laws in India are not keeping pace with the changing nature of the internet.

    Original Title

    We_Do_Not_Like

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Section 66A of the IT Act is being used to curb political dissent and freedom of expression, which violates constitutional rights. It defines vague offenses like "grossly offensive" and "menacing" messages that could be subject to arbitrary interpretation. The penalties are also too harsh, with up to 3 years imprisonment for offenses that would be minor under other laws. The law has been used to arrest people for political statements and views posted online. There are calls for reviewing the constitutionality of Section 66A and concerns that internet laws in India are not keeping pace with the changing nature of the internet.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    15 views1 page

    We Do Not Like

    Uploaded by

    Samar Singh
    Section 66A of the IT Act is being used to curb political dissent and freedom of expression, which violates constitutional rights. It defines vague offenses like "grossly offensive" and "menacing" messages that could be subject to arbitrary interpretation. The penalties are also too harsh, with up to 3 years imprisonment for offenses that would be minor under other laws. The law has been used to arrest people for political statements and views posted online. There are calls for reviewing the constitutionality of Section 66A and concerns that internet laws in India are not keeping pace with the changing nature of the internet.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    EDITORIALS

    We Do Not Like
    Section 66A of the IT Act is an unconstitutional weapon that is being used for political vendetta.

    f there ever was a more compelling case of the law being an ass, it must be the way provisions of Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act (notied on 27 October 2009) have been misused recently. Be it the case of Shaheen Dhada and her friend in Palghar, Maharashtra, who were arrested for posting and liking (endorsing) an innocuous opinion about the bandh following Bal Thackerays death on the social media website Facebook, or the arrest of India Against Corruption volunteer Ravi Srinivasan in Pondicherry for using Twitter to make a remark about Union Finance Minister P Chidambarams son Karthi Chidambaram, the use of Section 66A in these instances shows up the law in a very poor light. It is not just that the Act has been misused, but the very provisions in the law seem to be unconstitutional. Section 66A penalises anyone for sending false and offensive messages through communication services and denes such messages as grossly offensive or of menacing character. The fact that grossly offensive or menacing could be subject to any interpretation, not necessarily reasonable, clearly violates the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. In fact, the scope of the Acts provisions is so broadly dened that they run afoul of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, repudiating Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibals assertions to the contrary. That the penalty a cognisable and bailable offence is up to three years of imprisonment and a ne, much higher than for comparable offences that are not committed using the computer medium, makes it even more draconian. Part (b) of Section 66A considers the sending of any information which [is known] to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device as a cognisable offence. The trouble is that there is no distinction being made between messages that cause annoyance, inconvenience, ill will or insult which are surely not necessarily criminal in nature with those that cause injury, danger, criminal intimidation or enmity (which are in any case covered under other clauses of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)). Part (c) of Section 66A, ostensibly written in to curb internet spam, includes any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin

    of such messages as punishable under the section. Again, instead of narrowly dening spam as emails sent in bulk that are unsolicited and deceptive, annoying, misleading and inconvenient, the provision includes any email communication between two or more individuals that could annoy or mislead or cause inconvenience. This is again an unconstitutional provision because it does not criminalise spam messages alone but unreasonably includes any electronic communication or message within its broadly dened conditions. What is more disturbing is that Section 66A has been invoked to book cases against people who have posted messages or views related to political issues, along with other clauses of the IPC. As the recent case of arrest and detentions of two trade union members of the All India Cabin Crew Association (as reported in The Hindu) or the arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for sending a sarcastic cartoon featuring West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee via email, or Shaheen Dhadas arrest point out, the provisions of the Act have been used for political vendetta. In November, a public interest litigation was led in the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court to declare Section 66A as unconstitutional and ultra virus. One hopes that a legal evaluation of the provisions results in the scrapping of the section in the IT Act. (As we go to press the Supreme Court, acting on a public interest litigation, has issued notice to four states, including Maharashtra, on their use of Section 66A to make arrests.) Beyond Section 66A in the IT Act, there are similar problems with the recently notied Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011 about which EPW had earlier commented in these pages (Regulating Internet Content, 11 December 2011). There has denitely been a gross misunderstanding of the internet medium, viewing it merely as a device for communication rather than its present status as a dynamic public forum for discussions, debate and information, among other purposes. The laws envisaged for regulating the internet have not kept pace with the changes in the medium and that is a cause for worry as these laws have been proven to be either unconstitutional or obsolete. When one also takes into consideration the fact that censorship and restriction of freedom of expression on the internet through website takedowns and blocking is on the rise, there definitely is a need for raising the standards of internet governance and lawmaking in the country.
    december 8, 2012 vol xlviI no 49
    EPW Economic & Political Weekly

    You might also like