Citizens' Issues
Section 66A: Relief Soon?
The Calcutta High Court should make the Modi government think
 
In a landmark judgement, the Calcutta High Court penalised the West Bengal government and ordered action against police officials who had arrested professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of Jadavpur University in 2012 for forwarding an email joke about Mamata Banerjee, chief minister of West Bengal. The state has been ordered to pay Rs50,000 in compensation and another Rs50,000 in costs to the professor.
 
Although a high court order does not have the same finality as a Supreme Court judgement (where a case is pending), it has sent a wave of relief among victims of cases filed under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act. This Section has been repeatedly abused by powerful politicians, political parties and their followers to silence critics and violate human rights through the abuse of the draconian power to arrest and jail those who speak their minds, especially on social media. 
 
Section 66A provides the power to arrest a person for sending grossly offensive or menacing messages, or causing annoyance and inconvenience through electronic communication service. It prescribes a three-year jail term, if found guilty. The wording of the Section has been liberally misinterpreted to harass and intimidate people by arresting them. 
 
While the Act has been repeatedly challenged, the Supreme Court, in 2013, diluted the power of arrest by ruling that no person can be arrested for social media posts without prior approval from an officer of the rank of an inspector general of police. This case, too, was in connection with comments posted on social media about a member of the legislative assembly (MLA) of Tamil Nadu. An advisory to this effect had been issued in states like Maharashtra even earlier after controversial arrests. 
 
Activists and freedom of speech proponents in India have keenly followed a clutch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing our fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. 
 
The examples of misuse of Section 66A by politicians are many. In 2012, two young girls were arrested and terrorised by a mob for a harmless Facebook post criticising the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray. One of them had merely ‘liked’ the post. 
 
Karti Chidambaram, son of former Union minister P Chidambaram, had a Puducherry businessman arrested at night for some posts on Twitter. This case, too, had sparked outrage on social media. Section 66A has even been applied with other provisions of the Indian Penal Code for cases involving cyber-squatting and impersonation. 
 
In February this year, the apex court completed its hearings and has reserved its order. Since the government has made it clear that it is not taking an adversarial position in court, there is a good chance that Section 66A will be defanged, either due to a court order or an amendment of the IT Act to redraft the draconian and highly abused Section. Until then, however, it is not unusual to find people threatened with action under this Section at various forums.

User

COMMENTS

SuchindranathAiyerS

2 years ago

Section 66A: Calcutta High Court stands up for "right to free speech and expression. Will the Supreme Court? It is hard to believe that an Indian High Court has stood u for fundamental rights. Just recently, I had the misfortune of hearing a Karnataka High Court Judge proclaim, in open court, that "This is India, not UK or US" to quash a cognized criminal case against a gang of influential and wealthy accused without any regard for the law or evidence. On appeal, the Supreme Court declined to interfere. One also remembers the Suryanelli rape case that was quashed by a High Court without any regard for law or evidence.

SuchindranathAiyerS

2 years ago

It is hard to believe that an India High Court has stood u for fundamental rights. Just recently, I had the misfortune of hearing a Karnataka High Court Judge proclaim, in open court, that "This is India, not UK or US" to quash a cognized criminal case against a gang of influential and wealthy accused without any regard for the law or evidence. One also remembers the Suryanelli rape case that was quashed by a High Court without any regard for law or evidence.

SC quashes extension of OBC reservation to Jats in 9 states

The Supreme Court said it cannot agree that politically organised Jats are backward class so as to be entitled to OBC reservation 

 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed the 4 March 2014, notification by the then United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government extending other backward  class (OBC) reservation to Jats in nine states, ignoring the recommendation of the National Commission for Backward Classes to the contrary.
 
An apex court bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman said: "We can't agree that politically organised Jats are backward class so as to be entitled to OBC reservation."
 
"Inclusion of politically organised class such as Jats... can't be affirmed", said Justice Gogoi pronouncing the judgment.
 
 

User

Court order in defamation case against Kejriwal on 2nd May
The Metropolitan Magistrate observed that Kejriwal, Sisodia and Yadav have not explained any reasonable ground for the plea seeking exemption from personal appearance in the Court and they have no respect of law
 
A City Court on Tuesday fixed 2nd May for delivering its order on framing of charges in a defamation case against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and two others after they appeared before it.
 
Earlier, the Court has asked Kejriwal and two others to explain why should they be exempted from court appearing and directed them to be present in a defamation case filed by Surender Kumar Sharma.
 
Metropolitan Magistrate Mayuri Singh observed that accused persons have not explained any reasonable ground for the plea seeking exemption from personal appearance in the court and they have no respect of law.
 
Kejriwal, deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Yogendra Yadav moved their application seeking exemption from personal appearance at the hearing.
 
Keeping the matter pending for 2pm, the court asked them to appear before it on Tuesday.
 
The complainant, advocate Surender Kumar Sharma had alleged that in 2013 the AAP approached him and asked him to contest the Delhi assembly elections on a party ticket, saying Kejriwal was pleased with his social services.
 
On 14 October 2013, Sharma claimed, articles in leading newspapers carried "defamatory, unlawful and derogatory words used by the accused persons" which have lowered his reputation in the Bar and the society.
 
The court had earlier reserved the order for 11th February and then adjourned it for 17th March on framing of charges against Kejriwal, Sisodia and Yadav.
 
All three leaders are at present out on bail.
 
Sharma said he filled up the application form to contest the polls after Sisodia and Yadav allegedly told him that the AAP's Political Affairs Committee had decided to give him the ticket. However, it was later denied to him.
 

 

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)