Daily Archives: March 24, 2015

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce today its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law including a provision under which a person can be arrested for allegedly posting "offensive" contents on websites.

A bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman had on February 26 reserved its judgement after Government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be "quashed" merely because of the possibility of its "abuse".

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that the Government did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression at all which is enshrined in the Constitution, but the vast cyber world could not be allowed to remain unregulated.

However, the court had said that terms like 'illegal', 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused.

Some of the petitions seek setting aside of section 66A of the Information Technology Act which empowers police to arrest a person for allegedly posting offensive materials on social networking sites.

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a 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.

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.

The direction had come in the wake of numerous complaints of harassment and arrests, sparking public outrage.

It had, however, refused to pass an interim order for a blanket ban on the arrest of such persons across the country.

More here:
Freedom of Speech online: SC verdict on Section 66A Today

New Delhi/Kolkata/Mumbai : The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, a controversial provision used to arrest people for their social media postings. The verdict was hailed by the victims, who described it as a victory for the common man's free speech.

"Section 66A of the IT Act is struck down in its entirety...," said an apex court bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.

The provision was so vaguely worded that any one could be arrested for "annoying and offensive" postings on a complaint even by a single individual.

"Our Constitution provides for liberty of thought, expression and belief. In a democracy, these values have to be provided within constitutional scheme. The law (Section 66A) is vague in its entirety," said Justice Nariman pronouncing the judgment.

"There is no nexus between public order and discussion or causing annoyance by dissemination of information. Curbs under Section 66A of the IT Act infringes on the public right to know."

Minister for Information and Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad said the government did not favour gagging dissent or honest criticism expressed on social media.

"We respect communication of ideas on social media, not in favour of curtailing honest criticism, dissent on social media," he told the media.

Victims on Tuesday hailed the Supreme Court's verdict.

Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra, who was arrested under the section in 2012 for circulating emails mocking West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, told IANS: "This is a victory of the common man's freedom of speech."

"This verdict will surely remove the fear psychosis that has been developing among a large section of internet users that they may get arrested for even innocuous of acts."

Read more from the original source:
SC quashes Section 66A, says it curbs freedom of speech

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a verdict today on the validity of Section 66 A of Information and Technology Act 2000. The Section gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term.

It was challenged by law student Shreya Singal and others, including Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin and non-government organisations. The petitioners contended that the Section interferes with free speech and appealed that it be quashed.

The Centre has defended the provision, saying the possibility of its potential abuse cannot be a ground for declaring it unconstitutional.

The Centre has also argued that comments in the social media on political debate, protests, expressing a contrary view, a dialogue or a discourse cannot be punished under the provision. The lawyers of the petitioners had argued that the definition of provision Section 66 A - material that is grossly menacing, offensive and cause annoyance to public -- is vague and it may lead to abuse of the provision. They also argued that even genuine comments criticising a person, and caricatures, are treated as offence, and people are harassed.

The petition was filed in the aftermath of the arrest of two teenagers in Mumbai's Palghar, who had objected to a statewide strike called by Shiv Sena following the death of party patriarch Bal Thackeray. They were let off after the arrests provoked nationwide outrage and shifted the focus on the IT laws.

It was also alleged that the local police were misusing the laws at the behest of politicians.

After a few more similar arrests, the Union home ministry issued a directive to all state governments that arrests under Section 66 A can only be made with the approval of senior police officers.

View original post here:
Freedom of Speech Online: Supreme Court Verdict on Section 66A Today

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has scrapped a contentious law that was seen as a major infringement of the freedom of speech online because it allowed the arrest of a person for posting offensive content. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, has been declared unconstitutional. Describing the law as "vague in its entirety," the judges said, it encroaches upon "the public's right to know."

The law had been challenged first by a law student named Shreya Singhal after two young women were arrested in 2012 for posting comments critical of the total shutdown in Mumbai after the death of Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena chief. The group that challenged the law in the Supreme Court expanded to include the NGO Common Cause and Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen.

The contention by most of the petitioners was that Section 66A is vague and allows the police arbitrary interpretation and misuse of the law. The previous government, headed by the Congress, said that the law was necessary to combat abuse and defamation on the internet. The new BJP government also defended the law in court.

Critics of the law said it was misused by political parties to target their opponents and dissidence. A professor in West Bengal was arrested in 2012 for posting a cartoon of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, for example.

Section 66A reads: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."

Continued here:
"Unconstitutional": Supreme Court Scraps Section 66A, Protects Online Freedom of Speech

NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment upholding freedom of expression, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a provision in the cyber law which provides power to arrest a person for posting allegedly "offensive" content on websites.

According to reports, the apex court ruled that the section falls outside Article 19(2), which relates to Freedom of Speech, and thus has to be struck down in its entirety.

Hailing the Supreme Court's decision to strike down the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, Shreya Singhal, one of the petitioners in the case, on Tuesday said that no one would fear expressing their opinions online anymore.

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.

READ ALSO: All you need to know about Section 66A of IT Act

Centre defends Section 66A of IT Act

Sec 66A draconian, but is needed: Govt

Class 11 student sent to jail for Facebook post against UP minister Azam Khan

Blog: Repeal section 66A: Law that permits jailing school kid for Facebook post is objectionable and absurd

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.

Read the original here:
Section 66A of IT Act: Timeline

New Delhi: The end of Section 66A, the controversial law that allowed arrests for offensive content online, marks a big victory for Shreya Singhal, the young law student who was among the first to challenge it in the Supreme Court.

"I am ecstatic. It was grossly offensive to our rights, our freedom of speech and expression and today the Supreme Court has upheld that," Shreya told NDTV moments after the court scrapped the law, agreeing that it is unconstitutional and violates the rights of citizens.

"Nobody should have fear of putting up something because of the fear of going to prison. The court has upheld the rights of all citizens today," she added.

Shreya comes from a family of lawyers; her mother is a Supreme Court lawyer and her grandmother was a judge.

She was 21 when she filed a petition in 2012, after two young women were arrested for posting comments critical of the total shutdown in Mumbai after the death of Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena chief.

Shreya says her family encouraged her. "I am also a law student so through my studies also I knew that you can approach the Supreme Court directly," she said, aware that she has achieved, even before becoming a lawyer, what many veterans in the profession haven't.

She spent three years studying astrophysics in the UK before returning to India to apply to law schools. Her attention was drawn to several high-profile arrests of people under Section 66A.

"It is being misused by BJP governments, Congress governments... all over the country. Even when the Congress was in power, it was being misused. Governments have their own political agenda; a law has to be for the people," Shreya said.

The court today had strong words in support of that sentiment as it said, "Governments come and go. We can't act on assurance that Section 66A will not be misused."

Continue reading here:
Shreya Singhal, the 24-Year-Old Who Challenged Section 66(A)