Beginning with an overview of the recent developments concerning Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, this article proceeds to discuss the problems that arose from the implementation of this section before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The controversial part of the IT Act relating to online speech was struck down in 2015 as it infringed on the freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Why Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is in News Again?
In recent developments, the Supreme Court directed the state and their respective police forces to cease the prosecution of free speech on social media platforms under the now defunct Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. The court clarified that this order would apply only to charges brought under Section 66A, not extending to other offences involved in a case.
What was Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000?
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 made it illegal and punishable for anyone to send offensive or misinformation using electronic devices like computers. This provision proposed a three-year imprisonment for causing “annoyance” or sending “grossly offensive” messages on social media platforms. It also made it unlawful for a person to send emails intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, deception, or misleading information about the origin of the message.
The Shreya Singhal Case in 2015 saw the court declaring this provision as unconstitutional, stating that it violated the right to freedom of speech. According to the judgement, online intermediaries are required to remove content only when ordered by a court or governmental authority.
The Issues with Section 66A
The ambiguity of Section 66A was a significant issue as the law created offenses based on undefined actions such as causing inconvenience, danger, obstruction, and insult. These actions do not fall into the exceptions protected by freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. Additionally, Section 66A lacked procedural safeguards present in other similar sections of the law, such as obtaining approval from central authorities before taking action. Local authorities could act independently, potentially influenced by their political affiliations.
Furthermore, Section 66A contradicted Articles 19 (free speech) and 21 (right to life) of the Constitution of India. It restricted the citizens’ “right to know,” a critical aspect of the right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
The Way Forward
The enforcement of unconstitutional laws is not only a misuse of public funds but also puts vulnerable individuals at a risk of unjust arrest and detention. To prevent this, there is an urgent need to shift from a system where information about judicial decisions depends on initiatives undertaken by conscientious officers, to a more objective system that minimises human error. In doing so, it would protect those who are impoverished, less educated, and unaware of their rights, from illegal arrests and detentions.