The Supreme Court has recently questioned the Centre in light of claims that police in numerous states continue to use Section 66A of the IT Act to suppress free speech on social media platforms, even after the harsh law was abolished by the apex court in 2015. The petitioner highlighted that a working paper by the Internet Freedom Foundation indicated that prosecutions under Section 66A remained unresolved, and it continues to be employed by Indian police in FIRs filed post the 2015 decision.
Persistent Misuse and Lack of Communication
The petitioner claimed that there was a significant communication gap at grassroots level, with many officials potentially unaware of the Supreme Court’s verdict. The plea pointed out that trial courts and prosecutors were not actively implementing the ruling, resulting in the brunt of discontinuing illegal cases founded on Section 66A falling onto the accused.
Understanding Section 66A
Section 66A handled information-related crimes where sending offensive, derogatory, or threatening information via a computer resource or communication device was considered an offence. In the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ruling, Justices Rohinton F. Nariman and J. Chelameswar observed that Section 66A’s flaw lies in its creation of offences based on undefined actions like causing “inconvenience, danger, obstruction, and insult”. These actions do not align with the exceptions defined under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
The Challenge of Defining Boundaries
The court noted that the difficulty was in determining where to draw the line. Traditionally, this boundary has been drawn at incitement, while terms like obstruction and insult remain subjective. Further, unlike other sections with similar intentions, Section 66A lacked procedural safeguards, such as requiring Centre’s agreement prior to taking action. Local authorities had the autonomy to act based on their political masters’ whims.
Table of Facts
| Key Points | Details |
|---|---|
| Section 66A | Pertained to information related crimes of sending offensive, derogatory, or threatening communication. |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India | The case where Section 66A was found flawed and therefore struck down. |
| Article 19 | Constitutional article that guarantees the freedom of speech. |
| Article 21 | Constitutional article that ensures the right to life. |
Impact of the Judgment
The judgment determined Section 66A to be inconsistent with both Article 19 (free speech) and Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution, leading to its complete removal by the court. Subsequently, the government established the T.K. Viswanathan committee, which proposed legislation to tackle the issue of online hate speech.
