The Supreme Court of India recently issued a notice to the Central Government on its use of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This controversial provision, which empowers police officers to make arrests based on subjective definitions of “offensive” or “menacing” online activity, was declared unconstitutional and scrapped in 2015. Despite this, there seems to be a persistent misuse of the scrapped section.
What is Section 66A?
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was a provision that allowed law enforcement agencies to arrest individuals for sending messages deemed “offensive” or “menacing,” via a computer or any electronic communication device. This broad definition often led to allegations of misuse as it was left to police discretion on what constituted an offence under this section. Convictions under the section could lead to a sentence of up to three years.
The Shreya Singhal Case and the Scrapping of Section 66A
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in the landmark Shreya Singhal Case. The court ruled that the provision violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech. The judgment highlighted several problems with the section.
Problems with Section 66A
The Supreme Court identified several issues with Section 66A, key among them being that it created an offence based on undefined actions such as causing inconvenience, danger, obstruction, and insult. This led to arbitrary interpretation and application of the law, as these terms did not fall within the exceptions provided under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech.
Another issue raised was the subjective nature of Section 66A. It was tricky to draw a definitive line at what constituted incitement, as terms like ‘obstruction’ and ‘insult’ are subjective and open to interpretation.
Moreover, the provision lacked procedural safeguards. Unlike other sections with similar objectives, there was no requirement to obtain the Centre’s agreement before taking action under Section 66A. Local authorities were free to act based on political influence or personal bias.
Implications of Section 66A on Fundamental Rights
Section 66A was found to be in contravention of Article 19 (free speech) and Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution. The right to know, seen as an extension of the right to speech and expression, is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Way Forward
The continued use of Section 66A indicates a need for systematic changes. Communication about judicial decisions should not be left to the discretion of individuals but should follow a method that minimizes human error. The enforcement of unconstitutional laws results not only in wastage of public resources but also infringes upon people’s rights. In order to prevent these issues, it’s essential to address the root cause – ignorance, poverty, and inability to assert one’s rights. A more systematic approach to law enforcement, free from individual biases, would enhance the rule of law and ensure constitutional rights are not violated.