Petitioner Shreya Singhal flashes the victory sign in New Delhi after the Supreme Court struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act on Tuesday. Photo: R.V. Moorthy
March 25, 2015, @ 2.30 AM
SC strikes down ‘draconian’
Section 66A- The Hindu, March 25, 2015
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.ece?
Petitioner Shreya Singhal flashes the victory
sign in New Delhi after the Supreme Court struck down the Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act on Tuesday. Photo: R.V. Moorthy
sign in New Delhi after the Supreme Court struck down the Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act on Tuesday. Photo: R.V. Moorthy
It
invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous’
Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on
Tuesday striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of
many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the
Internet.
Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on
Tuesday striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of
many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the
Internet.
“It is clear that Section 66A
arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free
speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J.
Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the
provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said.
arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free
speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J.
Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the
provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said.
The Bench turned down a plea to
strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and
safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of
intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and
safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of
intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
In the judgment, the court said
the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount
significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding
the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion,
or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at
the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or
advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground
of causing public disorder.
the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount
significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding
the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion,
or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at
the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or
advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground
of causing public disorder.
The court then went on to say
that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with
incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the
Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words
may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a
‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing
character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court
held.
that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with
incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the
Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words
may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a
‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing
character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court
held.
Holding several terms used in
the law to define the contours of offences as “open-ended, undefined and
vague”, the court said: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may
be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance
or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”
the law to define the contours of offences as “open-ended, undefined and
vague”, the court said: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may
be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance
or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”
The court pointed out that a
penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the
criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. “Ordinary people should be able
to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who
administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,” the court said.
penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the
criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. “Ordinary people should be able
to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who
administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,” the court said.
SC rejects Centre’s plea
Striking down Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on
Tuesday rejected the Centre’s plea that it was committed to free speech and
would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on
Tuesday rejected the Centre’s plea that it was committed to free speech and
would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
MY TAKE on this NEWS REPORT in The Hindu, Dated March 25, 2015
March 25, 2015, @ 2.30 AM
SC strikes down ‘draconian’
Section 66A- The Hindu, March 25, 2015
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.ece?
The SUPREME COURT has Once
again proved that our HIGHER JUDICIARY& especially SUPREME COURT, is ONE
PILLAR of our DEMOCRACY that has REMAINED totally UNCORRUPTED as well as
remained as VIGILANT, INDEPENDENT& COURAGEOUS as it was when it got
established for the FIRST TIME under an EXECUTIVE order of the PRESIDENT&as
per the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS!
again proved that our HIGHER JUDICIARY& especially SUPREME COURT, is ONE
PILLAR of our DEMOCRACY that has REMAINED totally UNCORRUPTED as well as
remained as VIGILANT, INDEPENDENT& COURAGEOUS as it was when it got
established for the FIRST TIME under an EXECUTIVE order of the PRESIDENT&as
per the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS!
Hats off to our Higher
Judiciary& more so to Ms Shreya Singhal, the petitioner who went with a PIL
against Section 66-A to Supreme Court on behalf of two Pune Based Girls who
were hauled up by the Maharashtra Police for making some innocuous comment by
one of them&for "LIKING" that comment by the other who was her
friend,under this DRACONIAN SECTION 66-A!
Judiciary& more so to Ms Shreya Singhal, the petitioner who went with a PIL
against Section 66-A to Supreme Court on behalf of two Pune Based Girls who
were hauled up by the Maharashtra Police for making some innocuous comment by
one of them&for "LIKING" that comment by the other who was her
friend,under this DRACONIAN SECTION 66-A!
Now all the INTERNET USERS can BREATH
FREE since the "DAMOCLES SWORD in the FORM of this DRACONIAN SECTION
66-A" has been dismantled in ONE SWIFT STROKE by SUPREME COURT that has
upheld FREEDOM of SPEECH&EXPRESSION as INVIOLABLE RIGHTS bestowed up on all CITIZENS by our
CONSTITUTION!
FREE since the "DAMOCLES SWORD in the FORM of this DRACONIAN SECTION
66-A" has been dismantled in ONE SWIFT STROKE by SUPREME COURT that has
upheld FREEDOM of SPEECH&EXPRESSION as INVIOLABLE RIGHTS bestowed up on all CITIZENS by our
CONSTITUTION!
The BIGGEST BLOW in
favour of FREEDOM of SPEECH & EXPRESSION by SC!
favour of FREEDOM of SPEECH & EXPRESSION by SC!
SC strikes down ‘draconianSection
66A - The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article7027375.ece
66A - The Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article7027375.ece
No comments:
Post a Comment