Section 66A of the IT Act challenged via petitions in Madras and Lucknow Notice issued in both petitions

B&B News Network On November 23, 2012 - 4:09pm

The constitutional vires of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 is under judicial scrutiny with two separate petitions filed before the Madras High Court and the Allahabad High Court. This provision lays down the punishment for sending offensive messages through electronic means.

The petition filed before the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court has been filed by one Professor Marx, an academician and human rights activist. Prof. Marx has sought a direction from the Court to declare S.66A as unconstitutional and “subsequently forbearing the respondents from implementing the said provision.”

The petition, a copy of which is with Bar & Bench, uses the example of the arrest of Ravi Srinivasan after Srinivasan’s tweet that he had received reports showing that Finance Minister P. Chidambaram’s son had “amassed more wealth than Vadra” to demonstrate how the provision is “great threat” to the right to free speech and expression. The Petitioner was represented by A. Rajini.

On November 21, 2012 the Division Bench of Justices K.N. Basha and P. Devadass issued notice in the petition. However, as per a report in The Hindu, Justice Basha did observe that if the provision was declared un-Constitutional, even genuine cases would be denied a remedy.

Meanwhile, a petition has also been filed in the Lucknow Bench by IPS officer, Amitabh Tahkur and his social activist wife Nutan Thakur. This petition cites various examples where S.66A has been misused including the Palghar controversy where two girls were arrested due to a comment questioning a bandh in Bombay city following the death of Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray. The petition challenges the vague and ambiguous provisions of S.66A and is open to gross abuse, resulting in “extreme curtailments” of an individual’s fundamental rights. The Petitioners were represented by Ashok Pande. The Petitioners were represented by Ashok Pande.

Today, the Division Bench of Justices Uma Nath Singh and Satish Chandra issued notice in the matter, giving one week to the Respondents to file their replies. The matter shall be heard next on December 11, 2012.

Category:

News

Comments

Neeraj

November 23, 2012 - 7:16pm

The provisions in question being subjugated to challenge their constitutionality require a thoughtful consideration rather than have to be judged from the corner of activist's eye. It is common sense proposition of criminal jurisprudence that provision being a penal offence will be meted out strict interpretation by the court of justice and all the requisites of offence will have to be established by prosecution. However the instances which have provoked the petitioners to move the higher courts to challenge the vires of impugned provisions are short sited by the very nature of them. One in which a person was nabbed for circulating the alleged enmeshing of wealth by Finance Minister's son is more irresponsible in nature than the law expects a kind of conduct from a reasonable man. Another instance in which plastic activist due have moved the court has more to do with the frenzied cop rather than any infirmities in law itself. It has to be appreciated that in changing vocabulary and regime of public and personal communication, internet as a tool is going to surpass all other means of communication. Its vulnerability as an invisible toll potentially potent enough to cause annoyance or inconvenience or deceive or mislead can not be ignored and require penal provisions of standard accepted by developed jurisprudence.

AnOn

November 23, 2012 - 11:58pm

I totally disagree to some of the points that you've put forward. Firstly, the challenge lies to the fact that the provision curtails the right to freedom of speech and expression as provided by article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the provision can be constitutionally challenged as far as the restrictions put on the said right are unreasonable in nature (as not covered under the ambit of article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution). If you look at the statute carefully, it provides the authorities with wide powers and the exercise of which is left at their own discretion. Its application not in many cases has not been objective. There have been instances where such powers have been misused. It is essential that the laws which are made to protect fundamental freedoms, should not be restricted to the extent that the right itself extinguishes under the weight of the restrictions so put to curtail the right. The restrictions so put have to be proportional to achieve the legitimate aims of the act which from the preamble seems to be totally different from what its being used for.

Citizen Lawyer

November 24, 2012 - 11:53am

The entire IT ACT requires an immediate judicial and common sensical review! It is very badly drafted law. You can notice from all insances that not only mighty misuse these provisions against common people but mostly big employers misuse the provisions to harrass their employees. In fact, its operation should be suspended until the review and redrafting is complete.

Jhelua