Constitutional validity of S66A of IT Act challenged: Mukul Rohatgi, Harish Salve to appear

A public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology, Act 2000 was mentioned before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court today. Chief Justice Altamas Kabir directed the matter to be placed before the Court tomorrow and also asked Attorney General G.E. Vahanvati to be present the next day. The Petitioner was represented by Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi. Senior Counsel Harish Salve also sought to be impleaded in the matter and shall file an intervention application soon..Section 66A is being primarily attacked on the ground that the “phraseology” of the provision is “so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards” that it is open to wanton abuse and hence violates the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The petition also states that the all the terms which constitute an “offence” under S.66A have neither been defined in the IT Act nor any other legislation and hence “susceptible to abuse”. Lastly, the petition contends that “[T]he invocation of penal provisions on tenuous grounds has a ‘chilling effect’ on free speech”.The reliefs sought for through the PIL are twofold. The first one is to have S.66A declared unconstitutional and be struck down..The second relief sought for is the framing of guidelines under Article 142 of the Constitution so as to “reconcile” the fundamental right of freedom of speech with the provisions of S.41 and 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)..It may be recalled that S.41 allows the police to arrest and individual without a warrant or order from a Magistrate provided the offence involved is a cognisable offence while S.156 allows the police to investigate a cognisable offence without the sanction of a Magistrate..What the petition essentially states is that if any legislation creates a criminal offence involving the freedom of speech and expression, then that offence ought to be “treated as a non-cognizable offence for the purposes of Section 41 and Section 156 (1)” Furthermore, the “postponement process” of Section 202 of the CrPC ought to be made mandatory in cases involving the freedom of speech and expression..The government has also today issued guidelines that state approval from an officer of DCP level at rural areas and IG level in metros will have to be sought before registering complaints under section 66A..Last week, the High Courts of Madras and Allahabad had issued notice in separate petitions challenging the validity of Section 66A.