Section 66A of IT Act

 

 

Last week, two women were arrested for comments on Facebook following the death of politician Bal Thackeray. The arrests led to an outrage with many calling for scrapping the law.

Hence the Delhi student Shreya Singhal, who has filed a petition in court stating that the phraseology of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the constitution”. This provision allows cases to be registered against those who simply cause 'annoyance' to others by their Internet activities.

The plea has also sought issuance of guidelines by the apex court to "reconcile section 41 and 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code with Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution" and that offences under the Indian Penal Code and any other legislation if they involve the freedom of speech and expression be treated as non-cognizable offence for the purposes of Section 41 and Section 156 (1).

Section 41 of the CrPC empowers the police to arrest any person without an order from the magistrate and without a warrant in the event that the offence involved is a cognizable offence. Section 156 (1) empowers the investigation by the police into a cognizable offence without an order of a magistrate.

Thus the Centre issued new guidelines for arrests under a controversial provision of the IT Act.

The new guidelines say approval from a police officer of IGP rank in metros and DCP rank in other areas will have to be sought before registering complaints under section 66A of the Act. (Section 66A provides for a jail term of up to three years, and a case under it can be registered by a police station in-charge or an inspector-rank officer).

 

 

Apex court issues notices to states over Section 66A

 

 

of IT Act

 

Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir  asked three central ministries, the states of Maharashtra, West Bengal and Delhi and the Union Territory of Puducherry on Friday to respond within four weeks to a public interest petition (PIL) seeking an amendment to the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act. Kabir also asked the Maharashtra government to explain why the two girls in Palghar near Mumbai were arrested for criticizing on Facebook the shutdown in the city for Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s funeral.

The PIL against Section 66A has been filed by 21-year-old student Shreya Singhal.

Earlier in November, a businessman in Puducherry was arrested for comments made on Twitter against finance minister P. Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram. Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society think tank, said that while the change in the law is a step in the right direction and will eliminate a lot of frivolous complaints, more needs to be done to make the legislation specific.

April incident in which a professor of chemistry from Jadavpur University in West Bengal, Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for posting a cartoon concerning chief minister Mamata Banerjee on a social networking site.

Puducherry case as well as the May arrests of two Air India Ltd employees, V. Jaganatharao and Mayank Sharma, by the Mumbai Police under the IT Act for posting content onFacebook and Orkut against a trade union leader and some politicians.