Repeal section 66A: Law that permits jailing school kid for Facebook post is objectio

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The very day the Bombay High Court held that cartoons by Aseem Trivedi, who was arrested in Mumbai in 2011, could not be deemed seditious, a class 11 student from Bareilly was remanded in judicial custody for a Facebook post allegedly uncharitable towards UP minister Azam Khan. The Rampur district police found the post to contain derogatory language and promptly slapped the draconian section 66A of the Information Technology Act, among other laws, against the boy.

For some time now section 66A has become a handy tool for state governments to suppress dissent or even harmless humour that thin-skinned politicians cannot stomach. The arrest of a Jadavpur University professor – for sharing a comic strip which Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee did not find amusing – set an unfortunate precedent which found many imitators precisely because the law is so loosely worded. The police show surprising alacrity in invoking the perverse 66A against innocent citizens, but are found wanting in strictly enforcing the law when politicians – and Khan is a prime example – make outrageous statements, often bordering on the communal or designed to incite violence.


Section 66A gives arbitrary powers to the police to make arrests for anything deemed annoying – an entirely subjective term. Not only does it have the potential for being abused, the law attacks the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and is therefore unconstitutional. The law itself is an annoyance to democracy and deserves to be struck off the statute books. If the NDA government has any intention at all of embracing PM Modi’s slogan of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, the first thing it should do is to stop defending 66A and repeal it instead.

Repeal section 66A: Law that permits jailing school kid for Facebook post is objectionable and absurd - TOI Blogs

 

[sarang]

What the kid posted as said by azam khan is reported in the Hindu. Op would have taken a different colour and tone if a Hindu boy said something similar and attributed it to any even insignificant sangh leader.
Any law can be misused - dowry, hate speech, Facebook post or cartoon - examples can be found in every field.
UK govt will not allow filming near immigrant detention centers because it is sensitive, but BBC will film an interview with a death row convict inside high security (!) prison.

 

[prasad1]

The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a plea for a direction to seek an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh government for the arrest of a Class XII student for allegedly posting on Facebook “objectionable” comments about Samajwadi Party legislator and State Minister Azam Khan. This is of a piece with a series of incidents involving efforts to curb free speech on the Internet by invoking Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Section, which provides for punishment to persons sending offensive messages through any communication device, is arguably in patent violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It makes punishable, inter alia, any communication that may be “grossly offensive” or “menacing in character”, or may cause “annoyance” and “inconvenience”. Petitions challenging the constitutionality of this law have argued that these terms are too “vague” and “ambiguous”, yielding unbounded scope for arbitrary use of power by officials who may interpret the terms as they deem fit. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on free speech on grounds of “public order, decency or morality”, but by no stretch of interpretation could content that is of a “menacing character” or causes “annoyance” be said to fall within the scope of such reasonableness. Several petitions have been filed challenging the validity of this law, and the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict.
These arrests reflect the fact that the law was poorly drafted. More significantly, these show the intolerance and blatant abuse of power by politicians across party lines, and their efforts to manipulate the law to stifle dissent and criticism. This provision was inserted as an amendment in 2008 by the United Progressive Alliance government, and the present National Democratic Alliance regime continues to favour it, saying the law was intended to “regulate the use of cyberspace” and not to curb free speech. But the facts clearly call the bluff on such justifications. This is reflected in a number of arrests of netizens in the last five years for critical remarks on politicians. Mr. Azam Khan, who was so offended by what the school student had posted, unleashed the force of Section 66A and the police for his immediate arrest. The student was eventually released on bail. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will act towards ultimately strengthening the foundations of free speech by striking down this untenable clause of the IT Act. This will be the surest way to halt the blatant misuse of power by the political class with respect to free speech on the Internet.

Persisting acts of intolerance - The Hindu

 

[prasad1]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Section 66 A of the Information and Technology Act, which allows police to arrest people for posting “offensive content” on the internet.
The court, however, allowed the government to block websites if their content had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India's relationship with other countries.
The bench said the public's right to know is directly affected by Section 66 A and the Section clearly affects the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under the Constitution of India.
Further, the court said Section 66 A was unconstitutional because it failed two major tests - the clear and present danger test and the tendency to create public disorder test. The court also found the language used in the Section vague and nebulous saying it doesn't properly define words like 'offensive' or even 'persistent'.

The court said it can't go by government assurances that the Section won't be misused as any assurance would not bind on successive governments. Section 66 A it said, would have to be judged on its own merits.

Section 66 A of IT Act unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules - The Hindu

 

[prasad1]

[h=1]The lawyer who took down Section 66A and the girls who inspired her[/h]

It all started at the dinner table three years ago. The arrest of two Mumbai girls - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan - for an innocuous post on Facebook left astro-physics graduate Shreya Singhal outraged.

Being a fifth generation lawyer, she could not stop herself from condemning the arrests.
The two girls were arrested in Thane's Palghar after one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.
"It could have been me or my friend. How could one be arrested for questioning a shutdown of the city and also for liking the post," she recalls telling her mother, Supreme Court lawyer Manali Singhal, who, out of jest, challenged her to move the court.
A determined Shreya took her mother's challenge seriously, consulted her lawyer friend Ninad Laud and in 2012 filed the petition seeking an amendment in the section 66A of the information technology act.
"The section gives unbridled powers to the police to arrest anyone who disagrees with a view and posts it on a social website," she says.
A three-year wait was long for Shreya but the result has been fruitful.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down the controversial section 66A of the IT act that made posting "offensive" comments online a crime punishable by jail, after a long campaign by defenders of free speech.

The lawyer who took down Section 66A and the girls who inspired her