Jonah Patel
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, criminalised the sending of offensive messages through computers or other communication devices. The provision also made it punishable to send messages that were false or meant to deceive or mislead the recipient. This section was inserted into the IT Act in 2009 to address cases of cybercrime with the advent of technology and the internet. However, it was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2015 in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India on the grounds that it violated the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court also found that the law was vague and overbroad, leading to a chilling effect on speech. Despite the ruling, Section 66A continued to be invoked by police in several states until 2021.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year | 2009 |
| Part of | Information Technology Act, 2000 |
| Inserted into the IT Act on | 27 October, 2009 |
| Struck down by the Supreme Court of India on | March 2015 |
| Reason | Violates the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India |
| Other reasons | Vague, ambiguous, and subject to wanton abuse |
| Supreme Court's ruling | Section 66A is over-broad and vague, hence it violates Article 19(1)(a) |
| Supreme Court's directive | Direct all states and Union Territories not to register cases under the repealed Section 66A of the IT Act |
| Bill introduced in Lok Sabha in 2022 | Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2022 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000
The vague and ambiguous nature of Section 66A led to its controversial use. The police had the power to interpret and enforce the law subjectively, leading to a "chilling effect" on free speech. This resulted in arrests for innocuous instances of online speech, including political commentary and humour.
In 2015, the Supreme Court of India received a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A, claiming it trampled on the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court, in the landmark judgement Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, ruled that Section 66A was indeed unconstitutional, violating Article 19(1)(a) and not falling within the reasonable restrictions on free speech outlined in Article 19(2).
Despite the 2015 ruling, Section 66A continued to be invoked by police in several states until as recently as 2021. This "shocking state of affairs" prompted the Supreme Court to direct all states and Union Territories to refrain from registering cases under the repealed section.
The striking down of Section 66A is considered a pivotal moment for online free speech in India, ensuring that individuals can express their thoughts and share information without fear of arbitrary restrictions or punitive measures.
The Indian Constitution's Appendices: Understanding the Addendums
You may want to see also
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Background
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was introduced to address new forms of cybercrimes arising from increased internet use, including offensive messages sent through communication services. The provision criminalised information that was grossly offensive or of a menacing character, information known to be false but used persistently to cause harm, and electronic messages intended to annoy, inconvenience, or mislead. The vague and arbitrary terms used in the section led to much misuse of both a personal and political nature, with several criminal cases being instituted against innocuous instances of online speech, including political commentary and humour.
Case Details
The first petition came up in court following the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in November 2012 over a Facebook post. The girls had made comments on the shutdown of Mumbai for the funeral of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. The arrests triggered outrage from all quarters over the manner in which the cyber law was used. The petition was filed by Shreya Singhal, then a 21-year-old law student. Other petitioners included Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra, arrested for forwarding caricatures of a political leader on Facebook, and activist Aseem Trivedi, arrested for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution.
The Supreme Court of India initially issued an interim measure, prohibiting any arrest pursuant to Section 66A unless approved by senior police officers. The main issue was whether Section 66A of the ITA violated the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. As an exception to the right, Article 19(2) permits the government to impose “reasonable restrictions”. The petitioners argued that Section 66A’s broad and vague language failed to meet these criteria, leading to a chilling effect on free speech. The court agreed that the prohibition against the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult did not fall within any reasonable exceptions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It further found that because the provision failed to define terms such as "inconvenience" or "annoyance", a very large amount of protected and innocent speech could be curtailed, and hence its sweep was overly broad and vague.
Outcome
In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the law, calling it “open-ended and unconstitutionally vague”, and thus expanded the contours of free speech to the Internet. The court also upheld the secret blocking process under Section 66A of the Act, by which the Government can choose to take down content from the Internet, holding that it did not suffer from the infirmities in Section 66A or Section 79, and is a narrowly drawn provision with adequate safeguards. While the decision of the Supreme Court is of immense significance in protecting online free speech against arbitrary restrictions, Section 66A, which was declared unconstitutional, has continued to be used as a punitive measure against online speech in several cases.
The Making of India's Constitution: A Historical Journey
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court's ruling
The Court's ruling was in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A. The PIL argued that Section 66A trampled on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It contended that the law was "vague", "ambiguous", and subject to "wanton abuse", giving the police subjective powers to interpret and enforce the provision. The petitioner, Shreya Singhal, further challenged Section 66A on the grounds of violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which pertain to equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.
The Supreme Court agreed with the arguments presented in the PIL, observing that Section 66A was over-broad and vague, leading to a "chilling effect" on speech. The Court found that the provision's vague and arbitrary terms resulted in its misuse, with criminal cases being instituted against innocuous instances of online speech, including political commentary and humour. The Court also examined the abusive powers of the police and the suppression of freedom of speech and expression that resulted from the application of Section 66A.
The ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was considered a landmark judgment and a watershed moment for online free speech in India. It sent a strong message against state encroachment on the freedom of speech and expression, setting a precedent for future cases involving restrictions on online speech. The Court's decision also clarified the liability of online intermediaries, holding that they would only be obligated to take down content upon receiving an order from a court or government authority.
Indian Constitution: A Force for Good?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Freedom of speech
The Indian Constitution's Section 66A pertained to the Information Technology Act, 2000, which was enacted when the internet was still relatively new in India. This section made it a crime to send offensive messages through computers or other electronic devices. It was inserted into the IT Act in 2009 to address the growing number of cybercrimes as the internet and technology advanced.
Section 66A of the IT Act, in particular, criminalised the sending of "grossly offensive" or "menacing" messages via electronic means. It also prohibited the persistent sending of false information intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or ill will. The provision was so broad that almost any opinion on any topic could be considered a violation. This led to concerns about its constitutionality and respect for freedom of speech.
In 2015, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India that Section 66A was unconstitutional and violated the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also held that the restrictions on free speech imposed by this section were not "reasonable" as provided for in Article 19(2). This decision was considered a landmark victory for online free speech in India.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Section 66A continued to be invoked by police in several states. In 2021, the Court expressed concern about this "shocking state of affairs" and directed all states and Union Territories to refrain from registering cases under the repealed section. To address the issue, the Central government introduced the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2022, in Lok Sabha, seeking to amend various laws, including the IT Act.
It is important to note that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right in India, it is not absolute. Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution allows the state to impose reasonable restrictions on this right in the interests of security, sovereignty, public order, decency, morality, and friendly relations with other countries.
Teaching India's Constitution: A Practical Guide
You may want to see also
The Constitution (74th Amendment) Act, 1992
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was inserted into the IT Act in 2009, criminalised the sending of offensive messages through any computer or communication device. The police had the power to determine whether the information in a message was offensive and could book individuals under Section 66A if the message was deemed false and intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience, or harm. This section saw adverse court rulings and was deemed to curb freedom of speech and expression, violating fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. In March 2015, the Supreme Court ruled Section 66A as unconstitutional, striking it down from the IT Act.
Now, moving on to the topic you requested in the instructions:
The 74th Amendment provided a framework for devolving obligations and duties to municipal bodies at different levels within a state. It introduced a new Part IX-A to the Indian Constitution, titled 'The Municipalities', encompassing provisions from Articles 243-P to 243-ZG. Additionally, it added a Twelfth Schedule to the Constitution, listing 18 functional items of municipalities.
The Act constituted three types of municipalities: Nagar Panchayat, Municipal Corporation, and Municipal Council. The Nagar Panchayat is for areas transitioning from rural to urban, the Municipal Council governs smaller urban areas, and the Municipal Corporation manages large urban areas. The Act mandated elections to fill seats in these municipalities, ensuring regular representation from different wards or territorial constituencies.
Furthermore, the 74th Amendment Act introduced institutional changes with the establishment of Ward Committees, District Planning Committees, and Metropolitan Planning Committees to coordinate planning across jurisdictions. It also provided for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and women in every municipality, ensuring their proportionate representation.
The Finance Commission, constituted under Article 243-I, is responsible for reviewing the financial positions of both Panchayati Raj Institutions and municipalities, making recommendations to the Governor on tax distribution, grants, and measures to improve municipalities' financial health.
The 74th Amendment Act, 1992, came into force on 1 June 1993, empowering urban local bodies and bringing them under the Indian Constitution's ambit. This amendment was a significant step towards strengthening urban governance and ensuring efficient development at the grassroots level.
India's Constitution: Foundation for Gender Equality
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, made sending offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices a crime. It was inserted into the IT Act in 2009 to address cases of cybercrime.
The Information Technology Act was enacted in 2000 when the internet was still relatively new in India. As the internet gained popularity, the misuse and abuse of online platforms became a challenge. Section 66A was added to address these concerns.
In March 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, ruling it unconstitutional for violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
The Supreme Court's decision was considered a landmark moment for online free speech in India. It was seen as a vital judgement to protect online free speech against arbitrary restrictions.
Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, Section 66A has continued to be invoked by police in several states across India. This has led to debates about the powers and constitutionality of the section. To address this, the Centre directed all states and Union Territories not to register cases under the repealed Section 66A.
