Crass misuse & demise

Section 66A of IT Act

Three cheers to the Supreme Court. It has declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 as unconstitutional – a section that has been used to stifle dissent and criticism of politically influential personalities. The judgement has restored freedom of expression (FOE) that was seriously threatened by misuse of this section.

The section provides for action against people for posting through a computer resource or a communication device any information that is “grossly offensive” or has “menacing character”. It uses vague terms like “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill-will” for the information circulated to come under its purview.

The punishment for sending such information is imprisonment up to three years with fine. Even a cursory glance through this section may show that the terms used are so wide and vague and incapable of being understood in precise meaning or examined on objective standards. Its use and misuse to curb any semblance of opposition or criticism of power holders seems to be written into it.

Who piloted the bill adding this section to the IT Act 2000 in the year 2008 has now become an issue which further confirms the role of political bosses in controlling FOE. It was a strategy to regulate communication through internet that had become a powerful mass media for dissemination of information and exchange of views.

The judgement is hailed as a landmark in the history of mass media that remained crippled for quite some time and was struggling to regain its freedom. When content sharing is fast, uncensored, and global, people who make news in any capacity have to be ready to face all kinds of remarks. It is said that “social media is about sociology and psychology more than technology”. The Court has liberated the sociology of communication from the clutches of political power.

Delivering the judgement, Justice Nariman stated: “Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net.” He noted the decision to annul this section doesn’t confer any new right for citizens, but only upholds the fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Such freedom, he said can be limited only by “strict exception”.

The judgement is based on certain grounds like lack of proximate relationship of the section with public order and lack of definite criteria for its exercise; adverse impact on the right to know; and failure to distinguish advocacy and discussion from incitement. The weak and rather childish argument that it will be administered well was dismissed by the Court as invalid. The judge said, “Government may come and government may go, but Section 66A will always remain in the statute. Whatever is otherwise invalid cannot be held to be valid by making a statement that it will be administered well.”

The misuse of this section brought about its demise. The Indian Penal Code has several articles to deal with offensive speeches and communications. Public safety and stability of the State are prime concerns which cannot be weakened by any “rights”. Further restrictions are really not needed.Right to information is of no use without the right to communicate. Freedom of speech is meaningless without access to obtain information. All these rights are inter-linked and form an integral part of human rights. A global movement is going on to assert this right.

By Dr S Saraswathi