Section 66A scrapped: Is it all what’s required for free speech?

With this landmark judgement, internet once again persists to be a pulpit that observes right of free speech in absolute sense, broadly speaking. Conversely, in the midst of all the revelry one must not disregard that the two judge bench declined a petition to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the same Act, which deal with the course and preservation for blocking certain websites or any such information through any computer resource which may disturb public order and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.

Means thereby, you are still liable to be tried principally under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Considering that certain provisions under the code have been straightforwardly misused and habitually distorted, mere scrapping of 66A may just serve a trifle relief.

The existing libel laws are themselves deeply liberal and highly encompassing to take over the role of the scrapped section of the IT Act. Unregulated powers The latest arrest of a student in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh validates the argument exclusively.

Other than Section 66A, the alleged offender was also booked under Sections 153A (promoting religious enmity), 504 (insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 505 (public mischief) of the IPC for posting objectionable content against a prominent minister in the state government.

Section 66A is incontrovertibly an incompetently drafted piece of law that was drafted in 2000 and then amended in 2008 to envelop more cyber crimes. If legislators of the time are to be taken on their face value, the prime intent during amendment was to integrate more provisions which make the law an austere restraint to probable offenders.

However, the amended act thereafter empowered the police to arrest wrongdoers and investigate without need of warrants.

This is where the scope of mishandling crept in the milieu. Checks and balances needed Through this judgement, the apex court evidently propels a subtle communication that right of free speech on internet may be indubitably integral to the constitution, but absolute freedom can’t be granted.

With its upholding of provisions under Section 69A, which necessitates the blocking of content, the message should be clear that checks and balances are still necessary on prone reprobates so that others observe their freedom in an unconditional fashion.

However, how does a state guarantee now that a Facebook post is logically constructive, or isn’t? How would the government of the day decide if a blog written online has treacherous potential to disturb public order? Is the political class only enemy to the freedom of free speech, as prevalently advertised? As eminent speaker and former bureaucrat Gopalkrishna Gandhi said during the B. G. Verghese Memorial Lecture held recently in Delhi that the author attended, “politics is not the only arena where dissent is silenced: communities in our society are often as vicious in their opposition to dissent as politicians are. “

So, right of free speech has diverse enemies and the politicians with inflated egos not the only ones though the political class is the principal adversary, undeniably.