Section 66 A of IT Act unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules

The section gives police powers to arrest people for posting “offensive content” online

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.

The court said there is a difference between discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion & advocacy, no matter if annoying to some people, has to be allowed, it said.

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman had on 26 February reserved its judgement on one of the most controversial issues regarding the freedom of expression that the court has had to deal with in recent times. The verdict was reserved after the government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be declared unconstitutional merely because of the possibility of its “abuse”.

The government said it did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression but contended that the cyber space could not be allowed to remain unregulated. During hearing however, the court had found several issues with the wording of the law. In particular, it said that terms like ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘of menacing character’, used to classify content as illegal, were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused.

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls — Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan — were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it. The apex court had on 16 May 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like the IG or the DCP.

Sahara gets 3 more months to raise bail money

The Supreme Court on Monday granted three more months to the Sahara group to sell its offshore properties to raise the Rs 10,000 crore required to secure the release of its chief Subrata Roy on bail. The court said it was satisfied with the company’s latest proposal and would allow it to proceed further.

It also extended its earlier order allowing Mr. Roy and two other directors of the company to use the conference room in Tihar jail to hold negotiations with potential buyers of three luxury hotels — Dream Downtown, The Plaza (both in New York) and Grosvenor House (London).

Mr. Roy has been in jail since March last year after the company failed to repay over Rs 20,000 crore to its depositors. The apex court had asked him to pay Rs. 10,000 crore to get bail, of which Rs 5,000 crore should be paid in cash and the remaining in bank guarantees. Since then Sahara has made several failed attempts to raise the bail money.

Appearing for Sahara, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench headed by Justice T.S. Thakur that the company had received a line of credit worth € 900 million from Spain’s BBVA bank, which it would use to repay a loan it had taken from the Bank of China to buy the three hotels. About Rs. 5000 crore which had to be deposited as bank guarantee would be generated from HSBC bank.

“Prima facie, we are satisfied that the proposal appears to be a serious effort and we allow it to pursue it further,” the court said. It also granted Sahara permission to sell 10 more properties across the country.

In an earlier hearing on March 13, the apex court had given the company a final chance to clinch the deals to raise Rs. 10,000 crore, noting that two earlier negotiations had to be aborted.

Kamal Haasan welcomes Supreme Court order on Section 66A

Veteran cinema star Kamal Haasan today welcomed the Supreme Court's order striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, saying technology's growth cannot be stopped.

"I feel information technology's growth should not be stopped, cannot be stopped," he said here.

In a landmark judgement, a Supreme Court bench of Justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman had termed liberty of thought and expression as "cardinal" and said that "The public's right to know is directly affected by section 66A of the Information Technology Act."

Addressing reporters ahead of the release of his much-anticipated film 'Uthamavillain' next month, Haasan also took potshots at the Pahlaj Nihalani-led Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for imposing a set of guidelines and restrictions.

Such guidelines 'stifle' freedom of expression of the movie maker, said the actor-producer.

Talking about 'Uthamavillain,' directed by actor Ramesh Aravind and which has a good star cast, including Dadasaheb Phalke recipient, the late K Balachander, Haasan said that it was close to his heart since his mentor had played a role in it.

To a question on reviving his mega-budget 'Marudanayakam', he said some of his friends were holding discussions with him in this regard and that he had suggested that it be made in English since it is an 'international cinema.'