The Supreme Court today struck down the contentious Section 66 A of Information Technology Act that allowed arrests for posting ‘objectionable content’ online.

The Supreme Court bench observed that Section 66 A “does not protect public order although that is the ostensible object of the provision.”

The bench considered Section 66A as “being vague”.

The court observed,

Section 66 A fails to make a distinction between discussion, advocacy and incitement.
Governments come and go, but law remains.
Discussion and advocacy, no matter how annoying, is allowed in democracy. This law affects the right to know.

The ruling came as a pleasant surprise to free speech actvisits who expected the court to modify or water down the Section.

The court, however, upheld the provision which allowed the government to direct websites to remove objectionable material.

Who Said What

Victims of the misuse of Section 66A were happy but said that some damage had already been done.

Once the news settles in I will go back to using Facebook. The mistake had heavy consequences. The incident left a mark.

- Vicky, arrested for post against Azam Khan, to NDTV.

I have a feeling of relief after two years. I was honestly scared for a while but then I figured we can’t be scared forever we need to talk. It is true that there needs to be restraint but there must be a line.

- Renu Srinivasan to CNN-IBN (was arrested for ‘liking’ Shaheen’s Facebook post on Mumbai bandh).

The Section was being misused by the Cong and the BJP. Governments have their own political agenda. The law has to be for the people. It is a big victory for us. If there is hate speech you will be dealt with under those provisions but it is not a blanket petition that will curtail your freedom of speech.
-Shreya Singhal, main petitioner in this case.

It’s taking time to absorb, almost three years after this work began- but thank you, Constitution of India, you still redeem us.
- Karuna Nandy, advocate for petitioner.

Legal experts welcomed the court’s decision.

The IPC will take care of the existing abuse online. There are enough existing provisions in the law to respond to online abuse.
- Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan on the question of how action can now be taken against those who indulge in online abuse.

This section 66A was a sweeping subjective power given to police which was prone to misuse it. Police can arrest and confine anyone under this section. Such arbitrary power to the police is not allowed in democracy. The SC judgment would ensure that nobody is arbitrarily arrested anymore.
- Former IPS officer and lawyer YP Singh.

Communication and IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad responded to the verdict saying his government was “not in favour of curtailing dissent or social criticism on social media.”

The IT act cannot be interpreted in any manner to curtail these ideas enshrined in Art 19A. Will convey structured response after seeing the verdict but this government is very different from the previous government and has been consistent in their stand on freedom of expression.

What Section 66A of IT Act (now struck down) stated:

Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. 

Instances when the use of Section 66 A was debated

- Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested for forwarding caricatures on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook in 2012.

- Activist Aseem Trivedi was also arrested in 2012 for drawing cartoons of Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness. He was arrested on charges of sedition leading to huge protests.

- In another instance in 2012, Air India employee Mayank Sharma and KV Rao from Mumbai were arrested for allegedly posting offensive comments against politicians on their Facebook group.

- Businessman Ravi Srinivasan was also charged in 2012 by Puducherry Police for allegedly tweeting against Karti Chidambaram, son of then union minister P Chidambaram. he had allegedly called Karti ‘corrupt’ in his tweet.

- A tourism officer in Varanasi was arrested for uploading “objectionable” pictures of Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav and senior SP leader Azam Khan on Facebook.

- In 2014, a young shipping professional Devu Chodankar was booked for a Facebook post on Prime Minister-elect Narendra Modi in which he said Modi would start a holocaust in India. Chodankar later apologised for his choice of words but stood by the sum of his argument, calling it his crusade against the “tyranny of fascists”.

- Recently, a class 11 student was arrested for making a Facebook post about UP minister Azam Khan. The boy was arrested within 24 hours. He later agreed to withdraw his statement and his parents offered an apology too.

- Renu Srinivasan and Shaheen Dhada were arrested for questioning the bandh after the death of Bal Thackeray.