Goodbye 66A: Clarity Thy Name is Law

Must Read

Dear PM Modi, Are you telling Muslims to leave India?

Today I called my housemaid in India and inquired about her well-being. Her first response was: ‘Ye log Musalaman...

Re-establishing Diplomatic Ties between India and Libya

In view of the prevailing travel ban to Libya by the government of India imposed in 2016, the Union...

Female Genital Mutilation: A Yearning for Culpability in India

A girl was happy that today her mother offered to take her to the movies. This 7-year old girl...

Haj Subsidy Ban and Secular Character of Constitution

For long, the Indian state has practiced the unconstitutional sin of opting for Haj subsidy to continue. For long,...

Instant Triple Talaq and Criminalization of it: Stifling the Rights of Individuals

What instant Triple talaq is to ‘Muslim wives’, criminalization of it is to ‘Muslim husbands’. The former has been sacredly...

Taj Mahal in Storm of History and Propaganda

The radiance of Taj Mahal, at the moment, is blurred not by deterioration in climatic conditions but by the...

Follow us

With the Apex Court striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act 2000 that criminalised “offensive” messages through communication service, the proponents of Freedom of Speech are all overjoyed. Tweets kept pouring in huge numbers with hashtags #Sec66A and #66A trending nationally, celebrating the court’s verdict in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Several arrests made in connection with posting content online under Section 66A had erupted widespread controversy. The confusion as to what is “offensive” and what’s not was not addressed in the impugned part of the Act. The Court exercising its right under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution that empowers, in fact imposes an obligation upon the judiciary to declare the laws inconsistent with or contravening to Fundamental Rights as void, rightly struck down the provision as unconstitutional. It, in practise, took away the fundamental right to speech and expression as granted under Article 19(1)(a).

The first public interest litigation against section 66(A) was filed in 2012, by a then 21-year-old student, Shreya Singhal. The petition said, “The phraseology of section 66(A) of the IT Act, 2000, is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, therefore, falls foul of articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution… unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law, as it stands, is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country.” [Business Standard, March 25 2015]

Law seeks clarity, for the correct procedure to follow. Ambiguity mirrors weakness so far as legal aptitude is concerned. To fill in the empty spaces left by the struck-down law against the transmission of offensive messages online, there’s a push for a well-crafted, deliberated and thought-out legislation so as to deter the offence in question. Ambiguous laws and their as-it-may-deem-fit interpretations have come to wreak havoc on the overall judicial functioning of our country. We have considerable hoopla over laws against terrorism as the need of the hour. However, the question as to who is a terrorist remains unaddressed in all the anti-terror laws. Similarly, Thuggee Act of 1836 that was essentially meant to curb Thuggee activities in colonial India failed to define what is exactly meant by the offence of ‘Thuggee’. The ‘question of fact’ and ‘discretion of the court’ attitude in the legal system leaves unwarranted space for the lacunae to creep in, many a time contravening the principles of natural justice. It is for this reason that we need more explicit laws that would leave no space for filthy political implications.

The smacking down of Section 66(A) was indeed a welcome move in all respects and we hail this decision with open arms. The Court, however, in the instant case upheld the constitutionality of Sec.69 of Information Technology Act that empowers the authorities to block websites that “create communal disturbance, social disorder, or affect India’s relationship with other countries.” There is definitely a need to check the implications of such a law, but we must bear in mind that it’s a long road to justice and with the recent judicial order we are already halfway across it.

Latest News

New Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) Amendments Are Valid Says Supreme Court

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the amendments in the insolvency and bankruptcy code which makes it mandatory for a minimum of 100 or 10% of home buyers of a project to initiate insolvency proceedings against a builder for not delivering flats or commercial shops on time.

[HUL – Sebamed Ad War] Bombay High Court Passed Injunction; Permits Sebamed Ad Against HUL’s Dove

The ad war between the German personal care brand Sebamed and the consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) has come to an end. On January 19th, Bombay High Court passed an injunction order permitting the Sebamed ad against Hindustan Unilever’s Dove without any changes. It was observed that Sebamed ads were backed with evidence-based data. However, Sebamed was ordered to put an end to its advertisement that compared HUL soap bars Lux, Pears, and Santoor with Rin and detergent category.

Bombay High Court Says White Collar Crimes Are More Dangerous Than Murder and Dacoity

The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected 4 petitions of 4 businessmen after observing that white-collar crimes are more serious than murder and dacoity. The businesspersons were booked for fraud of evading GST by producing fake invoices.

Right To Protection Can’t Be Granted To Married Woman Involved in Live-in Relationship: Allahabad High Court

The Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition of a live-in couple, observing that a married woman in a live-in relationship is not entitled to any sort of legal protection whatsoever. The Court remarked that they are adults and should live as ‘husband and wife’ if they want no one to interfere in their lives.

Police To Decide on the Entry of Farmers To Delhi on Republic Day Says Supreme Court

While the Supreme Court heard a plea seeking an injunction against the tractor rally that is scheduled for January 26th, it held that it is the decision of the Delhi Police officers to see whether the protesting farmers should get entry into Delhi on Republic Day.

[Sushant Singh Rajput Case]: Republic TV & Times Now Hindered Investigation Probe Says Bombay HC

In November last year, the Court had reserved its judgement on the PILs that came from 8 former police officers from Maharashtra, lawyers, activists and NGOs, seeking restraining orders against the media trial in the Sushant Singh Rajput case.

Women Advocates Move To Supreme Court Against the Delhi HC Orders on Resuming Physical Hearing

Another writ petition has been filed by women advocates in the Supreme Court against the decision of the Delhi HC of directing the expansion of physical hearing of cases within the National Capital Territory of Delhi without giving an option to litigants to be represented by their lawyers virtually.

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -