Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Sec 66A of the Information Technology Act 2008 states punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. The constitutional validity of the section was challenged in the SC in year 2015. The petitioner to this challenge claimed that this section violates the constitutional validity of the Right to Freedom of speech which has been guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India. The bench comprising of Justices J Chelameswar and Rohinton Nariman held this section to be unconstitutional and further held that the section was not saved by virtue of being 'reasonable restrictions' on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The court also ordered to dispose and close all the pending cases under the act and that no new cases and prosecution to be conducted under this section.
However, since the judgement of the Apex court there has been continued use of Sec 66A of the IT Act. In anapplication filed in January 2019 by People’s Union for Civil Liberties on the continued usage of Sec 66A, the SC gave a strict direction to the center and gave time of 4 weeks to file a reply for the same.
The petitioner brought to the notice of the court that in a recent survey and publication by Internet Freedom Foundation reveals that pending cases on this section have still not been closed by the agencies and moreover new cases are being registered by the police basis on FIR even after the judgment of Shreya Singhal’s case. The petitioner also contested that continued use of this Section 66A also violates the freedom of speech and expression.
Several judgements have been quoted by the petitioner in its application in which the Apex court has given instructions to dispose all cases under such sections being held unconstitutional and where the court has ordered such decisions & changes to be sent to all the police stations. However there has been gap of signaling and executive has not acted on the judgement of Shreya Singhal case. From police stations to trial courts and to High courts there has been continued use of this section even after it was held unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal case.
The Apex court comprising of Justice Rohinton Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran quoted
“We will take strict action”.
For proper compliance with the order of Shreya Singhal case the petitioner prayed to to the court to issue notice to the Central government by issuance of appropriate circulars to the Chief Secretaries of all States and Union Territories, and DGP’s of all States and Union Territories.
86540
103860
630
114
59824