By Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN | Nov 30, 2012, 12.44 AM IST
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday echoed the public outrage over the high-handed night-time arrests of two girls by Maharashtra police for posting their views on a social networking site, entertaining a PIL seeking the repeal of the controversial Section 66A of Information Technology Act which has turned out be a source of harassment and attempts to muzzle freedom of speech.
The court, which urged attorney general G E Vahanvati to express his views on the plea for dispensing with the section, suggested that it was eager to remedy the situation, while wondering whether the police excess against the two girls — Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan — from Palghar near Thane in Maharashtra was the result of mob pressure.
"We were wondering why no one was approaching the court and were thinking of taking suo motu notice of the incident," said a bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J Chelameswar no sooner than senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi sought an urgent hearing on a petition by 21-year-old student Shreya Singhal.
"The way the children were arrested and treated like criminals outraged the conscience of a major section of society. The way things were done needs some kind of consideration though the serious charges against the two girls appear to have been withdrawn," the bench said. It added that the arrests were in violation of the apex court's guidelines prohibiting the arrest of women after sunset.
"They were arrested after sundown and for a bailable offence? So the might of police was activated by a mob," the bench said. It seemed to have many questions to ask, but decided to keep them for Friday when Vahanvati is to appear.
Although the court also took note of the arrest of a professor in Kolkata for circulating a cartoon which took a dig at West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee, its focus was clearly on the arrest of Dhada and Shrinivasan at Palghar just after they disapproved of the shutdown in Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray.
Although the two girls have since been let off and the two ultra-zealous police officers who were instrumental in their arrests suspended, their plight seems to have sensitized the country to the potential of Section 66A being misused by authorities to harass people who can at best be held guilty of exercising their constitutional right of freedom of expression.
Pegging her PIL on the Palghar arrests, Singhal argued that Section 66A was loosely worded, thus leaving police and authorities with enormous discretion to misuse it and make arbitrary arrests.
The CJI said the court would like to hear the views of a cross-section of people and wanted to know if others would like to intervene and put forth their views. Senior advocate Harish Salve said he would. "We have a fundamental right to give our opinion on a public platform on political issues. We also have the fundamental right to annoy a politician if he is perceived to be not doing his job or is corrupt. Section 66A is not meant to arrest people for expressing opinion on a public platform," Salve said.
Rohatgi said Section 66A was replete with so many words like 'offensive', 'menacing', 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', 'danger', 'obstruction', 'insult' and 'annoyance or inconvenience' without the Act defining their meaning. "This is unacceptable in a criminal law as it allows the police to act arbitrarily according to their whims and fancies," he said while requesting the court that till further orders, no arrests should be made under this section.
Even as the bench said it would prefer to wait for the AG's views. Rohatgi persisted by saying, "We get so many pesky calls despite rules and regulations prohibiting it. It causes a lot of annoyance to every person who gets these calls or SMSes. Should all those who send these SMSes or make the calls be arrested under the Act?"
PIL petitioner Singhal said, "The phraseology of the aforesaid section is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards that it is susceptible to wanton abuse." She said like crores of other citizens, she was a user of internet and social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter.
"Recent events involving action taken by various authorities under Section 66A of the IT Act has left a chilling effect on the petitioner and crores of other internet users, violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights, especially the right to freedom of speech and expression," she said.
She listed incidents of abuse of Section 66A:
* April 2012 - arrest of professor of chemistry Ambikesh Mahapatra from Jadavpur University for posting a cartoon concerning a political figure on social networking site
* May 2012 -Air India employees V Jaganatharao and Mayank Sharma arrested by Mumbai police for putting up content on social networking sites against a trade union leader and some politicians and kept in custody for 12 days
* October 2012 - businessman Ravi Srinivasan arrested by Puducherry police for making allegations against a TN politician on a social networking site
* November 2012 - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu arrested for commenting on Mumbai bandh
Singhal said mere acquittal after a snail-paced prosecution was not enough to compensate the trauma of arrest and loss of reputation linked to it. "The very fact that the machinery of criminal law is set in motion against citizens on frivolous grounds amounts to harassment which is inadequately mitigated by the eventual discharge or acquittal."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-fumes-at-Facebook-arrest-government-tries-to-curb-IT-Act-abuse/articleshow/17420732.cms?prtpage=1
Change your ways
Emperor-has-no-clothes moment, twice over
- SC to examine IT harass rule
R. BALAJI AND OUR BUREAU
New Delhi, Nov. 29: The Supreme Court today voiced the country’s “outrage” and agreed to examine the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, the clause that has been invoked to torment two girls in Maharashtra, a professor in Calcutta and several others across the country.
A bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameshwar asked attorney-general G.E. Vahanvati to be present in the court on Friday morning when it would take up the matter but rejected the plea for a stay of the provision.
The court did not immediately stay the operation of Section 66A, under which those found guilty of sending offensive messages through a communication service can be punished up to three years.
But the Centre today decided to advise states not to invoke the rule without permission from officers ranked inspector-general or above in the metros and deputy commissioner or superintendent of police or above in other urban or rural areas. In Maharashtra as well as Bengal, officers far below the threshold ranks had executed the crackdowns. ( )
Union IT minister Kapil Sibal today chaired a meeting of the country’s apex cyber law panel where 66A was high on the agenda. Sources said the advisory to the states was expected to be placed before the court tomorrow.
Some sources who attended the meeting said they came away with the feeling that the minister was aware of the problem but they were not sure how far the government would go in revising or doing away with the clause.
Sibal told NDTV tonight that the government would “revisit” the clause and was open to putting in place safeguards.
The Supreme Court bench asked the petitioner to make Bengal, Maharashtra and Puducherry parties to the case because of the specific incidents in each of the three states. Petitioner Shreya Singhal, a Delhi girl, had originally named the Union home and information technology ministries.
“The way things had taken place needs some consideration so that in future, it does not take place. Yes, there was also the incident involving a professor from Jadavpur and the chief minister,” said Chief Justice Kabir, who hails from Bengal and had served in Calcutta High Court.
The bench’s observation came after senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi made a submission on a PIL filed by Singhal.
Referring to the Maharashtra clampdown in which the two girls were arrested, the apex court said: “It outrages the sentiments of the country the way the two children were arrested.”
The bench, however, rejected for “now” Rohtagi’s plea to stay the provision and pass an interim directive that police henceforth shall not arrest any person under the provision without prior permission from an officer of the rank of inspector-general. (The cyber panel cleared a similar guideline.)
The petition, filed through counsel Ninad Laud, submitted that recent events involving action taken by various authorities under Section 66A “have left a chilling effect on the petitioner and crores of other Internet users”.
Section 66A should be quashed as it violates Article 14 (equality before law), 19 (freedom of speech) and 21 (liberty) of the Constitution of India, the petition said.
“…The phraseology of the section is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards that it is susceptible to wanton abuse. This provision is indeed capable of wanton abuse in view of the subjective discretion of the police and the susceptibility of it being invoked cavalierly,” the petition said.
The petition pointed out how Section 66A was being clubbed with Section 41 of the CrPC which empowers the police to arrest any person without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant if the alleged offence is a “cognisable offence”. The police also use Section 156 (1), which allows investigation into a cognisable offence without an order of a magistrate.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1121130/jsp/frontpage/story_16257367.jsp#.ULgc-OTqnPY
Published: November 29, 2012 13:12 IST | Updated: November 30, 2012 01:05 IST
Court takes note of outrage over Palghar arrests
J. Venkatesan
The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that the country was outraged when two young women were arrested in Mumbai recently for posting comments in social networking websites, and decided to examine the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
A Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J. Chelameswar, entertaining a writ petition that challenged the vires of the provision, asked the Attorney-General to be present in the court on Friday when the matter would be taken up for further hearing.
Earlier, senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi brought to the court’s notice the arrest of the two girls and how the law was being misused for sharing messages on social networking websites.
In her writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, Shreya Singhal said recent events had had a chilling effect on her and crores of other Internet users.
Section 66A says: “Any person who sends by means of a computer resource or a communication device any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill-will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.”
The petitioner contended that the Section was so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards that it was susceptible to wanton abuse. Contending that it was violative of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, she wanted it declared unconstitutional, and an interim stay on its operation.
Earlier intervening, senior counsel Harish Salve said the issue had far-reaching consequences.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/court-takes-note-of-outrage-over-palghar-arrests/article4146251.ece?homepage=true&css=print
Published: November 29, 2012 13:12 IST | Updated: November 29, 2012 14:51 IST
Supreme Court to examine Section 66A of IT Act
IANS
Referring to the recent arrests over Facebook comments, Chief Justice Altamas Kabir said "we were considering taking suo motto cognizance of these incidents".
The Supreme Court will on Thursday examine the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act in the wake of recent arrests of people for posting comments critical of politicians. The apex court headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir directed the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL).
The petition was filed by Shreyansh Singhal, drawing the court’s attention to the large-scale misuse of section 66A. The section provides for action against people for posting offensive and annoying comments on websites or other electronic mediums.
As senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi mentioned the matter before the court, the chief justice observed: “We were wondering why nobody has filed a petition on the issue. In fact we were considering taking suo motto cognizance of these incidents.”
The PIL petitioner has drawn the attention of the court on some incidents of misuse of section 66A of the IT Act.
In April, Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested in Kolkata for circulating a cartoon depicting West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. More recently, a young woman, Shaheen Dhada, and her friend were arrested in Maharashtra for a Facebook post questioning Mumbai’s shutdown following Bal Thackeray’s death.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-to-examine-section-66a-of-it-act/article4146251.ece?homepage=true&css=print
Facebook arrests: SC steps in to examine IT Act
Concerned over recent incidents of arrest of people allegedly for posting offensive messages on social networking sites, the Supreme Court today agreed to hear a plea to amend the Information Technology Act and sought Attorney General G E Vahanvati's help in deciding it.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, however, refused the petitioner's plea that no coercive action should be taken by the government authorities against people for posting such messages on websites during pendency of the case.
The court posted the matter for further hearing tomorrow.
While agreeing to hear the case, the bench said it was considering to take suo motu cognisance of recent incidents of arrest of people and wondered why nobody had so far challenged the particular provision of the IT Act.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation petition filed by Delhi student Shreya Singhal, who contended that "the phraseology of Section 66A 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 hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution."
She submitted that "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."
The arrests which have been referred to by Shreya in her petition include that of a 21-year-old girl for questioning on Facebook the shutdown in Mumbai after Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death, which was 'liked' and shared by her friend, who was also arrested.
Meanwhile, the government today issued guidelines that state approval from an officer of DCP level at rural areas and IG level in metros will have to be sought before registering complaints under section 66A of the IT Act.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/295177/facebook-arrests-sc-steps-examine.html#
0 Comments