SC fumes at FB arrest; govt tries to curb IT Act abuse

SC fumes at FB arrest; govt tries to curb IT Act abuse

PIL Seeks Repeal Of Sec 66A

Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday echoed the public outrage over the high-handed night-time arrests of two girls by Maharashtra policefor 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.
    Thecourt,whichurged 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-yearold student Shreya Singhal.
FIRST BABY STEPS
    Govt introduces ‘guideline’ for booking anyone under Sec 66A of ITAct: permission of a senior police officer required for booking someone under controversial law that’s got even SC worried. The step may be a useful interim check on the abuse of 66A but not lasting solution. ‘Guidelines’ don’t have the force of law or rules written under it. Therefore police and courts not bound by it
WHAT’S STILL WORRYING Govt step doesn’t address substantive issue of the clauses being ‘vague & unconstitutional’. Here’s how: 1 Any message sent as email, FB post or tweet may fall foul of Sec 66A if it causes no more than “annoyance or inconvenience”. False information is punishable for causing ‘danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will’. This is far too loosely-worded 2 Punishment for defamation is up to 2 years but 3 years under Sec 66A for sending “offensive messages” 3 Defamation case can be taken only before a magistrate but police authorized under Sec 66A to book cases & make arrests
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
Sec 66A should be repealed or amended by Parliament
SC should strike down or read down Sec 66A SC to hear AG’s views before ruling on PIL
New Delhi: “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 WB 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. 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 such as ‘offensive’, ‘menacing’, ‘annoyance’, ‘inconvenience’ without the Act defining their meaning. “This is unacceptable in a criminal law as it allows the police to act arbitrarily,” he said.
    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.”