Section 66A IT Act - Supreme Court of India Judgement

The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This judgement was considered to be vital for the preservation of online free speech in India. This judgement was passed by the Supreme Court of India in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court of India to challenge the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act.

This article will provide information regarding Section 66A of the IT Act and its related Supreme Court judgement in the context of the IAS Exam.

The candidates can read more relevant topics for their upcoming exams from the links provided below:

Information Technology Act, 2000 – Provisions of IT Act 2000

• Various forms of Cyber crimes are penalized by IT Act, 2000.
• E-commerce is legalised, i.e. legal recognition is given for transactions done through electronic communication.

To read more about the List of Important Acts that Transformed India, check the linked article.

Amendment of the IT Act, 2000 – Section 66 A of IT Act

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 was amended in 2009, to include Section 66 A.
• With the advent of the internet and technology, Section 66A was included with the objective of addressing cases related to Cyber Crimes.
• As per Section 66A of the IT Act 2000, if offensive messages are sent through communication devices and computers, then it will be considered to be a crime.
• If the messages are grossly offensive, if the messages are meant to mislead or deceive the recipient, then it is punishable under the law.

Section 66A IT Act – Controversies

• Over the years there was a rise in the incidents of attracting criminal penalties under Section 66(A) due to expression of thoughts by individuals, and sharing of information to a wider audience on the internet.
• The above actions led to serious debates and discussions about the application, powers and constitutionality of Section 66 A of the IT Act.
• Arrests were made under Section 66(A) when unfavourable social media posts were directed against politicians and well-known personalities. Arrests were made on the grounds that the social media posts were offensive in nature.
• There were reports that disproportionate penalties were imposed and the law was misused.
• Hence, the Supreme Court of India received a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutionality of Section 66 A of the IT Act.
• The PIL challenged that Section 66A IT Act, 2000 trampled the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Central Government Guidelines and Steps to Prevent Misuse of Section 66 (A)

• To handle the issues associated with Section 66(A), guidelines were issued by the Central Government.
• As per these guidelines, a police station or police officer could register a complaint under Section 66(A) only after receiving prior approval from the Inspector General of Police or the Deputy Commissioner.
• In relation to the above-mentioned PIL, the Supreme Court also passed an order in May 2013 that such approvals should be taken before making any arrests.
• This Supreme Court order was essential to implement the guidelines of the Central Government as the matter dealt with public order and police which are under the control of State Governments. However, under this order no changes were made to Section 66 (A).
• To amend Section 66A IT Act, a Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013.
• The Bill stated that there were dual penalties for the same offence which were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The Bill also stated about inconsistencies in the law. However, the bill had to be withdrawn.

Supreme Court Judgement, 2015

• The court examined the abusive powers of the police, suppression of the Freedom of Speech and Expression, and ambiguity pertaining to the issue of “grossly offensive” as there were no guidelines about it.
• The Supreme Court of India observed that Section 66-A was over-broad and vague, hence it violated Article 19(1)(a).
• The Supreme Court also observed that over-broad and vague statutory language caused the ‘chilling effect’ on speech.
• As this Section 66A IT Act violated the fundamental right of free speech, this law was struck down by the Supreme Court.
• In 2015, this judgement was given by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. R.F. Nariman and J. Chelameshwar were the sitting judges.

To read more about Important Supreme Court Judgements, check the linked article.

Section 66A IT Act [UPSC Notes]:-Download PDF Here

Other related links: