Events & Issues
New Delhi, 1 April 2015
Section 66A, IT Act
CRASS MISUSE & DEMISE
By Dr S Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New
Delhi)
Three cheers to the Supreme Court.
It has declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 as
unconstitutional – a section that has been used to stifle dissent and criticism
of politically influential personalities. The judgement has restored freedom of
expression (FOE) that was seriously threatened by misuse of this section.
The section provides for action against
people for posting through a computer resource or a communication device any
information that is “grossly offensive” or has “menacing character”. It uses
vague terms like “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction,
insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill-will” for
the information circulated to come under
its purview. The punishment for sending
such information is imprisonment up to three years with fine.
Even a cursory glance through this
section may show that the terms used are so wide and vague and incapable of being
understood in precise meaning or examined on objective standards. Its use and misuse to curb any semblance of
opposition or criticism of power holders seems to be written into it.
Who piloted the bill adding this
section to the IT Act 2000 in the year 2008 has now become an issue which
further confirms the role of political bosses in controlling FOE. It was a
strategy to regulate communication through internet that had become a powerful
mass media for dissemination of information and exchange of views. Social
network has become a household tool and a constant medium of contact for the
users often to the annoyance of public figures and leaders when they become the
subject matter. Obviously, the potential influence of network was not foreseen
a few years back. The advantages were so vast that the embarrassment it can
cause was overlooked.
The judgement is hailed as a
landmark in the history of mass media that remained crippled for quite some
time and was struggling to regain its freedom.
Internet technology has the ability
to dramatically mobilize people from any part of the world and reach messages
instantaneously. Content sharing plays a
major role in building support and opposition to individuals and
parties/groups. It can build influence
or destroy popularity; can create positive or negative images. When content sharing is fast, uncensored, and
global, people who make news in any capacity have to be ready to face all kinds
of remarks. Technology has transformed the right to free speech and expression from
a largely private right into a public one.
Political leaders in democracies are
particularly vulnerable to comments and criticism. They want a friendly media
all the time. It is said that “social
media is about sociology and psychology more than technology”. The Court has
liberated the sociology of communication from the clutches of political power.
Delivering the judgement, Justice
Nariman stated: “Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on
any subject would be covered by it, as any opinion dissenting with the mores of
the day would be caught within its net”. He noted the decision to annul this
section doesn’t confer any new right for citizens, but only upholds the fundamental
right to speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution. Such freedom, he
said can be limited only by “strict exception”.
The judgement is based on certain
grounds like lack of proximate relationship of the section with public order
and lack of definite criteria for its exercise; adverse impact on the right to
know; and failure to distinguish advocacy and discussion from incitement. The weak and rather childish argument that
it will be administered well was dismissed by the Court as invalid. The judge
said, “Government may come and government may go, but Section 66A will always
remain in the statute. Whatever is otherwise invalid cannot be held to be valid
by making a statement that it will be administered well.”
Laws are interpreted letter by
letter. Their application doesn’t depend on the good sense of the implementing
authorities. The misuse of this section brought about its demise. The Indian
Penal Code has several articles to deal with offensive speeches and
communications. Public safety and stability of the State are prime concerns
which cannot be weakened by any “rights”. Further restrictions are really not
needed.
Since its adoption, Section 66A had
been used many times to arrest persons for creating and circulating by words or
pictures information unfavourable to the image of some political leaders. Even
some cartoons meant for fun invited the wrath of leaders in Maharashtra and West Bengal posing a great threat to the survival of this
art itself. Two girls were arrested in Mumbai for questioning the shutdown in
the city for Shiv Sena leader’s funeral – a query often raised by citizens in
similar circumstances in private conversations. The query is in public interest
and needn’t have political implications or motives.
A school student was arrested in UP for
posting on Facebook comments about a Minister on grounds it was “objectionable”.
Such instances are many making a mockery of our freedom of speech and
expression. Evidently, Section 66A would have put an end to the voice of
dissent against establishment spreading fast with the use of social media.
Influential people and celebrities particularly are scared of electronic information.
It is futile to attempt silencing
internet communication. FOE is considered a basic human right. During the 80s
and 90s, social protest movements across the world created an atmosphere for
full-fledged communication rights. Without this right, freedom of speech and
expression lose their significance.
Right to information is of no use
without the right to communicate.
Freedom of speech is meaningless without access to obtain information.
All these rights are inter-linked and form an integral part of human rights. A
global movement is going on to assert this right.
A Campaign for Communication Rights
in Information Society emerged and with the People’s Communication Charter and
the Platform for Democratisation of Communication came to be known as the Right
to Communicate Group. The World Summit on the Information Society held in 2003
and 2005 provided a global platform for pushing communication rights. This
right has been at the centre of many freedom struggles for democracy, civil
rights, social justice, participation, empowerment and so on. In this global
context, any attempt to stifle free communication in India is totally outdated.
In the EU and the US, limits are
placed on free speech to prevent hate speech, defamation, threats, etc. Social
media played a crucial part in provoking London
riots, and in the struggle called Occupy
Wall Street. Every country applies its own laws to
keep freedom of speech and expression within democratic limits so as to protect
equal rights of all. India
has sufficient legal provisions and instruments to safeguard the reputation and
rights of individuals against circulation of falsehood and offensive
information by anybody.
Internet is invading the area of
traditional media of communication among people of all age-groups except
perhaps the very senior. Social
networking has become part of life. No wonder, it has become the medium for
political debates, exchange of ideas, and mobilization of support for and
against individuals/parties. It provides a participatory role for citizens on
public issues as a daily routine. Best use must be made of this tool to promote
constructive ideas and build a knowledge society. Misuse of this tool to malign
opponents and crush differences must be severely dealt with under our existing
laws. ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|