The News Minute| March 24, 2015| 12.15 pm IST
The Supreme Court today ruled on a series of cases challenging the IT Act, including Section 66A, Section 79, Section 69 (blocking of online content) and Section 118 (D) of the Kerala Police Act.
While in a landmark judgment the apex court has struck down Section 66A and section 118 (D) of the Kerala Police Act in its entirety and called it unconstitutional, it has upheld Section 69 relating to blocking if content.
The court also upheld section 79, but said that it needs to be read down and a court order or a govt order needs to be taken. This means an intermediary needs a court order or a government order for getting content taken down.
The court’s ruling came in the wake of nine petitions file by various people and organizations.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India – Concerned by the recurring arrests made under Section 66A, this petition was filed in public interest before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of 66A. The petitioner argued that the impugned Section is too broad in its sweep and contains several undefined words/terms, making it susceptible to wanton abuse. Section 66A is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India that guarantee citizens the Fundamental Rights to equality, free speech and life respectively.
Rajeev Chandrashekhar v. Union of India – Filed by a serving Member of Parliament, Rajeev Chandrashekhar, this public interest petition wanted the court to declare Section 66A and certain provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 as unconstitutional. The petitioner points out that Section 66A is ambiguous in its phraseology and imposes statutory limits on the exercise of internet freedom. Further, the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules are similarly ambiguous and require private intermediaries to subjectively assess objectionable content.
Taslima Nasrin v. State of UP – This petition was filed by Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasrin, seeking to quash an FIR filed against her under Section 66A, on the basis of certain tweets made by her against an Islamic leader and reported in a Hindi newspaper.
Common Cause v. Union of India – Spurred by the 66A arrests, this petition was filed in public interest before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Sections 66A, 69A and 80 of the IT Act. It is argued that the grounds for incrimination under 66A are beyond the scope of reasonable restrictions on Fundamental Rights allowed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Section 69A, which effectively enables State-censorship of the internet, neither provides for a redressal mechanism on censorship, nor does it contain provisions with respect to unblocking of blocked content. Further, Section 80 of the Act grants unbridled powers to the police to arrest or investigate without warrant, any person suspected of having committed an offence under the Act.
Dilipkumar Tulsidas v. Union of India – This petition was filed before the Supreme Court in public interest, based on the lack of a regulatory framework for the effective investigation of cyber crimes, coupled with a lack of awareness regarding cyber crimes on the part of police authorities. In the absence of proper procedures for investigation and safeguards, citizens are vulnerable to police harassment. There is also no uniformity in cyber security control and enforcement practices.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India – This writ petition was filed in public interest before the Supreme Court as there are instances of complaints under Section 66A of the IT Act as well as misuse of the Rules framed under the Act all over the country despite the SC directing compliance with the Central Advisory in Shreya Singhal v. UoI. Due to the vague and undefined purported offences contained within 66A, the power to punish speakers and writers through arrest and threat of criminal trial is at the first instance granted to complainants with offended sentiments and police officials.
Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India – The petitioner, concerned by the rampant availability of pornography in India – both online and otherwise – and its role in perpetrating sexual offences against women and children, filed this petition in public interest before the Supreme Court. It argued that since the IT Act is a legislation primarily meant to promote e-commerce and e-governance, it is ineffective in tackling cyber crimes, and the provisions purporting to do so are ultra vires of the Constitution. The petitioner thus prayed that Sections 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 75, 79, 80 and 85 of the IT Act be declared unconstitutional, and that a National Policy and Draft Action Plan be formulated to deal with the issue of pornography.
MouthShut.com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India – This petition was filed in before the Supreme Court towards quashing the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules. They force intermediaries to screen content and exercise on-line censorship. It argued that the Rules are liable to be set aside as they contain arbitrary provisions which place unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of free speech and expression, as well as the freedom to practise any profession, or to carry out any occupation, trade or business as guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
The list has been taken with permission from SFLC.in and was published here before.