ISSUES RELATED TO 66A OF IT ACT
Section 66A of IT act made sending offensive information using a computer or electronic device punishable, it also made it punishable for a person to send information which he believed to be false, restricting relay of false information[ ‘Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000’ (Drishti IAS2023) accessed 5 October 2023.]
However, Section 66A was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal V. Union of India[ Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC. 1523.] on grounds which violated right to free speech under article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution.
Grounds of Removal
Legal provisions and acts made by legislature are bound to obey the basic structure of the Constitution, and therefore shall not be violative of fundamental rights, the principle of interpretation encourage original and precise attribution of meaning while interpreting law.
Section 66A stood be a vaguely written provision which led to interpretation difficulties. The term ‘offensive’ led to a subjective and wide interpretation leading to arbitrary arrests and complaints.
Further section 66 A of IT act made communication of any information for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, punishable. The literal interpretation of subjective words made it impossible to have an objective outlook of the said provision.
The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[ ibid] held that the provision was violative of free speech as it had no prescribed limit to interpretation, almost everything and anything was being covered under the section. The provision violated fundamental right under article 19 (1)(A) and was not being saved by article 19 (2).
In addition to upsetting the principle of reasonable restriction the provision failed to incorporate any procedural safeguards leaving prosecution to whims and fancies of local authorities. Such inapt provision caused mayhem and ruthless violation of article 21 and 22 of the accused individuals.
With advent of technology social media platforms became an integral part of human life, it enhanced the expression of thoughts, concerns and opinions. It also provided the world to be an audience to an individual’ s voice. This has changed how traditionally fundamental rights were seen, today our fundamental rights extend to virtual space as well. Inhibiting fundamental rights both in real and virtual space becomes a grace violation, and arbitrary vagueness of section 66 A was doing just the same.
Therefore, it became imperative for the Judiciary to strike down section 66 A of the IT act, enforcing a balance between reasonable restrictions and fundamental rights
