ISSUES WITH S.66 A OF IT ACT,2000
By- S.JANAGAN
The S.66A of the Information
Technology (IT) act,2000 was intended to curb and mitigate the spread of hatred
and misleading information that could be pernicious, if allowed. However the
exists a dichotomy between curbing/mitigating and complete shutdown, the later
the focuses on imminent stoppage and complete suppression which could
potentially lead to oppression, whereas the intention of curbing/mitigating is
falls entirely on different ground, which lies in following procedural
safeguards and steps which provides a platform for the so accused to testify
the intention behind such information or to scrutinize if at all it is complete
falsehood. It is imperative that S.66A does not fall within the confines of the
path that persuades complete shutdown and imminent suppression which
paradoxically aligns with “tyranny”.
I’d like to emphasize on the
section’s obfuscation that provides ambiguity as to the scope of the words so
mentioned, words such as “annoyance”, “danger”, “grossly offensive” and
“inconvenience” are not confined to a limited or narrowed scope, it rather
dangerously possesses broader and wide scope which is not viable for a democratic
nation like India. Where people’s individual rights and freedoms such as speech
and expression are duly cherished and protected, to have a legislation
providing inherent powers to transgress such fundamental rights are dangerous
step in violating the very substance on which our preamble is crafted.
It is, however, not ideal to not
have a law regulating the conduct, ideologies and dogmas spreading over mass population
which, if is in provocative or hatred nature, could be deleterious to the unity
and integrity of the nation. Nonetheless, it was postulated in the same Shreya
Singhal case which struck down this provision under violation of 19(1)(a) that,
“to protect the unity and integrity of the nation is imperative”. Therefore, it
becomes clear that, the need for such legislation is of paramount importance
for the most populous democratic nation with substantial users of internet,
however it must be pruned to an extend of creating a “permutable partition”
between art 19(1)a and S.66A, I used the word “permutable” to emphasize on the
need to violate 19(1)a for terrorists or persons involving in sedition of the
country or anybody who wishes to disintegrate the sovereignty and unity of
India.
Some other issues with respect to
the provision are,
> its uncomplicated ability to
get abused by persons occupying political chairs, who in course of their
political dramas take benefits of such provisions to create situations
conducive to their political carrier.
> due to its inability to stay
up to date with the contemporary digital landscape thereby creating confusion
as to its application to the “malice” conduct/behaviour i.e., men’s rea with
mala fide and unintentional or conventional demeanour of the people, basically
how humans typically react or act.
> “some” government officials
(other than political persons) tend to be henchmen for them in return for some
consideration, which is now a prominent issue, as they act in unscrupulous
manner based on instructions given above. This possesses a dangerous threat to
not only this provision (s.66A) but to the entire legal framework, which needs
to be seriously addressed and severely sanctioned.
Therefore, I conclude that, it is
indeed necessary for provisions like S.66A to regulate the society in the
rapidly evolving digital landscape, however it must not be given a broader and
wider scope which provides discretionary powers for its usage, rather it must
be subject to appropriate application of law with procedural safeguards and
conditions. Thereby eliminating its ability to get abused or transgressing the
fundamental rights and freedoms providing to the citizens of India.
