SC fumes over Centre’s arrests under defunct 66A

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Centre for not taking appropriate measures to prevent arrests made under Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act , despite the law being struck down by the top court in 2015.

A bench of justices RF Nariman and Vineet Sharan warned it would jail officials who have continued to prosecute citizens under the defunct law that was struck down as unconstitutional. The warning came while the court issued notice to the Centre on an application moved by the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) alleging continuing prosecution of citizens in various states under Section 66A.

“If what they allege is correct, then you (government) people will face severe strictures. They (petitioners) have given a list of persons who they say have been prosecuted. We will send everyone to jail who ordered the arrest. We are going to take very strict action,” Justice Nariman who heads the bench told advocates appearing for centre.

The bench has given the Centre four weeks to file a response, rejecting their request to give eight weeks. Another week was given to PUCL to respond.

The petition has given a list of 22 cases of prosecutions under the dead cyber law for posting objectionable comments on the internet. PUCL advocate Sanjay Parekh told the court that the government has recently introduced in law books the fact that the law has been struck down.

In 2015, the top court scrapped section 66A of the IT Act which prescribed a threeyear jail term for online content that could be construed to be offensive or false, holding that this provision violated the constitutional freedom of speech and expression.

In its judgment, the court observed that the section “arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech”. The verdict was passed by a bench of justices J Chelameswar (since retired) and Justice Nariman. The judgement came on a PIL filed by law student Shreya Singhal, who sought an amendment in the IT Act.

The PUCL submitted in its PIL that it was forced to move the apex court because despite section 66A ceasing to existing from the statute, it continued to be used by police in different states.

“The Petitioner submits that despite the clear and unequivocal holding of this Hon’ble Court in Shreya Singhal, Section 66A of the IT Act continues to be applied in the legal system. A recent working paper by the Internet Freedom Foundation demonstrates that pending prosecutions under Section 66A of the IT Act not been terminated and further that it continues to be invoked by police across India in First Information Reports registered after the judgment in Shreya Singhal,” the application said.