SUPREME COURT VERDICTS
Section 66A upset the balance between right to free speech and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on this right.
“The petitioners are right in saying that Section 66A, in creating an offence against persons who use the Internet and annoy or cause inconvenience to others, very clearly affects the freedom of speech and expression of the citizenry of India at large in that such speech or expression is directly curbed by the creation of the offence contained in this section,” it said.
The court said Section 66A was unconstitutionally vague since neither a prospective offender nor the authorities who are to enforce this law had any “manageable standard” to book a person and the terms like “offensive” or “menacing” used in this section were nowhere defined in the Act.
It maintained that Section 66A made no distinction between a mere discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view which may be annoying or inconvenient or grossly offensive to some, and incitement by which such words lead to an imminent causal connection with public disorder, security of state etc.
“What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another. When it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme,” it said.
According to the bench, Section 66A did not not concern itself with injury to reputation or with incitement to commit an offence or with decency or morality since an offensive post did not require to be affecting any of these grounds mentioned under Article 19 (2).
It also dismissed the government’s plea to read it down and to add certain clauses to Section 66A by interpretation in order to save its constitutionality, saying what they wanted a substitution of the entire provision.
‘Liberty of thought and expression a cardinal value’
* Section 66A quashed in entirety for being unconstitutional, void and vague
* Invades right to free speech arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately
* Liberty of thought and expression a cardinal value of paramount significance
* Govt cannot curb right to free speech even to promote general public interest
* Section 66A cannot be said to be “reasonable restriction” on right to speech
* Govt assurance on administering the law well cannot protect Section 66A -
The Supreme Court has scrapped a contentious law that was seen as a major infringement of the freedom of speech online because it allowed the arrest of a person for posting offensive content.
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, has been declared unconstitutional. Describing the law as "vague in its entirety," the judges said, it encroaches upon "the public's right to know."
See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/ind....rU01U0qZ.dpuf
