Khushi Bajpai
Published on: October 13, 2022 at 20:50 IST
The Supreme Court ordered on Wednesday that no one should be punished under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which has been repealed, in light of the fact that law enforcement authorities are still using it to make arrests.
The Home Secretary and the Director Generals of Police of the states were asked by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India UU Lalit to instruct their officers not to file any complaints regarding violations of Section 66A and to ensure that all cases currently pending do not make reference to the provision, which was deemed unconstitutional by the court in the Shreya Singhal case in 2015.
The top court expressed “serious concern” when it heard the PIL on September 6 and instructed Advocate Zoheb Hossain, who represented the Centre, to “get in touch with the concerned Chief Secretaries of the respective states where the offences are still being registered or stand registered and impress upon” them “to take remedial measures as soon as possible.”
This was in response to states continuing to file FIRs for violations of the provision.
Hossain presented a status report on these matters on Wednesday before the bench, which also included Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi.
The bench took note and stated in its order that Section 66A had already been declared illegal and that no citizen could be charged under it.
The reference to and reliance on Section 66A will stand erased in all instances where citizens are being prosecuted for violations of that section, it was stated.
In the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, by a two-judge bench decision in 2015.
On the basis that it violated the right to free speech granted by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, the clause dealing with limits on online communication was ruled unconstitutional.
It was decided that content removal requests from courts or other government agencies would be the only time online intermediaries would be required to remove something.
The petitioner, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), stated before the court on Wednesday that the Union had disregarded its duty even though complaints had continued to be made against people of the nation after the provision had been repealed in 2015.
“They could have ensured implementation through the Ministry of Electronics and State Governors,” the petitioner said.
The Union Government, on the other hand, insisted that implementation of Shreya Singhal’s judgment is not its responsibility. “State governments must create local regulations for police,” it said.
Following hearing of the arguments, the court established the following rules:
- It goes without saying that Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 is unconstitutional. The reference to and reliance on the stated section shall be omitted in situations where citizens are charged criminally under the said section.
- The entire police force, the Home Secretary of States, the compliance officers of Union Territories, and the police force at large are prohibited from filing complaints for violations of Section 66A.
- Only the violation of Section 66A shall be upheld in situations where other offences are also stated in the complaint.
- Whenever any publication, whether public, semi-public, or private, publishes information about the aforementioned section, the readers should be made aware that Section 66A has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The bench of Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi rejected the matter after making these observations.
The court had urged the Union government to assess the situation during the last hearings because FIRs and complaints were still being filed under the aforementioned clause.
In places where the ruling of the supreme court was still being disregarded, the court had asked the government to take corrective action.
