Opinion Disappointing U-turn
Government must explain why it thinks Section 66A should stay in its current form.
In December, reportedly following an intervention by the prime minister, the government informed the Supreme Court that it would reconsider Section 66A of the IT Act, a law that has gained notoriety from being bluntly wielded against soft targets ranging from cartoonists to university professors, among others. Now, in affidavits responding to PILs questioning the constitutionality of the section, the NDA government appears to have executed a disappointing U-turn, embracing the position of its predecessor. It has gone from telling the court that it would examine the provision to impose safeguards, to doubling-down on it, highlighting comparable legal provisions in countries like the US and UK and emphasising that the law is necessary to “regulate the use of cyberspace”.
Hurriedly rushed through Parliament in an amendment by the UPA government in 2008 after the Mumbai 26/11 attacks, Section 66A criminalises a string of vaguely worded offences: any message that causes “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will” comes under its ambit. None of these terms is defined in the IT Act, and as the court acknowledged, the provision gives the police wide powers to make arbitrary arrests. Much of this whimsy seems to have been directed against those who have used social media to express vocal political dissent. The government contends that guidelines issued in January 2013 by the previous dispensation to curb the misuse of Section 66A by mandating that only senior police personnel can order arrests under it are enough to prevent “harassment to any citizen”. But ever since the Narendra Modi government took charge, there have been instances of people being arrested for “liking” a Facebook post or forwarding a WhatsApp message critical of Modi.
The onus is on the Central government to explain why it believes Section 66A — which imposes more draconian and drastic restrictions on speech on the internet than those that apply to speech offline — is essential to effectively police cyberspace. Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, the government is permitted to frame laws that reasonably restrict free speech. The NDA government must tell us how Section 66A can plausibly be interpreted as a “reasonable restriction”.
Share
