NEW DELHI: In a historic verdict related to the freedom of speech on the Internet, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scrapped Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, terming it as unconstitutional.

Justices J Chelameswar and Rohinton F Nariman passing the judgement said that 66A the court cannot go by the government’s assurances that the section will not be misused as that cannot be properly implemented because governments come and go.

The court said that section 66A is vague and violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech.



"Section 66A of the IT Act is struck down in its entirety...," said the apex court bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.



"Our Constitution provides for liberty of thought, expression and belief. In a democracy, these values have to be provided within constitutional scheme. The law (Section 66A) is vague in its entirety," said Justice Nariman pronouncing the judgment.



"There is no nexus between public order and discussion or causing annoyance by dissemination of information. Curbs under Section 66A of the IT Act infringes on the public right to know."













The draconian law gives the police the right to make arrests over ‘offensive' social posts. Section 66A prescribes the punishment for sending ‘offensive’ messages through computers or any other communication device such as a mobile phone or a tablet.

More importantly, a conviction under this section can attract a maximum of three years in jail.

However, while striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, the Supreme Court refused to scrap two other provisions of the Act that provide for blocking sites.

What does section 66A of the IT act actually say?

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

Though SC struck down section 66A,it refuses to strike down 2 other provisions of IT Act that provide for blocking sites #SocialMediaVerdict — TIMES NOW (@TimesNow) March 24, 2015

The government's defence of 66A

The main defence of the government was that Section 66A of the IT Act should not be "quashed" merely because of the possibility of its "abuse".

Supreme Court of India strikes down #66A calls it unconstitutional. Now you can raise your voice without any fear. Thanks SC — Manoj Nangloi Jat (@AAPKaMannu) March 24, 2015

However, the central government defended section 66A, taking the stand that the provisions in no way intended to curb the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19 the Constitution, but at the same time the government could not let the enormous cyber world be left unregulated.

The SC blasts vague terms

After hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law including a provision under which a person can be arrested for allegedly posting "offensive" contents on websites, the Supreme Court pronounced its verdict.

A bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman had on February 26 reserved its judgement after the government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be "quashed" merely because of the possibility of its "abuse".

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had said that the government did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression at all which is enshrined in the Constitution, but the vast cyber world could not be allowed to remain unregulated.

Story continues