‘Decent’ humour, dissent, not prohibited

January 14, 2015 12:01 am | Updated 12:01 am IST - NEW DELHI:

This Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014 photo, shows the WhatsApp and Facebook app icons on an iPhone in New York. On Wednesday Facebook announced it is buying mobile messaging service WhatsApp for up to $19 billion in cash and stock. (AP Photo/Karly Domb Sadof)

This Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014 photo, shows the WhatsApp and Facebook app icons on an iPhone in New York. On Wednesday Facebook announced it is buying mobile messaging service WhatsApp for up to $19 billion in cash and stock. (AP Photo/Karly Domb Sadof)

The government excluded comments expressing political dissent, contrarian views and “decent” humour from what constitutes “grossly offensive” or “menacing” on social media, and thus, violative of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act of 2000.

Handing over a small bulk of documents in a sealed cover to a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, said that even the court would agree after perusing the papers that they deserve to be prohibited.

Mr. Mehta suggested that the documents remain sealed and not be circulated even to lawyers on the opposite side, so that the contents continue to be under wraps. But the Bench decided otherwise, directing the Centre’s law officer to pass on a copy to the other side. The documents, however, would not be circulated.

The Bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of certain legal provisions in the Information Technology Act, especially Section 66 A, which provides for a three-year jail sentence for posting “offensive” comments on social media.

But Mr. Mehta contended that prohibitions under the 2000 Act are “reasonable” and in consonance with the restrictions placed on free speech in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.

One of the petitions challenging Section 66 A is by Shreya Singhal, a law student, which deals with the arrest of two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan, at Thane district in Maharashtra for allegedly posting a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death. The second girl had allegedly ‘liked’ the comment.

“The provision gives obtrusive powers for the police to barge into anyone’s house. It creates a regime where if anybody sends an email, puts up a post or even sends an SMS which may cause annoyance to somebody, that person can be arrested, her home searched and the website locked,” Prashant Bhushan, counsel for Common Cause, one of the petitioners, argued.

He pointed out that Section 66A uses vague terminologies like “annoyance” and “menacing character”, and the “width of the provision exceeds the permissible restrictions on free speech.”

“These sections have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech,” Mr. Bhushan argued.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.