The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a plea for a direction to seek an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh government for the >arrest of a Class XII student for allegedly posting on Facebook “objectionable” comments about Samajwadi Party legislator and State Minister Azam Khan. This is of a piece with a series of incidents involving efforts to curb free speech on the Internet by invoking Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Section, which provides for punishment to persons sending offensive messages through any communication device, is arguably in patent violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It makes punishable, inter alia , any communication that may be “grossly offensive” or “menacing in character”, or may cause “annoyance” and “inconvenience”. Petitions challenging the constitutionality of this law have argued that these terms are too “vague” and “ambiguous”, yielding unbounded scope for arbitrary use of power by officials who may interpret the terms as they deem fit. Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on free speech on grounds of “public order, decency or morality”, but by no stretch of interpretation could content that is of a “menacing character” or causes “annoyance” be said to fall within the scope of such reasonableness. Several petitions have been filed challenging the validity of this law, and the Supreme Court has reserved its verdict.
These arrests reflect the fact that the law was poorly drafted. More significantly, these show the intolerance and blatant abuse of power by politicians across party lines, and their efforts to manipulate the law to stifle dissent and criticism. This provision was inserted as an amendment in 2008 by the United Progressive Alliance government, and the present National Democratic Alliance regime continues to favour it, saying the law was intended to “regulate the use of cyberspace” and not to curb free speech. But the facts clearly call the bluff on such justifications. This is reflected in a number of arrests of netizens in the last five years for critical remarks on politicians. Mr. Azam Khan, who was so offended by what the school student had posted, unleashed the force of Section 66A and the police for his immediate arrest. The student was eventually released on bail. One can only hope that the Supreme Court will act towards ultimately strengthening the foundations of free speech by striking down this untenable clause of the IT Act. This will be the surest way to halt the blatant misuse of power by the political class with respect to free speech on the Internet.
