SC strikes down Section 66A
25 March 2015 12:06 AM GMT
A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Rohinton F Nariman held the provision “unconstitutional” and said it had to be struck down in its entirety.
“The provisions in the said Act had no proximate relationship with the public order and lacked defined criteria on its exercise,” the bench said. While rejecting Centre’s plea over defending the Act claiming that they will make sure that the law is administered well, the bench said: “Section 66A adversely impacted people’s right to know and didn’t make any distinction between advocacy, discussion on one hand and incitement on the other.”
“Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A will always remain on the statute…whatever is otherwise invalid cannot be held to be valid by making a statement that it will be administered well,” it said, while adding that the language used in the Section is vague and nebulous as it doesn’t properly define words like “offensive” or even “persistent”.
The court held that Section 66A could not be seen as a “reasonable restriction” on an individual’s Right to Speech and Expression. However, to prevent its ruling being misused, the Apex Court allowed the government to block those websites, which had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India’s relationship with other countries.
Earlier, in 2012 the first PIL on the issue was filed by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other “liked” it.
“The provisions in the said Act had no proximate relationship with the public order and lacked defined criteria on its exercise,” the bench said. While rejecting Centre’s plea over defending the Act claiming that they will make sure that the law is administered well, the bench said: “Section 66A adversely impacted people’s right to know and didn’t make any distinction between advocacy, discussion on one hand and incitement on the other.”
“Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A will always remain on the statute…whatever is otherwise invalid cannot be held to be valid by making a statement that it will be administered well,” it said, while adding that the language used in the Section is vague and nebulous as it doesn’t properly define words like “offensive” or even “persistent”.
The court held that Section 66A could not be seen as a “reasonable restriction” on an individual’s Right to Speech and Expression. However, to prevent its ruling being misused, the Apex Court allowed the government to block those websites, which had the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India’s relationship with other countries.
Earlier, in 2012 the first PIL on the issue was filed by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other “liked” it.
Next Story
