Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Delete it&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;delete-it-4675253&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675253,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Delete it&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;delete-it-4675253&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675253,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27204
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Delete it</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line</div><p align="justify"><em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em></p><p align="justify">If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.</p><p align="justify">During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.</p><p align="justify">Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Delete it&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;delete-it-4675253&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675253,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Delete it&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;delete-it-4675253&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675253,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27204
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Delete it</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line</div><p align="justify"><em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em></p><p align="justify">If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.</p><p align="justify">During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.</p><p align="justify">Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f2c39732d37-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Delete it&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;delete-it-4675253&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675253,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 27204,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Delete it&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu Business Line
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;delete-it-4675253&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4675253,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 27204
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu Business Line&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &amp;lsquo;offence&#039; - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &amp;quot;annoyance or inconvenience&amp;quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term &#039;offensive&#039; was both vague and subjective. The government&#039;s argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai&#039;s forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray&#039;s funeral; Mamata&#039;s Banerjee&#039;s police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police&#039;s own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &amp;quot;reasonable restrictions&amp;quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/delete-it-4675253.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Delete it</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line</div><p align="justify"><em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em></p><p align="justify">If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.</p><p align="justify">During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.</p><p align="justify">Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 27204,
		'title' => 'Delete it',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu Business Line
</div>
<p align="justify">
<em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
</p>
<p align="justify">
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'delete-it-4675253',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4675253,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 27204,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line</div><p align="justify"><em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em></p><p align="justify">If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.</p><p align="justify">During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.</p><p align="justify">Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 27204,
	'title' => 'Delete it',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu Business Line
</div>
<p align="justify">
<em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.
</p>
<p align="justify">
During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu Business Line, 4 February, 2015, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/editorial/delete-it/article6857314.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'delete-it-4675253',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4675253,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 3 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 4 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 5 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 6 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 27204
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Delete it'
$metaKeywords = 'Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,internet,ICTs,social media,Human Rights,Law and Justice'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu Business Line


Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society


If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu Business Line</div><p align="justify"><em>Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society</em></p><p align="justify">If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term &lsquo;offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing &quot;annoyance or inconvenience&quot; to anyone through the Internet, or sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone.</p><p align="justify">During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters.</p><p align="justify">Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of &quot;reasonable restrictions&quot; on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Delete it

-The Hindu Business Line Article 66A of the Information Technology Act has no place in a free and democratic society If everybody who ever offended anybody - intentionally or otherwise - is to be locked up, then half the country would be behind bars. It is astonishing, therefore, that provisions in the law which mandate precisely such an outcome for offending someone - without, moreover, even defining what exactly is meant by the term ‘offence' - continue to exist on the statute books. And it is downright inconceivable that Central governments, which are sworn to uphold the Constitution which includes freedom of expression as a fundamental right, will actually battle hard to retain such provisions. Yet, this is precisely what is happening, with the Centre fighting a batch of petitions in the Supreme Court which have challenged the constitutional validity of sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000, specifically Section 66A. This section, introduced by an amendment in 2009, prescribes up to three years in prison for anyone found guilty of causing "annoyance or inconvenience" to anyone through the Internet, or sending "offensive" messages through any information technology device such as a computer, tablet or mobile phone. During the hearings, the Supreme Court bench has rightly observed that the term 'offensive' was both vague and subjective. The government's argument, that the intent of the law was to combat cyber crime and not curb free speech, does not wash in the face of the way the provision has actually been used. Schoolgirls have been arrested for complaining on Facebook about Mumbai's forcible shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral; Mamata's Banerjee's police used it to lock up a cartoonist who dared to lampoon the leader; a couple of Air India employees were prosecuted for making fun of politicians in a social media group; a Bengaluru couple charged for complaining against the police on the police's own Facebook page, and so on. The petitioners who have challenged Section 66A have contended - and justifiedly - that the provision offers a handy tool to curb freedom of speech, and is open to whimsical or malafide interpretation by law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, which is neither trained nor equipped to consider such matters. Even if the Supreme Court were to hold Section 66A violative of the Constitution, the matter does not end there. We are a republic of easily hurt sentiments, and there are far too many provisions in the Penal Code which are not only open to misinterpretation, but have been actively misused to crush voices raised against the mainstream. While many such laws date back to colonial times, even a relatively modern law such as the Information Technology Act - parts of which are drawn from similar legislation in the West - suffers from poor drafting and a lack of awareness of ground realities, which has led to its widespread misinterpretation and active misuse, not least of all by government agencies. These need to be summarily reviewed and updated to ensure that the lines of "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of speech are firmly and unambiguously drawn.