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: 150
 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]
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: 151
 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]
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]
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]
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]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Free the people: IT Act's Section 66A, as it stands, has no place in a democracy

Free the people: IT Act's Section 66A, as it stands, has no place in a democracy

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Dec 3, 2012   modified Modified on Dec 3, 2012
-The Times of India

The UPA government has itself to blame for being red-faced over Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. Had it come down heavily on the law's repeated misuse, the Supreme Court wouldn't have had to step in. Last week, the apex court issued notices to the Centre and five states in connection with a PIL questioning the legal soundness of Section 66A. It sought explanations for arrests made under this law, including Maharashtra police's apprehending of two young women for an innocuous Facebook post.

Clearly, little has been done to check the law's abuse. The Union government has merely spoken of educating law enforcers on the Section's judicious application. More recently, it's proposed denying junior police the power to invoke the law. Officers not below the rank of inspector general in cities, and of deputy commissioner in rural areas and non-metros, are to be the deciding authorities. However, rampant political interference in law enforcement is itself a burning issue. So, to argue that senior police officers will always resist mob pressure or political diktats isn't persuasive.

Too many outrageous infringements on civil liberties have occurred for faith to be reposed in discretionary invoking of Section 66A. Adding to public misgivings is high-handed police action, evident in the cases involving the two women or, earlier, two Air India employees in Maharashtra, or a professor in Kolkata. Instead of debating panaceas of doubtful efficacy, let's see policemen accused of harassing citizens with arbitrary arrests probed and punished. That'll have more deterrent value.

Let's also recognise Section 66A's misuse flows from its draconian nature and imprecise terminology. People can face up to three years' jail for electronic communications that "grossly" offend or cause "annoyance or inconvenience", or, in case of information known to be false, cause "danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will". Clubbed together, this amounts to gagging citizens in a day and age the internet's an indispensable everyday platform for exchange of news and views. Surely living in a democracy means being able to say things that others, however high and mighty, may not like. That's why the government can't avoid doing one of two things. It can radically narrow Section 66A's scope, removing all ambiguity about what constitutes crime. Or it can throw it out, since specific cyber offences can be covered under existing laws which already deal with libel, defamation, threats and intimidation. Doing neither isn't an option.

The Times of India, 3 December, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Free-the-people-IT-Acts-Section-66A-as-it-stands-has-no-place-in-a-democracy/articleshow/17454989.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close