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 | Only by amending IT Act's flawed Section 66A can we stop its misuse

Only by amending IT Act's flawed Section 66A can we stop its misuse

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Nov 26, 2012   modified Modified on Nov 26, 2012
-The Times of India

Telecom minister Kapil Sibal says the Information Technology Act shouldn't be misused to "throttle dissent". But is he prepared to go the length to stop misuse? Consider the legal gloss Section 66A of the Act puts on assaults on free expression. Two incidents should suffice as examples. In April, a professor was arrested in Kolkata for forwarding a cartoon depicting Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee. More recently, a young woman, Shaheen Dhada, and her friend were similarly victimised in Maharashtra — the former for a Facebook post questioning Mumbai's shutdown following Bal Thackeray's death; the latter for liking the post!

Sibal rightly raps Section 66A's erroneous application. Unfortunately, he seems unwilling to admit the controversial provision itself is deeply flawed. He hints at a possible review, but doesn't seem to acknowledge that the section's imprecise language encourages misuse. Under it, a person can face up to three years' jail for posting information online that's "grossly offensive or has menacing character". Ditto for electronic communications causing "annoyance or inconvenience", and uploading of information known to be false to cause "annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will".

Several questions arise. With no precise guideposts, how to measure degrees of 'grossness' or 'menace' to decide what constitutes 'offence'? Are people to be locked up on vague grounds like causing 'insult', bearing 'ill will', or 'inconveniencing' or 'annoying' others? Indisputably, laws must check criminal intimidation and endangerment. But can law enforcers have so much interpretative licence that it becomes an alibi for discretionary infringement upon civil rights? Above all, listing what are significantly non-bailable offences, doesn't Section 66A go beyond the "reasonable restrictions" the Constitution imposes on free speech?

Clearly, educating policemen on applying Section 66A isn't enough. The law itself needs modifying. Imprecise categories must be junked ('annoyance', 'inconvenience', 'offence' etc), so that crimes are defined with clarity. The more narrowly focussed the section is the better, since laws of libel and defamation already exist. No democratic nation should want to curb internet freedom save in specific cases based on clear objectives. True, Shaheen may have been harassed even without Section 66A, having also been booked under the IPC. But that only reminds us of the need to combat intolerance of dissent in all its avatars, be it harsh laws or politically manipulated law enforcement. Plurality of thought and diversity of opinion define our democracy. Our legal framework must reflect these robust values. 

The Times of India, 26 November, 2012, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Only-by-amending-IT-Acts-flawed-Section-66A-can-we-stop-its-misuse/articleshow/17363388.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