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/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649/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/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649/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('cakeErr67fa9769600be-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-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="cakeErr67fa9769600be-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67fa9769600be-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">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67fa9769600be-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$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) 27598,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.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;sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649&#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) 4675649,
		&#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) 27598,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu


&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&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) 27598,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.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;sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649&#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) 4675649,
	&#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) {}
	],
	&#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) 27598
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu


&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&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/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649.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 | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu


'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to..."/>
    <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>SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram</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</div><p align="justify"><em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em></p><p align="justify">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.</p><p align="justify">&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.</p><p align="justify">The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.</p><p align="justify">In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.</p><p align="justify">The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.</p><p align="justify">Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. </p><p align="justify"><em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em></p><p align="justify">Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.</p><p align="justify">&nbsp;</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('cakeErr67fa9769600be-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-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="cakeErr67fa9769600be-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67fa9769600be-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">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67fa9769600be-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$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) 27598,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.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;sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649&#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) 4675649,
		&#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) 27598,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu


&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&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) 27598,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.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;sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649&#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) 4675649,
	&#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) {}
	],
	&#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) 27598
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu


&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&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/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649.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 | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu


'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to..."/>
    <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>SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram</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</div><p align="justify"><em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em></p><p align="justify">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.</p><p align="justify">&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.</p><p align="justify">The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.</p><p align="justify">In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.</p><p align="justify">The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.</p><p align="justify">Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. </p><p align="justify"><em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em></p><p align="justify">Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.</p><p align="justify">&nbsp;</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('cakeErr67fa9769600be-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-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="cakeErr67fa9769600be-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67fa9769600be-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67fa9769600be-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">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67fa9769600be-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$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) 27598,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.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;sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649&#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) 4675649,
		&#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) 27598,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu


&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&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) 27598,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.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;sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649&#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) 4675649,
	&#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) {}
	],
	&#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) 27598
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu


&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;&#039;It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous&#039;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &amp;quot;draconian&amp;quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &amp;quot;allegedly objectionable&amp;quot; on the Internet.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&amp;quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &amp;quot;open-ended and undefined&amp;quot;, it said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &amp;quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &amp;lsquo;incites&#039; anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &amp;lsquo;discussion&#039; or &amp;lsquo;advocacy&#039; of a &amp;lsquo;particular point of view&#039;. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&amp;quot; the court held.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &amp;quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&amp;quot;, the court said: &amp;quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &amp;quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&amp;quot; the court said. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;SC rejects Centre&#039;s plea&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre&#039;s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&amp;quot; the court said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&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/sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649.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 | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu


'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to..."/>
    <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>SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram</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</div><p align="justify"><em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em></p><p align="justify">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.</p><p align="justify">&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.</p><p align="justify">The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.</p><p align="justify">In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.</p><p align="justify">The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.</p><p align="justify">Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. </p><p align="justify"><em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em></p><p align="justify">Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.</p><p align="justify">&nbsp;</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) 27598,
		'title' => 'SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu
</div>
<p align="justify">
<em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. 
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&nbsp;
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649',
		'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) 4675649,
		'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) 27598,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu


'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em></p><p align="justify">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.</p><p align="justify">&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.</p><p align="justify">The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.</p><p align="justify">In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.</p><p align="justify">The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.</p><p align="justify">Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. </p><p align="justify"><em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em></p><p align="justify">Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.</p><p align="justify">&nbsp;</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 27598,
	'title' => 'SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu
</div>
<p align="justify">
<em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. 
</p>
<p align="justify">
<em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&nbsp;
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 24 March, 2015, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'sc-strikes-down-draconian-section-66a-jayant-sriram-4675649',
	'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) 4675649,
	'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) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 27598
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram'
$metaKeywords = 'Freedom of Information,Freedom of Speech,internet,Section 66A of IT Act,social media,Democracy'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu


'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'


Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><em>'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous'</em></p><p align="justify">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a &quot;draconian&quot; provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be &quot;allegedly objectionable&quot; on the Internet.</p><p align="justify">&quot;It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,&quot; said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was &quot;open-ended and undefined&quot;, it said.</p><p align="justify">The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.</p><p align="justify">In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.</p><p align="justify">The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. &quot;The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which &lsquo;incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of &lsquo;discussion' or &lsquo;advocacy' of a &lsquo;particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,&quot; the court held.</p><p align="justify">Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as &quot;open-ended, undefined and vague&quot;, the court said: &quot;Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.&quot;</p><p align="justify">The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. &quot;Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,&quot; the court said. </p><p align="justify"><em>SC rejects Centre's plea</em></p><p align="justify">Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,&quot; the court said.</p><p align="justify">&nbsp;</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

SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A -Jayant Sriram

-The Hindu 'It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous' Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a "draconian" provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be "allegedly objectionable" on the Internet. "It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right," said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was "open-ended and undefined", it said. The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively. In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder. The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. "The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which ‘incites' anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion' or ‘advocacy' of a ‘particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all," the court held. Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as "open-ended, undefined and vague", the court said: "Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another." The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. "Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place," the court said. SC rejects Centre's plea Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre's plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner. "If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.," the court said.