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/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776/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/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776/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('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-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="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-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">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$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) 26734,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/&#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;sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776&#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) 4674776,
		&#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) 26734,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express


&amp;nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot;...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.&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) 26734,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/&#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;sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776&#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) 4674776,
	&#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) {}
	],
	&#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) 26734
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express


&amp;nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot;...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.&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/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776.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 | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express


&nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot;..."/>
    <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>Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand</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 Indian Express</div><p align="justify">&nbsp;</p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.</p><p align="justify">&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.</p><p align="justify">The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.</p><p align="justify">Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.</p><p align="justify">The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.</p><p align="justify">As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.</p><p align="justify">Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.</p><p align="justify">At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.</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('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-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="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-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">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$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) 26734,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/&#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;sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776&#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) 4674776,
		&#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) 26734,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express


&amp;nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot;...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.&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) 26734,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/&#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;sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776&#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) 4674776,
	&#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) {}
	],
	&#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) 26734
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express


&amp;nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot;...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.&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/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776.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 | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express


&nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot;..."/>
    <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>Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand</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 Indian Express</div><p align="justify">&nbsp;</p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.</p><p align="justify">&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.</p><p align="justify">The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.</p><p align="justify">Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.</p><p align="justify">The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.</p><p align="justify">As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.</p><p align="justify">Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.</p><p align="justify">At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.</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('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-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="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-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">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67ff777c434e9-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$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) 26734,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/&#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;sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776&#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) 4674776,
		&#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) 26734,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Indian Express


&amp;nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot;...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.&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) 26734,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Indian Express
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;nbsp;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/&#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;sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776&#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) 4674776,
	&#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) {}
	],
	&#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) 26734
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Indian Express


&amp;nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot;...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Indian Express&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody&#039;s &amp;quot;annoyance&amp;quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&amp;quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The court&#039;s observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &amp;quot;evident&amp;quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&amp;quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&amp;quot; retorted the court.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &amp;quot;offensive&amp;quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.&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/sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776.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 | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Indian Express


&nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot;..."/>
    <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>Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand</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 Indian Express</div><p align="justify">&nbsp;</p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.</p><p align="justify">&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.</p><p align="justify">The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.</p><p align="justify">Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.</p><p align="justify">The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.</p><p align="justify">As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.</p><p align="justify">Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.</p><p align="justify">At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.</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) 26734,
		'title' => 'Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
&nbsp;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.
</p>
<p align="justify">
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
</p>
<p align="justify">
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776',
		'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) 4674776,
		'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) 26734,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Indian Express


&nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot;...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">&nbsp;</p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.</p><p align="justify">&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.</p><p align="justify">The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.</p><p align="justify">Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.</p><p align="justify">The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.</p><p align="justify">As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.</p><p align="justify">Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.</p><p align="justify">At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 26734,
	'title' => 'Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Indian Express
</div>
<p align="justify">
&nbsp;
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.
</p>
<p align="justify">
&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.
</p>
<p align="justify">
As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.
</p>
<p align="justify">
At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Indian Express, 10 December, 2014, http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/no-guidelines-prone-to-abuse-sc-criticises-sec-66a-of-it-act/99/',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'sec-66a-of-it-act-lacks-guidelines-arrests-made-over-social-media-posts-prone-to-abuse-sc-utkarsh-anand-4674776',
	'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) 4674776,
	'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) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 26734
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand'
$metaKeywords = 'Section 66A of IT Act,Freedom of Speech,Human Rights,social media'
$metaDesc = '
-The Indian Express


&nbsp;


The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot;...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Indian Express</div><p align="justify">&nbsp;</p><p align="justify">The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's &quot;annoyance&quot; was enough in certain cases for invoking the law.</p><p align="justify">&quot;Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it,&quot; said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde.</p><p align="justify">The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending &quot;offensive&quot; messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.</p><p align="justify">Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was &quot;evident&quot; and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers.</p><p align="justify">The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.</p><p align="justify">&quot;If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision,&quot; retorted the court.</p><p align="justify">As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.</p><p align="justify">Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.</p><p align="justify">At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word &quot;offensive&quot; may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.</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

Sec 66A of IT act lacks guidelines, arrests made over social media posts prone to abuse: SC -Utkarsh Anand

-The Indian Express   The Supreme Court on Tuesday observed that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers police to make arrests over social media posts, apparently lacked guidelines on when such power can be exercised and that somebody's "annoyance" was enough in certain cases for invoking the law. "Section 66A does not give any specific guidance on when to invoke it, unlike the provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The IPC uses specific words and gives specific illustrations for the offences but that does not appear to be the case with Section 66A. It appears that nobody has to even say anything hateful or meaning ill will... annoyance of someone could be used to invoke it," said a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and S A Bobde. The court's observations came even as the central government admitted that Section 66A was prone to abuse and that there were indeed incidents in the past where people were wrongly arrested by invoking this provision. Section 66A defines the punishment for sending "offensive" messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet. A conviction can fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was "evident" and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He said in most of the incidents, cited by a batch of petitions that have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A, the power was abused and actions had been taken against the erring police officers. The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness. "If there is abuse and the abuse is so egregious, even in some cases, there is definitely an issue to be heard and decided regarding the validity of such a provision," retorted the court. As the final arguments on the petitions began, the bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act. Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest. At this, the bench replied that in most of the cases cited by the petitioners, there was no statement which could have threatened the integrity of the country, as alleged by the police. It said the word "offensive" may be construed differently in different context and that not everything would make a criminal offence. The bench will resume hearing on Wednesday.