SC Strikes Down Section 66a Of IT Act: Justified Or Not?
SC Strikes Down Section 66a Of IT Act: Justified Or Not?
Do you remember the event that happened in Mumbai after the death of Bal Thackeray when two women were arrested for posting their opinions on social medial website Facebook? The people who were raged that time would be delighted with the new decision of the Supreme Court. It stated Section 66A of IT Act as unconstitutional and struck it down. The act defines the punishment for sending offensive messages or posting offensive content on social media websites via computers or any other communication devices. Has Supreme Court taken the right decision?
Yes
- There are many instances when the section had been misused by police officials in various states to detain innocent individuals for posting their comments on social network sites on political leaders and social events.
- The law was against the freedom of expression and liberty, which are stated as two main pillars of democracy.
- The decision is well supported by many other rules. It can block websites if the contents published can result in social disorder, communal disturbance or adversely affect India’s relationship with other nations.
- The act was not based on any justified platform. It is the perception of people that decides what is right and wrong, and accordingly they post their opinion.
- People have every right to question high profile political leaders for their actions. It is the people who chose them.
- The section66a created more problems as there was no clarity regarding provisions due to which innocent people had to suffer.
- While 66A was trying to prevent defamation, it can still be achieved through civil law,
No
- Sending of offensive and false electronic messages is a serious issue. One single comment has the potential to affect the masses. Having a law to prohibit such acts is must.
- All the parts of Section 66A should not be scrapped. There was necessity to retain some parts which would have kept a check on offensive acts.
- It is not justified as spams cannot be criminalized. Also, people who send message by fake identity now gets a protection cover.
- It is a technological world and everything is done on online platform. Instead of scrapping the section it should have been made tougher.
- The potential of social media websites is evident from the increased use of ISIS to carry its operations. Such groups target those people who openly post their comments regarding the system on social media sites.
Conclusion
At the first glance, everyone would be happy with the decision of the Supreme Court. However, no one is considering the implications that will be seen in long-term. It is important to understand that social media websites have the potential to turnaround things in both positive and negative ways. Therefore, there is a dire need of an act that can regulate the use of social media websites. It cannot be termed as an entirely mediocre law. The key is to have a law that is balanced between the reasonable restrictions and the freedom of expression.
Discussion
- RE: SC Strikes Down Section 66a Of IT Act: Justified Or Not? -Charan Tej (04/07/15)
- It is absolutely justified for striking down section 66A because there is no exact definition for the section. So the decision is in the police whether to arrest o not and also the section is against one of the fundamental rights in India i.e., right to freedom for speech where people can give their opinions.
People may say that in this technological world striking down section 66A would be problem. But there is no problem in striking it down because only section 66 A was struck down the remaining information technology acts like 66 B to 66 F and 67 A,B,C , 68 and 69 A and B are still present, there are enough to handle cyber-crimes.
So striking down section 66A of Information Technology Act is justified. - RE: SC Strikes Down Section 66a Of IT Act: Justified Or Not? -Deepa Kaushik (03/28/15)
- This section aimed at punishing those who posted offensive messages or comments using the technology which could offend the masses or create agitation across the country. The only loophole in this section was the absence of any demarcation which could separate the comments aimed at high profile people from the offensive ones. Or, more clearly, the section should have made some guidelines to categorise the comment as offensive or not.
Removing the section is in no way good for the country or its citizens. In this high technical era, where the cyber crimes has spread its wings, giving a complete liberty on the expression of views on social media or any other platform could prove to be a risky affair. It could also play a negative role on the image of the country as a whole. Again, in a situation where we are already fighting for the security of women in the country, such a removal of section could be an open invitation for the criminals who could easily defame anyone.
It is understandable that the section did prove to be a torture for some innocent people who didn’t cross the legal limits, yet had to bear the fatal outcomes. But, that didn’t mean to remove the section as a whole; instead we should have made some clause which could protect the interest of the innocent common man from the rage of the political and high-profile society, and demarcate the annoying and offensive comments which are worth punishable. Thus, the striking down of section 66a is in no way justified.
