Live: Why didn't they repeal Section 66A of IT Act? Kapil Sibal hits out at NDA

5.46 pm: Why didn’t they repeal Section 66A of IT Act? Kapil Sibal hits out at NDA Taking on the Narendra Modi-led NDA government over Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, former Law Minister and the man behind the act Kapil Sibal said that the BJP government should have repealed the law. “Many laws are misused. NDA had supported Section 66A. Why didn’t repeal the law?” asked Sibal after the government hit out at UPA over this issue. However Sibal said that he welcomed the SC decision to repeal the law. 1:30 pm: Chidambaram says Section 66A was ‘poorly drafted, son Karti says he didn’t misuse the law Congress leader P Chidambaram today joined the long list of Congress leaders to welcome the Supreme Court judgement holding Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, saying it was poorly drafted and misused. “I welcome the judgement of the Supreme Court holding that Section 66A of the IT Act is unconstitutional. The section was poorly drafted and was vulnerable. It was capable of being misused and, in fact, it was misused,” he said. The former Union Minister, who held the Home and Finance portfolios in UPA government, said there could be a case of misuse of freedom of speech and in such cases ordinary laws should apply and the offender should be dealt with under them. “If some provisions of the law have to be strengthened, that could be considered. But Section 66A was not the answer,” Chidambaram said. Even his son Karti Chidambaram, who is accused of misusing the law against an inidividual who tweeted against him, also defended his actions saying that he had used the law at the time since it was available and he wasn’t against freedom of speech. “However, freedom of speech should should come with limitations,” he said. 1:00 pm: JD(U)’s Sharad Yadav stands up for Section 66A JD(U)’s Sharad Yadav has also unwittingly ended up joining the Shiv Sena in demanding that the law be allowed to stand. “Is this the only law that is being misused?” Yadav asked a ANI reporter. Yadav also said that the online medium was being misused by many people and there needed to be some law to take action against them. 12:20 pm: Jadavpur University professor arrested for sharing Mamata cartoon welcomes Section 66A verdict Ambikesh Mahapatra, the professor of Jadavpur University who was arrested for circulating a cartoon of Mamata Banerjee. has also welcomed the verdict. Mahapatra told Times Now he hoped the apex court’s verdict would effectively nullify the legal case pending against him. “It is good news,” he said, adding that the West Bengal government had supported the case against him. 12:15 pm: Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad defends govt’s stand, says it supports freedom of speech “These cases were pending before we came to power. After we came to power the government took a very conscious decision that we don’t support the stand of the previous government,” Minister of Telecom Ravi Shankar Prasad said. We support freedom of speech, Prasad said. He said that the party wasn’t in favour of curtailing honest dissent either. The minister said that the latest affidavit filed before the apex court had stated that the government hadn’t attempted to violate the freedom of speech in any way. The government had said that it was willing to bring in guidelines to prevent the misuse of the act, he said. 12:00 pm: BJP’s Nalin Kohli has also come out in support of the apex court’s verdict BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli has also joined the voices welcoming the Supreme Court’s verdict and said that the party had always believed in freedom of speech on the internet. “It is a landmark day for freedom of speech…There is no distinction between what has been said by the court and what was said by the party,” he said. He told Times Now said that the government’s stand in the Supreme Court was consistent with defending the freedom of speech. “We do not seek to curtail the use of social media,” he said. 11:40 am: Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut defends section 66A Well the Congress may have switched sides on the debate, Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut has said that the police need a law to tackle falsehoods that are being spread about people in public life. “Social media does have positive impact, but it’s also being misused, police must have some powers in their hand,” he said. “You don’t say anything against the High Court or Supreme Court to avoid contempt of court but say anything you feel like against others in public life,” Raut said, adding that there needed to be some method to curb it. 11:30 am: What exactly the Supreme Court said while striking down the section So just to sum up, here’s what the apex court said while striking down the controversial section: - Public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66A of Information Technology Act - The provision is vague and “what may be offensive to a person, may not be offensive to others” - Governments come and go but section 66A will remain forever, says SC, while refusing to consider Centre’s assurance that the law in question will not be abused. - No need to strike down two other provisions of the IT Act that provide blocking of sites. 11:15 am: A victory of free speech for the common man, says uncle of other girl arrested in Palghar case Uncle of the other girl who was arrested in Palghar, Shaheen Dhada, said that his niece had initially gone of Facebook after being arrested. However, he pointed out that while the police had acted quickly against the girls, he’s still to receive justice for his hospital being vandalised. “I have not received a rupee for the damage,” Dr A Dhada said “This is a victory of free speech for the common man,” he said. 11:10 am: Here’s something a lot of people will be asking today:

#66A gone! Where is Kapil Sibal, the legal genius?

— G. Pramod Kumar (@pramodsarang) March 24, 2015

11:10 am: Original petitioner in case, Shreya Singhal, says verdict is a victory for free speech The original petitioner in the case, Shreya Singhal, has welcomed the verdict in the case. “A law has to be for the people. It’s a big victory for free speech in the country,” Shreya Singhal, the original petitioner in the case, said. She said that none of the persons who had been arrested in the case had disrupted law and order. “I am very happy with this verdict…We have fought for three years and are very happy,” she said. “No one should be afraid of putting something up due to fear of prison,” Singhal said. And she’s getting praise from all quarters including some of her peers:

Shreya, this could only have been done by a below 30s generation, congratulations for getting Section 66A struck down!

— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) March 24, 2015

11:05 am: Now Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari welcomes SC verdict “The Supreme Court had become a tool of oppression to prosecute people,” Manish Tewari said. He said there was a spectre of the ‘dark net’ but it required a global debate. The former minister said that there shouldn’t be knee jerk law enforcement like Section 66A allowed it to be. 11:00 am: Congress’s Sanjay Jha welcomes SC verdict on section 66A While most on Twitter were critical of Congress for bringing in the law, Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha had this to say:

Delighted that #Sec66A has been scrapped by Supreme Court; it had an implicit threat of criminal intimidation. Free speech reigns supreme.

— Sanjay Jha (@JhaSanjay) March 24, 2015

More from India

Why physiotherapists in India will no longer be allowed to use ‘Dr’ before their names Nepal’s Sushila Karki and her India connection

10:55 am: Palghar girl arrested under Sec 66A says she’s very happy with SC verdict “If this law is repealed it may encourage people to speak up and against all the wrong in the world,” Rinu Srinivasan, one of the girls who was arrested under the section for a Facebook post on Bal Thackeray, said. “I am very happy. I feel like we have received justice after two years,” she said. However, she feels people should be restrained in expressing their opinion and shouldn’t misuse this freedom either. 10.45 am: Section 66A is unconstitutional and must be struck down, says SC This is a huge victory for free speech advocates everywhere. In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has struck down section 66A on the basis that it is ‘unconstitutional and untenable’. The apex court has also said that the act was too vague and that it cannot be properly implemented as governments come and go. The court had said that the act violated section 19(a) of the constitution which constitutes the right to free speech, and threatens the right of the people to question and defend. The court also said it affected the right of the people to know. Background: Will the Supreme Court strike down section 66A of the IT act? The apex court is expected to deliver a judgment on the issue shortly. The verdict comes in response to a host of petitions filed against the controversial law. [caption id=“attachment_2169979” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Reuters[/caption] Some of the petitions seek setting aside of section 66A of the Information Technology Act which empowers police to arrest a person for allegedly posting offensive materials on social networking sites. The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls – Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan – were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ’liked’ it. Most activists and policy experts point out that the Section 66A is loosely worded and puts too much powers in the hands of the police. Read more about all the issues with the act here What does section 66A of the IT act actually say? “Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,— (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.” The issues with the wording of the act One of the main problems with the act is the fact that it is framed in vague and sweeping language, which allows law enforcement authorities to interpret it in a subjective manner. What, for instance is information that is ‘grossly offensive’ and has menacing character’? If someone were pro-life, for instance, they may find an email forward endorsing abortion ‘grossly offensive’. Similarly, if someone were a religious purist who believed God created the world in seven days, they may find a status update on evolution to be ‘false information’. By making the act so open ended and subjective, the government is trying to save itself the trouble of having to define each and every cyber crime, but what they have overlooked or ignored is that in its present form, the act also easily lends itself to prosecuting people who dare to have and express a controversial or different opinion that may not necessarily be dangerous. This issue was also brought up by the Supreme Court while it was hearing the petitions against the act. Dealing with the word “grossly offensive”, the bench referred to the judgement cited by the ASG and said, “what is grossly offensive to you, may not be grossly offensive to me and it is a vague term.” “Highly trained judicial minds (judges of the UK courts) came to different conclusions by using the same test applied to judge as to what is grossly offensive and what is offensive,” the court added. In fact one of the judges on the case, Justice Nariman, even gave an example to the court of how the vague definition of ‘grossly offensive’ could be dangerously twisted. According to a Times of India report, he said in court, ““I can give you millions of examples but take one burning issue is of conversion. If I post something in support of conversion and some people, not agreeable to my view, filed a complaint against me then what will happen to me?”