New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated its 2015 ruling that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (IT) was unconstitutional and no citizen could be prosecuted for its alleged violation.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit passed the order in July 2021 on a petition filed by the non-governmental organization People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), asking courts at the Center and across the country to ensure matters Instructions were sought. were not registered under the illegal provision.
PUCL claimed that despite the Supreme Court quashing Section 66A in 2015, prosecution under it continued.
Introduced in 2008 as an amendment to the IT Act 2000, Section 66A gave the government the power to arrest and imprison a person for “offensive and dangerous” online posts.
Wednesday’s order came after the bench perused the Central government’s report, and learned that citizens were still being prosecuted for alleged violation of Section 66A. The report was prepared in response to the court’s direction on 7 September.
The order said, “The information given in tabular form shows that despite the issue regarding the validity of section 66A by this court in 2015, the number of offenses and criminal proceedings still relied on section 66A.” reflects.” Criminal proceedings, in our view, are in the teeth of direct instructions issued By this Court in Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India.
Further, the court ordered that in cases where the alleged violation has been “presumed” and the citizens were facing prosecution for the alleged breach of law, all offenses or criminal proceedings with “reference to and reliance on the said section” will be removed. ,
It directed state police chiefs as well as home secretaries and competent authorities in union territories to direct the entire police force not to lodge any complaint or offense in respect of any violation under section 66A.
However, this direction shall be applicable only in respect of offenses under lapsed section 66A. But if there are other aspects to the offense under consideration, that is, other offenses are also charged, then the relevant sections will be invoked, the bench clarified.
The quashing of a section by the court is not the same as quashing it. It remains in the statute books until formally repealed by Parliament. But the provision becomes unenforceable.
Keeping this legal principle in mind, the court said that if any publication – government, semi-government or private – quotes section 66A on the IT Act as part of it, a footnote to duly inform the readers Information should be provided that the section has already been held unconstitutional.
Setting aside the law in 2015, a two-judge bench had underlined the supremacy of the right to freedom of speech and expression and the “chilling effect” of Section 66A on this fundamental right. This provision was open and unconstitutionally vague.
The status report submitted by the Center to the court on Wednesday showed that some states still use the section to prosecute people for alleged violations of the law.
These include Chhattisgarh where 73 FIRs were registered after 2015, of which seven were acquitted, one withdrawn and 20 closed. In 30 cases, proceedings for removal of the section have been initiated, while in 15 they are likely to be dropped.
247 cases were registered in Karnataka after Shreya Singhal’s decision, but all these cases have been withdrawn. Even West Bengal has invoked the law which was repealed in 38 cases.
In Uttar Pradesh, out of 116 cases registered under Section 66A, only six are pending. The Centre’s status report states that applications for withdrawal of prosecution in these cases are pending in the court concerned.