The section 66-A of the IT act,2008 seeks to regulate speech on internet and other communication electronic devices.Though the act was legislated with good intentions,of late,it has created controversies.On many occasions,the state and the influentials are alleged to have misused the provisions of the act for vested interests.Let us delve into the pros and cons of this legislation.
With the advent of digital era,internet has become a preferred mode of communication.Though the information technology has made our lives easier,there is a flip side to it.Incidents of cyber-bullying,spams,online harassment,hate-speeches with the aim to divide society have also increased.Therefore,the section 66-A of IT act seeks to control internet-related crimes.Even section 499 and section 500 of Indian Penal Code(IPC) is silent about the crimes committed through electronic format.The IT act is thus a legislative measure to regulate such incidents.
However,there are a number of demerits of the act.The section 66-A(a) of the act penalises sending information which is 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing' in character.But the illustrations regarding these terms are ill-defined and open-ended.Therefore,determining the exact meaning of what is offensive or menacing falls within the subjective discretion of the complainant leaving enough room for its wide misuse.Moreover,in criminal jurisprudence,a crime has two components-intention and act.The offence is committed under the IT act the moment an individual acts through electronic devices although his intentions were non-offensive in character.
The act,in all likelihood,violates the fundamental right of speech and expression,as enshrined in article 19 of Indian constitution.The 19(2) of the constitution mentions the grounds of reasonable restrictions imposed on the freedom of expression.However,as the terms mentioned in the act are open to subjective interpretation of the complainant,it is an affront to the right of free expression-a corner-stone of our democratic constitution.
Further,the act legally recognises the act of 'transmitting' offensive messages a punishable offence.The word 'transmitting' is vaguely defined and thus it is prone to wide misuse.For instance.liking a post or commenting on a post might attract punishment under the act.The arrest of two girls in Mumbai in 2012 on the charges of liking and commenting on a face-book post was an instance of severe misuse of the act.Moreover,section 81 of IT act,2008 states that on grounds of contravention of this act with other acts(such as IPC).the IT act would prevail.This very provision would subject the individual to undue harassment.
Therefore,it is imperative that the government undertake measures to clearly define the inherent terms in the act thus narrowing down its subjective interpretations.Due to the public pressure,the government recently mandated the prior permission of a senior police officer before exercising the act.But,in a country,where the police reforms haven't been successfully carried out till date,undue political interference may dilute the noble purpose of the act.It is not to be forgotten that laws meant for the public good shouldn't be misused against public interest.
With the advent of digital era,internet has become a preferred mode of communication.Though the information technology has made our lives easier,there is a flip side to it.Incidents of cyber-bullying,spams,online harassment,hate-speeches with the aim to divide society have also increased.Therefore,the section 66-A of IT act seeks to control internet-related crimes.Even section 499 and section 500 of Indian Penal Code(IPC) is silent about the crimes committed through electronic format.The IT act is thus a legislative measure to regulate such incidents.However,there are a number of demerits of the act.The section 66-A(a) of the act penalises sending information which is 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing' in character.But the illustrations regarding these terms are ill-defined and open-ended.Therefore,determining the exact meaning of what is offensive or menacing falls within the subjective discretion of the complainant leaving enough room for its wide misuse.Moreover,in criminal jurisprudence,a crime has two components-intention and act.The offence is committed under the IT act the moment an individual acts through electronic devices although his intentions were non-offensive in character.
The act,in all likelihood,violates the fundamental right of speech and expression,as enshrined in article 19 of Indian constitution.The 19(2) of the constitution mentions the grounds of reasonable restrictions imposed on the freedom of expression.However,as the terms mentioned in the act are open to subjective interpretation of the complainant,it is an affront to the right of free expression-a corner-stone of our democratic constitution.
Further,the act legally recognises the act of 'transmitting' offensive messages a punishable offence.The word 'transmitting' is vaguely defined and thus it is prone to wide misuse.For instance.liking a post or commenting on a post might attract punishment under the act.The arrest of two girls in Mumbai in 2012 on the charges of liking and commenting on a face-book post was an instance of severe misuse of the act.Moreover,section 81 of IT act,2008 states that on grounds of contravention of this act with other acts(such as IPC).the IT act would prevail.This very provision would subject the individual to undue harassment.
Therefore,it is imperative that the government undertake measures to clearly define the inherent terms in the act thus narrowing down its subjective interpretations.Due to the public pressure,the government recently mandated the prior permission of a senior police officer before exercising the act.But,in a country,where the police reforms haven't been successfully carried out till date,undue political interference may dilute the noble purpose of the act.It is not to be forgotten that laws meant for the public good shouldn't be misused against public interest.
The Supreme court struck down this very section. In its judgement, the court pronounced three terms ‘discussion, advocacy and incitement’ which formed the basis of the understanding on freedom of expression. Discussion and advocacy, no matter how unpopular it was, should not be stymied unless it reached the level of incitement causing ‘public disorder’. However, there is nothing to prevent possible defaming, false accusation and character assassination by cyber-savvy miscreants.
ReplyDelete