Section 66A Of The IT Act Still Lives In India's Thanas
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2021-07-05 10:44:33
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Author of Cyber Scams in India, Digital Arrest, The Money Trap and The Human Hack
View all posts by this Author
When senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for petitioner People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) brought to the notice of the Supreme Court that cases were still being filed under Section 66A of the IT Act which was scrapped by the apex court as far back as 2015, the court was shocked.
The bench of Justices R K Nariman, K M Joseph and B R Gavai said that "it is shocking, distressing and amazing that police across the country are still registering cases under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act". It was brought to the court's notice that when the section was scrapped, there were only 687 cases filed under it. These had jumped to 1307 cases now.
Attorney-General K K Venugopal said that since the section was still on the books with a small footnote that it has been scrapped by the Supreme Court, it is possible that the police did not look at the footnote. But this is no excuse. Once a section is scrapped, if a case is lodged under it and summons is issued, the defence lawyer will point out the mistake. Some of these cases will reach the courts. The judges will throw them out. Then how do so many cases are being lodged and still exist in the system?
The section was widely misused by the police at the bidding of their political masters to arrest persons who posted critical comments or posts (even forwarded cartoons) on social media. The section was so ambiguous; it became a potent tool in the hands of the administration to harass unsuspecting individuals. It seems that it is still being used for the same reason. The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Centre and has assured that "we will do something."
First of all, the court must direct the government that all acts published after changes in law due to court orders must not contain the scrapped section but instead just the section number and the sentence that "this section has been scrapped by the Supreme Court" in bold and not as a footnote. It is understandable if cases are inadvertently lodged under scrapped sections for a couple of months, but 6 years is a long time. This has to stop.
