66a it-act freedom of expression online

DIGITAL COMMUNICATION

Apoorva Billore ITMI 2014-2016

Information Technology Act

The Information Technology Act 2000 has been substantially amended through the Information Technology Act 2008 which was passed by the two houses of the Indian Parliament on December 23, and 24, 2008. It got the Presidential assent on February 5, 2009 and came into force on October 27, 2009. The amended Act has provided additional focus on information security.

WHAT SECTION 66-A SAYS:

"Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device - Grossly offensive or has menacing character causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."Text images audio video any other electronic record which may be transmitted with the message”

Section 127(1)(b) UK

The punishment for the offence in Section 127(1)(b) is a maximum of six months’ or a fine of £5,000 Section 66A imposes a much more serious punishment of imprisonment up to three years and a fine without limit. Section 66A(b) of the IT Act is not the same as Section 127(1)(b) of the U.K. Communications Act, 2003 Ironically, the Indian government defends Section 66A by saying it has been copied from Section 127 of the U.K. Act, while in the U.K.

Constitutionality of Section 66-A

November 2012 PIL, Shreya Singhal submitted to the Supreme Court that Section 66A curbs freedom of speech and expression and violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition further contends that the expressions used in the Section are “vague” and “ambiguous” and that 66A is subject to “wanton abuse” in view of the subjective powers conferred on the police to interpret the law.

Constitutionality of Section 66-A

In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the Lucknow  bench of the Allahabad High Court claiming that the Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. They said that the section was vague and frequently misused.

ONLINE TRENDS

CASE STUDYS 66-A1. November 2012 Shaheen Dhada was arrested for criticising the shutdown of Mumbai after the death on Saturday of controversial politician Bal Thackeray.Her friend, Renu Srinivasan, who had "liked" the comment was also arrested. The two were later freed on bail.

ORIGINAL POST

LETTER TO CHIEF MINISTER

2.

February 6, 2013, Sanjay Chaudhary was arrested under section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act for posting ‘objectionable comments and caricatures’ of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Union Minister Kapil Sibal and Samajwadi Party president Mulayam Singh Yadav on his Facebook wall.

3.

18 march 2015 A Class XI student from Bareilly was arrested by Rampur police for sharing an “objectionable” post on Facebook against senior Samajwadi party leader and state Urban Development Minister Azam Khan.he had been remanded in judicial custody for 14 days.

4.

September 2010 Aseem Trivedi a political �cartoonist based in Kanpur .Trivedi has been booked under IPC Section 124 A for sedition, Section 66 A of IT Act.

5.

On 30 October 2012, a Puducherry businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested under Section 66A. He had sent tweet accusing Karti Chidambaram, son of Finance Minister P Chidambaram, of corruption.

In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to a petition filed by the internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) which claimed that the IT Act gave the government power to arbitrarily remove user-generated content.

The Supreme Court of India, gave the verdict that Section 66A is unconsitutional. The Court said that the offences defined under the law were “open-ended, undefined and vague” and that "public's right to know" is directly affected by it.

24 March 2015

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

SOCIAL MEDIA RESPOND

Section 66B

BUT IT- 66 STILL EXISTS

“Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device.”

Punishment:-Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.

Section 66C“For identity theft fraudulently or dishonestly making use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person.”

Punishment:-Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.

Section 66D

“Punishment for cheating by percolation by using computer resource.”

Punishment:-With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh .

Section 66E“For violation of privacy i.e., intentionally or knowingly capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, violating the privacy of that person.”

Punishment:-Imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.

Conclusion

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, “does not silence anyone”. You can always exercise your right to speak, your freedom of speech and expression without offending people. “NEVER BE SILENT JUST BECAUSE SOME ONE ELSE WANTS YOU TO BE”

R.K. Laxman, India, November 1978. After a period in the political wilderness following the end of The Emergency, Indira Gandhi uses a by-election (replacing a politician who has resigned or died) to win back a seat in the Lok Sabha, India's parliament. 

Thank you