Tag: IT Act

66A IT ACT

News –Supreme Court found the enforcement of
Section 66A of the Information Technology
(IT) – six years after it was struck down.

Section 66 A of IT act

• Dealt with information related crimes

• Sending information – found to be offensive, disrespectful and threatening – are punishable offence
 Communication – sent by means of a computer resource or through any
communication device

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
CHAPTER XI – OFFENCES
66A.

Punishment for sending offensive messages through
communication service, etc.–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.

Weakness of Section 66A

• Created an offence on the basis of undefined actions
 Sub section (b) – law can be enforced when the information is found to be
causing inconvenience, danger, obstruction – fails to define the terms
 Gives a scope for wider interpretation – may go against the purpose of this
law
• Such terms do not fall among the exceptions granted under Article 19 of the Constitution

• Section 66A did not have procedural safeguards like other sections of the law.

FIRs Under Struck Down Section 66A IT Act

Introduction

On 5th July 2021, the Supreme Court expressed their shock at the practice of police registering FIRs under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2015 judgement in the case of Shreya Singhal. An application filed by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) was being heard by a bench headed by Justice RF Nariman. The application sought directions and guidelines against the FIRs which were being filed under Section 66A of the IT Act which was struck down. There were over 1000s of FIRs being filed under the said provision. Justice Nariman commented on the issue, saying “What is going on is terrible. We are issuing notice”.

Background

An amendment made in 2008 introduced Section 66A in the Information Technology Act, which penalized sending of “offensive messages”, it also introduced Section 69. This amendment was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in the Lok Sabha and it was signed by President Pratiba Patel on 5th February 2009 to be made an official part of the law. Using this amendment, the Government of India restricted the freedom of speech to avoid self-harm and misuse. This allowed the arrest of any person which the law per se felt was harmful. In 2012, Shreya Singhal filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India.

Shreya Singhal v Union of India

In 2012, the leader of Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray passed away and there was a bandh declared in Maharashtra by the members of Shiv Sena. Two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan residing in Thane, were involved in this case, one of them posted something on Facebook and the other simply liked the post. Both of them were expressing their displeasure because of the state-wide bandh. They were arrested by the Mumbai police in 2012 under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section aims to punish any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred or ill-will.

Although the two girls were released later, and their criminal cases were closed, they attracted widespread public protests. People felt that the police had misused their power by invoking Section 66A, they felt that it violated the freedom of speech and expression. So, later a writ petition was filed in Public Interest to declare Section 66A, 69, and 79 of IT Act, 2000 as unconstitutional. It was argued that the Section was in violation of Article 19(1)(a) and no provision under Article 19(2) saved it. It was also argued that the section created a lot of vagueness which gave arbitrary powers to the authorities.

In the judgement of this case, the Supreme Court agreed that none of the grounds contained in Article 19(2) were capable of being invoked as legitimate defenses for the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. They said that any law that seeks to impose a restriction on freedom of speech can only pass muster. They also agreed that Section 66A is vague as it did not define what counts as ‘offensive’ as the object of offense will always be subjective. The Court found that Section 66A leaves many terms open-ended and undefined, therefore making the statute void for vagueness. To conclude, the court invalidated Section 66A in its entirety as it violated the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The highest Court had made the statute void but the police still keep using it to curb voices and rights that go against them. It is important to make every citizen aware of this update so that they know when they are being charged under a revoked section. And it is also important to hold regular briefings in every police station specifying which laws no longer hold credibility so that each one of them is aware and knows that doing so would then be a crime.

References

Relevancy and Admissibility of E-Records

Technology has advanced rapidly over a period. This century saw a technological revolution which enthralled not only India but the whole world. In today’s world electronic devices used everywhere. And it is not only limited to established organizations or institutions but available to every individual at swipe of a finger. It helps people to communicate locally and globally with ease. Due to which the reliance on electronic means of communication, e-commerce and storage of information in e-form increasing rapidly. This growth of reliance on electronic means of communications, e-commerce and storage of information in e-form has most certainly caused a need to modify the law relating to information technology and rules of admissibility of electronic records both in civil and criminal matters in India. Electronic evidence is defined as information and data of asset to an investigation that is stored on, received or transferred by an electronic device. It is any probatory information stored or transferred in electronic form that a party to a court case may use at trial. As courts continue to wrestle with this new electronic frontier it is crucial to stress that electronic evidence is subject to the same rules of evidence as paper documents. It can be obtained in mails, digitized photos, transaction logins, instant messages, documents from accounting programs, spread sheets, browser history data, backups, printouts, GPS tracks, videos or audio files. E-records inclines to be more abundant, more difficult to annihilate, not difficult to modified, easily duplicated, potentially more expressive and more readily available, and such unique nature of e-evidence, as well as the ease with which it can be exploited or falsified, creates obstacle to admissibility not faced with other evidence. Electronic evidence challenge evidentiary rules grounded in a more tangible way. Certification of such record is perhaps the most difficult test as courts seek to determine its admissibility.

During trials, judges are often asked to order on the admissibility of electronic records. How the court orders on questions of admissibility could eventually impact the outcome of a civil lawsuit or determine the difference between conviction and acquittal of a defendant. These gadgets, the result of technology can be used for legal and illegal acts. For example, when data recorded or stored in the memory of a computer is printed out in paper if it is not easy to say that the version in the memory is a document. Nor is it easy to determine that the print out is an original or a duplicate. Also, even if such things (audio, tape recording, a video tape recording, electronic mail on computer screen) when submitted as evidence and such things as electronically transmitted directs in commercial transactions can be regarded as document.

The growth of computers, the social impact of information technology and the ability to store information in digital form have all required Indian law to be amended to include provisions on the appreciation of e-records.

In 2000 Parliament enacted the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000, that amended the existing Indian statutes to allow for the admissibility of electronic evidence. The IT Act is based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Commerce and, at the side of providing amendments to the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Indian Penal Code 1860 and also the Banker’s Book Evidence Act 1891, it recognizes transactions that are administered through electronic information interchange and different means of electronic communication.