The Center on Wednesday wrote to all states asking them to not register circumstances beneath Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and withdraw any circumstances filed beneath the regulation, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
The Supreme Court had suggested whereas expressing astonishment on the circumstances nonetheless being filed beneath this part of the regulation.
However, this isn’t the primary time that states have been requested to not register circumstances beneath the regulation.
After the regulation was repealed in 2015, two advisories have been despatched to states in 2019 – by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
The MeITY advisory despatched on January 11, 2019 reminded the states in regards to the Supreme Court order on 66A. It mentioned, “It has been delivered to our discover via the applying of MA 3220 of 2018 filed within the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the supply of this part remains to be being utilized by some regulation enforcement businesses. Therefore, I request you to direct the involved regulation enforcement businesses in your state to make sure compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. If a case has been registered beneath this part in your state, it needs to be withdrawn instantly.
As is obvious, the People’s Union of Civil Liberties – on whose plea in regards to the continued use of Section 66A, the SC expressed shock – had filed its plea even earlier than the session was despatched.
Following the MeitY advisory, an MHA communication was made to all states on January 18, 2019, looking for knowledge on circumstances registered beneath part 66A from them because the Supreme Court requested the federal government to file counter-affidavits on the PUCL’s plea.
Referring to the MeitY advisory, the MHA mentioned, “The Hon’ble Court has handed an order dated 7-01-2019 directing the UOI (MeitY) to file counter-affidavit in response to the petitioner’s prayer, whereby Compliance has been searched for implementation of the judgment dated March 24, 2015, within the case of Shreya Singhal v. UoI.”
Seeking particulars, it mentioned, “You are, due to this fact, kindly to verify that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been carried out in its entirety, and kindly implement part 66A after 24.03.2015, if any. They may submit the info to the prosecution. Secretary, MeitY, to allow submitting of counter affidavit…”
Interestingly, the primary advisory towards arbitrary software of Section 66A was despatched to the states two years earlier than the regulation was struck down. In this advisory despatched on January 6, 2013, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology had suggested the states to take due precautions earlier than invoking Section 66A.
“Recently some such incidents have come to the fore during which Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been invoked… towards sure individuals for posting sure materials which was thought of by the police to be dangerous.
Such motion attracted numerous media consideration and resulted in protests by civil society, residents and members of parliament in several components of the nation. Appropriate precautions and precautions could also be taken whereas coping with circumstances of alleged misuse of our on-line world,” it mentioned.
It additionally suggested the states towards arbitrary arrests and requested the states to make sure that nobody is arrested beneath part 66A until the rank is decrease than the Inspector General of Police in metropolitan cities and Deputy Commissioner of Police in districts. No prior permission is taken from the officer of
Notably, the advisory was issued when advocate Shreya Singhal filed a petition towards the statute within the Supreme Court in 2012.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
