The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that no citizen may be prosecuted below Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which it struck down in 2015.
Under the repealed part, an individual posting objectionable materials may be imprisoned for as much as three years and in addition fined.
Underlining that freedom of thought and expression is of “cardinal” significance, the apex courtroom had on March 24, 2015 struck down the supply, observing that “right of the public to be directly affected by section 66A of the Information Technology Act”. It occurs”.
A bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit stated that in all such circumstances the place residents are dealing with prosecution for alleged violation of Section 66-A of the Act, the reference and reliance on the stated provision shall be eliminated.
“We direct all Director Generals of Police in addition to Home Secretaries of States and Competent Officers in Union Territories to direct your complete police power of their respective States/Union Territories to take motion towards the alleged violation of Section 66A. Do not file any grievance of offense on this regard. The bench, additionally comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and SR Bhat, stated.
The apex courtroom clarified that this course can be relevant solely in respect of offense punishable below part 66A, and if within the related offence, different offenses are additionally alleged, the reference and reliance solely on part 66A shall be eliminated.
The bench stated that the counsel for the Center has positioned on file an all India standing report in respect of pending circumstances below part 66A.
It noticed that the data given in tabular type exhibits that regardless of the Supreme Court taking a choice concerning the validity of Section 66A of the Act, many legal proceedings nonetheless rely upon this provision and residents nonetheless face prosecution. are doing.
The bench stated, “Such legal proceedings are, in our view, straight in step with the instructions issued by this Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (March 2015 judgment) and consequently, we challenge the next instructions…., stated the bench. “It need not be reiterated that Section 66A of the 2000 Act has been found by this Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India to be violative of the Constitution and as such, no citizen can be prosecuted…. 66A,” it stated. ,
The bench additionally noticed that at any time when any publication, whether or not authorities, semi-government and personal, is printed in regards to the IT Act and part 66A is cited as a part of the statute guide, the reader is sufficiently knowledgeable. to learn that part 66A has already been pronounced. Violating the Constitution of the Supreme Court.
Terming as “a matter of grave concern” the registration of FIR below Section 66A of the Act, which was quashed in 2015, the highest courtroom final month requested the chief secretaries of the respective states to withdraw the circumstances inside three weeks. stated.
The bench was listening to a miscellaneous utility of NGO ‘People’s Union for Civil Liberties’ (PUCL), alleging prosecution of individuals below the omitted provision.
The NGO claimed that in 2019, regardless of the courtroom’s clear instructions that each one state governments sensitize police personnel in regards to the March 24, 2015 verdict, 1000’s of circumstances have been registered below the part.
It additionally sought a course to the Center to gather all information/info in respect of FIRs/investigations the place Section 66A has been invoked in addition to pending circumstances in courts throughout the nation the place proceedings below the supply of the 2015 judgment continues in violation.
On February 15, 2019, the apex courtroom had directed all state governments to make their police personnel conscious of its choice of March 24, 2015, which struck down Section 66A of the Act, therefore making individuals conscious of pointless Arrest shouldn’t be made below the provisionally arrested.
The first PIL on the difficulty was filed in 2012 by legislation pupil Shreya Singhal, who sought modification of Section 66A of the Act after two women – Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan had been arrested – in Palghar in Maharashtra’s Thane district. Was.
While one had posted a remark towards the bandh in Mumbai after the demise of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, the opposite ‘preferred’ it.
PUCL was additionally one of many petitioners within the earlier case and challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Act.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
