It was misused over and over: jailing young women who disagreed with the Shiv Sena, prosecuting employees making fun of union leaders, arresting cartoonists who made fun of Parliament and imprisoning students who quoted Uttar Pradesh politicians. As of Tuesday, section 66A of the Information Technology is no more. The Supreme Court has struck down the law for being vague, untenable and unconstitutional.
The decision comes as a victory for those who have been fighting for free speech in a country that, over the last few years, has consistently attacked the idea of expression being a universal right. India has gradually slipped down the scale on the free speech index over the last few years, going from being "partly free" to an "enemy of the internet" on the Freedom on the Net index.
The latter years of the United Progressive Alliance already showed how free speech was under attack in India, primarily through the passage of section 66A of the IT Act, which was immediately misused to protect political egos. Then came the infamous #GOIBlocks episode, when hundreds of voices were silenced online, causing Bharatiya Janata Party supporters to liken 66A to the Emergency.
Yet, when the BJP came to power, things didn't exactly get better for free speech. The government came out swinging against foreign-funded Non Governmental Organisations from the get-go. In the last few months, it has sought to prevent Priya Pillai, an activist with Greenpeace, from going abroad to speak her mind about conditions in tribal areas with intense mining activity. It has also sought to prevent the broadcast of a documentary in connection with the Delhi gangrape-murder.
Most surprisingly, the BJP government took a U-turn despite finance minister Arun Jaitley himself saying banning things on the internet was counterproductive, and decided to defend 66A. The government admitted in court that the law had been misused, but said it was necessary to regulate content on the internet, because there was too much offensive material that couldn't be allowed there.
The opponents of the law, a clutch of activists and lawyers, insisted that the law was unconstitutional and so arbitrary that it lent itself to misuse. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the activists and the lawyers, saying there was little scope for objective usage of the law.
The full verdict will give us an idea of just exactly what the Supreme Court has managed to do, since the case against 66A also included a number of other provisions seen to be draconian. The court has also read down section 79(3) of the IT Act, which could have been used to punish online platforms for hosting content it considered offensive and quashed a Kerala law that was equally draconian.
@barandbench Court agrees that Section 66A affects the public's right to know
— Sai Deepak Iyer J (@jsaideepak) March 24, 2015@barandbench Court agrees that Section 66A affects the public's right to know
— Sai Deepak Iyer J (@jsaideepak) March 24, 2015"Govts come and go but no guarantee that #66A won't be misused" (via NDTV). Unusually over responsible court today. Maintain the form guys!
— Ram (@ram_k27) March 24, 2015#Sec66A SC rules entire Sec 66A has to go since it lays down no defined criteria on when to arrest people for "offensive" social media posts
— Utkarsh Anand (@utkarsh_aanand) March 24, 2015The decision comes as a victory for those who have been fighting for free speech in a country that, over the last few years, has consistently attacked the idea of expression being a universal right. India has gradually slipped down the scale on the free speech index over the last few years, going from being "partly free" to an "enemy of the internet" on the Freedom on the Net index.
The latter years of the United Progressive Alliance already showed how free speech was under attack in India, primarily through the passage of section 66A of the IT Act, which was immediately misused to protect political egos. Then came the infamous #GOIBlocks episode, when hundreds of voices were silenced online, causing Bharatiya Janata Party supporters to liken 66A to the Emergency.
Yet, when the BJP came to power, things didn't exactly get better for free speech. The government came out swinging against foreign-funded Non Governmental Organisations from the get-go. In the last few months, it has sought to prevent Priya Pillai, an activist with Greenpeace, from going abroad to speak her mind about conditions in tribal areas with intense mining activity. It has also sought to prevent the broadcast of a documentary in connection with the Delhi gangrape-murder.
Most surprisingly, the BJP government took a U-turn despite finance minister Arun Jaitley himself saying banning things on the internet was counterproductive, and decided to defend 66A. The government admitted in court that the law had been misused, but said it was necessary to regulate content on the internet, because there was too much offensive material that couldn't be allowed there.
The opponents of the law, a clutch of activists and lawyers, insisted that the law was unconstitutional and so arbitrary that it lent itself to misuse. Ultimately, the Supreme Court agreed with the activists and the lawyers, saying there was little scope for objective usage of the law.
The full verdict will give us an idea of just exactly what the Supreme Court has managed to do, since the case against 66A also included a number of other provisions seen to be draconian. The court has also read down section 79(3) of the IT Act, which could have been used to punish online platforms for hosting content it considered offensive and quashed a Kerala law that was equally draconian.
Limited-time offer: Big stories, small price. Keep independent media alive. Become a Scroll member today!
Our journalism is for everyone. But you can get special privileges by buying an annual Scroll Membership. Sign up today!