CURTAILMENT OF SECTION 66A: A VICTORY FOR ‘FREE EXPRESSION’

Chennai, March 24: Many people welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to declare section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional.

Most of the people who were approached to give their comments were not aware of 66A. Many of them also said that they are not quite aware what internet censorship means since they have been posting ‘anything’ online, without fearing repercussions.

Recently a class ninth student was arrested for writing ‘derogatory comments’ about politician Azam Khan in Uttar Pradesh. We also cannot forget the incident that occurred right after Bal Thackeray’s death in Mumbai when two girls were arrested for condemning the ‘bandh call’ by ‘Shiv Sainiks’.

There are plenty of reasons to fear about expression one’s opinion on social media, even after the curtailment of 66A.There are various other sections under which one can be arrested.

The curtailment of 66A is definitely a good decision and people across the section welcomed it.

“The Section 66A of the IT Act is unconstitutional as it violates the Fundamental Right concerning Freedom of Expression. It is harmful for democracy too” says Suhrith Parthasarthy, a lawyer in the High Court. If the concern here is ‘malicious content’ like hate speech then there are various other laws under which a person can be prosecuted so we really do not need section 66 A”.

Parthasarthy adds that the law did not clearly defined what constitutes ‘offensive, menacing and annoying’ content. This vagueness was also a reason of concern.

The Supreme Court has quashed section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act by terming it unconstitutional. The Act curtailed freedom to post any content online which is of menacing character; or false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.

Sathish Kumar, who is involved in the Non-Government Organisation (NGO) ‘Give the life’, believes that to some extent restrictions are required. He says “pornographic contents are harmful for youngsters and so we need to block those. I feel the same about ‘hate speeches’. But this decision of the Supreme Court is good as 66A was misused.

There were a host of cases filed under the 66A IT Act. One of the famous cases was that of Aseem Trivedi for drawing ‘derogatory’ cartoons depicting the Parliament and some national symbols. He did it to show his anger about corruption is politics.

Mithuna C S. and Abhinaya are Information Technology professionals who also expressed some concerns. Mithuna says that, she thinks hundred times before posting anything online. “Most of the time, my posts are intended only for fun but I get scared that these posts can arrest me. I do support the curtailment of 66A, although I have not read about it much”.

Abhinaya says that freedom should be limited and freedom does not mean freedom to do anything. “I think we do not need 66A as I believe in self restrain and control, that is, knowing what to post and what not to” she says.

The youths resent any sort of censorship on social media since it has become a tool, not just to express themselves but also a vent to bring out their frustration of the government and the bureaucracy.