The Union Govt informed the Apex Court that the onus lies with the states to implement the Supreme Court’s 2015 Judgment quashing the ‘draconian’ section 66A of Information & Technology Act & said that it has repeatedly advised the states to drop all cases registered under the provision.
On July 5, the Top Court had expressed shock & dismay over Police continuing to register cases under section 66A despite it being quashed 6 years ago. NGO ‘People's Union for Civil Liberties’ (PUCL) had pointed out that states have registered thousands of cases post-judgment & that the Centre needed to step in for immediate withdrawal of these cases.
Interestingly, in such a sensitive case before a bench headed by Justice R F Nariman, the ministry of electronics & information technology chose a ‘Scientist G’ officer to file the response to the PUCL's petition seeking implementation of the SC's March 24, 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case. The scientist said he was filing the affidavit with inputs from the ministries of home affairs & the information & broadcasting. The matter is scheduled for fresh hearing on Monday before the bench headed by Justice Nariman.
“The Section (66A) has become null & void with effect from the date of the judgment,” the Centre said & informed the court that between Feb-May 2019, as many as 21 states & UTs have responded to the Centre intimating that the police have been directed not to register cases under Section 66A & that no prosecution has been undertaken by the state under this provision after it was erased from the statute book by the Supreme Court.
PUCL had told the court through senior Lawyer Sanjay Parikh that Maharashtra, which had registered 349 cases prior to the judgment, registered 381 more FIRs invoking Section 66A post-judgment. The Centre said the Maharashtra government on February 21, 2019 had informed the Centre that it has “complied with the SC Judgment & that no prosecution has been initiated post-March 24, 2015 under section 66A of the IT Act, 2000.”
PUCL said the state governments must be directed to collect & collate all information about cases lodged & pending under 66A & order their immediate dropping/withdrawal. This could be achieved by a direction to the DGPs to take necessary steps & to the HCs to issue suitable advisory to the district judges for closure of cases in the courts within their jurisdictions.
On July 5, the SC had expressed shock & dismay over police across India invoking Section 66A to arrest persons for social media posts even six years after the SC had erased it from the statute book finding it to be in breach of right to free speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution.
Taking up the petition, the bench led by Justice Nariman, who had authored the March 24, 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case striking down Section 66A, had said, “Amazing is all that I can say. What is going on is terrible & distressing. How could the provision be invoked by police even six years after the Supreme Court had struck it down?” Parikh had said that it is shocking that more cases under Section 66A have been registered post-2015 judgment.
“Shocking is the right word to use,” Justice Nariman had said & asked the Union Govt to file a response to the plea by PUCL, which requested the court to direct the Centre to collect data about all cases registered by police & pending trial under Section 66A & send a communication to all trial courts & DGPs to close the cases.
Source Link
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure.
0 Comments