New Delhi, Feb 3 (IANS) The central government Tuesday defended section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 saying it was to curb posting of mischievous and objectionable material on social media and websites and in no way could be construed as curbing the fundamental right to free speech and expression.
Describing the contention that section 66A curbed the freedom of speech and expression as "misconceived", Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told a bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman that the said "provision neither intends nor can be interpreted to scuttle freedom of speech and expression of any citizen".
"At the outset, it is clarified that if any provision of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is found to be in conflict with freedom guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India, the same will have to be read in context of and subject to Article 19(2) of the constitution," he said.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression while 19(2) says that freedom guaranteed under the former would not affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the state from making any law to impose reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
The government's argument came while opposing the challenge to the validity of section 66A raised by Shreya Singhal who had moved the apex court following the arrest of two girls - Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan - for posting comments critical on Mumbai bandh in the wake of the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray.
Thereafter NGOs Common Cause and PUCL, self-exiled Bangla writer Taslima Nasreen and others also impleaded themselves in the matter.
Section 66A reads: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."
Singhal in her PIL had said that the "phraseology of the aforesaid section is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse".
General Sergei Surovikin known as Butcher of Syria: The Russia-Ukraine war that has been going on
Nitish returns as Bihar CM, to meet Modi over development (Roundup)
Patna, Feb 22 (IANS) Nitish Kumar Sunday returned as Bihar chief minister, nine months after he
50 buses of workers returned from Saharanpur
Due to the wishes of the Uttar Pradesh government, 50 buses that went to Saharanpur with Haryana
Abhishek Bachchan is in the news these days for his film 'Be Happy'. The film has been released o
Mihir Shah, the prime accused in the BMW hit-and-run case that killed a 45-year-old woman in Mumb
After creating history in SA, Bangladesh shines in World Cup Super League, BAN on top, PAK at 10th
BAN vs SA ODI Series: Bangladesh created history on Wednesday by winning their first ODI series i
Navratri 2022 Day 1: Today (Monday) is the first day of Sharadiya Navratri. Navratri started on 2
School will not open a month yet, 10th results will be released by May 20
Haryana Education Minister Kanwarpal Gurjar has said that even though the lockdown waiver starts
Coronavirus: Modi Buckling To Trump’s Threats On Drug Exports Is A Low Moment For Indian Diplomacy
मोदी सरकार ने सोमवार को ड्रग हाइड्रो
After the victory of Mahayuti in Maharashtra, there is no suspense over the name of the Chief Min
