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".
The flood situation is prevailing in many states of the country due to heavy rains. A low-pressur
Windies-bound Simmons backs Associates for next World Cup
London, March 28 (IANS) Newly-appointed West Indies coach Phil Simmons encouraged the Internati
Is the Russian President sick in the Ukraine war? Mysterious black marks visible on Putin's hand
The health of Russian President Vladimir Putin is once again in the news. The reason behind this
Kithore assembly constituency, which comes under Meerut-Hapur Lok Sabha seat, has always been in
Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal appeared in Delhi's Rouse Avenue Court today after not appearing o
Corona In Gurugram - 2401 corona infected in one day on Sunday, 2 died
Gurugram The Corona infection in April has destroyed all records so far. In the same sequence, on
Arvind Kejriwal holds Janata Darbar in Ghaziabad
Ghaziabad, Feb 18 (IANS) About 1,000 people met Delhi's new Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal at h
A case of a lapse in the security of US President Joe Biden has come to the fore. A small private
Mufti condemns Kashmir attack as 'Anti-Islamic'
Jammu, March 20 (IANS) Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammed Sayeed described as "ant
Alert in Ladakh, India-China 'eye' on Galvan river area, witness to 1962 war
New Delhi
Three days before the Corona crisis, there was news of India-China tension on b
