The Centre on Wednesday wrote to all states, asking them to not register circumstances underneath Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, and to withdraw any circumstances filed underneath the statute which the Supreme Court had struck down in 2015.
The advisory was prompted by the Supreme Court expressing shock over circumstances nonetheless being filed underneath this part of the legislation.
However, this isn’t the primary time states have been requested to not register circumstances underneath the statute.
After the legislation was struck down in 2015, two advisories have been despatched to the states in 2019 – by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITY) and by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
The MeITY advisory, despatched on January 11, 2019, reminded the states in regards to the Supreme Court order on 66A. It mentioned, “It has been brought to our notice through an application –MA 3220 of 2018—filed in the Honourable Supreme Court that provision of this Section is still being used by some law enforcement agencies. I, therefore, request you to direct the concerned law enforcement agencies in your state to ensure compliance of Hon’able Supreme Court order… If any case has been booked in your state in this Section, it should be immediately withdrawn.”
As evident, the People’s Union of Civil Liberties — on whose petition about continued use of Section 66A, the SC expressed shock — had already filed its petition earlier than the advisory was despatched out.
The MeITY advisory was adopted by a MHA communication on January 18, 2019 to all states, asking them for knowledge on circumstances filed underneath Section 66A because the Supreme Court had requested the federal government to file a counter affidavit on PUCL’s petition.
Referring to MeITY advisory, the MHA mentioned, “Hon’able Court has passed an order dated 7-01-2019 directing UOI (MeITY) to file a counter affidavit in response to petitioner’s prayer seeking compliance w.r.t. the implementation of judgement dated 24th March, 2015, in the matter of Shreya Singhal vs UOI.”
Asking for particulars, it mentioned, “You are, therefore, to kindly confirm that the Hon’able Supreme Court’s judgement has been implemented in totality, and may also kindly furnish data for prosecution invoking Section 66A after 24.3.2015, if any, to the Secretary, MeITY, to enable filing of the counter affidavit…”
Interestingly, the primary advisory in opposition to arbitrary software of Section 66A was despatched to states two years earlier than the legislation was struck down. In this advisory, despatched on January 6, 2013, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology had suggested states to train due diligence earlier than making use of Section 66A.
“Recently sure incidents have been reported whereby Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has been invoked… in opposition to sure individuals for posting sure content material which was thought of by the police to be dangerous.
Such motion attracted lot of media consideration and resulted in protest from the civil society, residents and members of Parliament in numerous elements of the nation. Due diligence and care could also be exercised whereas coping with circumstances of alleged misuse of our on-line world,” it mentioned.
It additionally suggested states in opposition to arbitrary arrests and requested states to make sure that nobody is arrested underneath Section 66A till prior permission is taken from an officer not lower than the rank of an Inspector General of Police in metropolitan cities and Deputy Commissioner of Police in districts.
Notably, the advisory had been issued after lawyer Shreya Singhal had already filed a petition in opposition to the statute within the Supreme Court in 2012.
