In a landmark declaration which is expected to settle some much talked about cases related to the curbing of free speech online, Section 66A of the Indian Constitution’s IT Act has been declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This particular section provides the police with the power to arrest anyone who in their opinion, posts objectionable content online.
Moreover, it also allows for a three-year jail term to be allotted to the perpetrators of such acts. The Supreme Court bench declared that the public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66A. But the most important part about this new assertion from the bench was that the section clearly affects the right to freedom of speech and expression which forms the backbone of India’s constitution.
This historic declaration from the SC came as a result of a PIL that was filed by a law student named Shreya Singhal with reference to the high-profile arrest of two girls, one of whom posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray’s death, with the other having ‘liked’ it. More recently, a student from Uttar Pradesh was arrested by the police for a Facebook post offending Samajwadi Party politician, Azam Khan.
Also Read: Indian govt plays with free speech online, leads in Facebook content restriction requests
The Supreme Court bench revealed that Section 66A has been found to be unconstitutional owing to the fact that it failed two major tests covering the clear and present danger test and the tendency to create public disorder test. It was even observed that the language used in the section is vague and imprecise.
Despite this landmark declaration, the Supreme Court has still reserved the government’s right to block websites in cases where their content has the potential to create communal disturbance, social disorder or affect India’s relationship with other nations.