SHOULD WE REDRAFT OR SCRAP SECTION 66A
OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
A FEW STRAY THOUGHTS
By Anirban Roy, Advocate
1
Written / spoken words are undesirable when they
1. Incite 2. Defame 3. Threaten 4. Abuse. Hence some cases treated as offences
u/IPC.
2
IPC Sections at Society Level: 124A deals with
Sedition. 153, 153A, 153B & 295A deal with Offences against Public
Tranquility/Religion.
3
At an individual level, Section 499 IPC deals
with Defamation which is lowering image in esteem of others. Abuse NOT
Defamation.
4
Another IPC Section at individual level is 503
for threats given for doing/not doing something. Threat is material.
Consequence isn't.
5
Another IPC Section at individual level is 504
for intentional insult made to provoke into committing offence / breaking
peace.
6
As is case with 503, even with 504, offence is
complete with intentional insult. Doesn’t matter if the other remains cool as
cucumber.
7
Another Section of IPC under heading “Criminal
Intimidation, Insult & Annoyance” (YES ANNOYANCE) is 505 dealing with
public mischief.
8
Lastly Section 509 IPC deals with words
outraging modesty of a woman. Mere abuses not covered under this Section.
9
There are no Sections of IPC dealing with mere
abuses, however filthy they may be unless covered by any of the aforesaid
cases.
10
Similarly, Contempt Laws aside, IPC DOES NOT
TREAT criticism of Government, Courts or Legislature as offences.
11
Most of the IPC Sections dealing with offensive
words have been held to be constitutional by #SupremeCourt .
12
Information Technology Act, by way of Section
#66A , introduced more offences relating to words used in electronic media in 3
parts.
13
Firstly, Section #66A makes words in electronic
media which are “Grossly offensive or has menancing character” an offence.
14
Secondly, Section #66A makes false messages to
annoy, intimidate etc an offence. Thirdly sending spam messages is also
offence.
15
First two acts sought to be covered under
Section #66A are actually covered under IPC. Need to re-enact them is not
understood.
16
It was possibly felt that act of person has far
greater reach & impact by electronic media. Hence special provision of #66A
is needed.
17
Unfortunately however, #66A is loosely worded.
Hence effect of #66A more pronounced than intended. Almost anything can be an
offence.
18
Mere abuse which was never offence is now
offence as is rude joke, sarcastic remark etc. Infact impact on receiver is
more relevant.
19
No major difference in mechanism of
implementation. Just that, due to vague definition, scope of misuse is higher than IPC Sections.
20
No civilized society can claim unfettered right
to incite, defame & threaten. Even abuse those who cannot take it in
stride.
21
There is urgent need to re-draft #66A to meet
desired objectives & prevent misuse. There is certainly no case for total
scrapping.
Anirban Roy
November
27, 2012
Email: anirban@royslawfirm.com
Twitter :
@AnirbanFromRLF
Facebook: Anirban FromRlf