Neelam Yadav, Law Student, MDU - CPAS
ABSTRACT
Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution gives people the right to speech and expression whereas Section 66A of I.T. Act 2000 empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” and prescribes the punishment for sending messages through a digital mode and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail. In the landmark judgement of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 24 March, 2015 S.C. our apex court has struck down this section 66A as it was contrary to Article 19(Freedom of Speech) and article 21(Right to life). But this section is back in news as a part of on- going negotiations at the United Nations for a proposed international treaty on combating cyber-crime. India has also made a formal submission for criminalizing “offensive messages”. The language in the submission is similar to what was used in section 66A. It is contended that this will be a “backdoor” attempt at legislation- if India’s submission becomes a part of the proposed treaty. It would result in Section 66A springing back to life and being used by the state to curb free speech once again. With the help of Article 253 of the Constitution{which states that parliament has power to make law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention} and hence will place a similar provision to Section 66A back on the statute book. This paper will be a comparative study between Article 19 and Section 66A, how freedom of speech has been misused nowadays and how Section 66A will again change India from a welfare state to a totalitarian state on already existing resources.
Keywords: Constitution, Article, Section, International Treaty, Legislation
Comments