The
Centre issued new guidelines for arrests under a controversial provision
of the IT Act even as the Supreme Court Thursday questioned the
reaction of the state and the “might” of the police in the arrest of two
Maharashtra women for a Facebook post. Such incidents “outraged the
conscience” of many citizens, the apex court said.
The new guidelines say approval from a police officer of IGP rank in metros and DCP rank in other areas will have to be sought before registering complaints under section 66A of the Act. Section 66A provides for a jail term of up to three years, and a case under it can be registered by a police station in-charge or an inspector-rank officer.
The revised guidelines say “the concerned police officer or police station may not register any complaints unless he or it has obtained prior approval at the level of an officer not below DCP rank in urban and rural areas and IG level in metros”, a source said. However, the source said there were some “procedural difficulties”, and the Centre would soon circulate the new guidelines to all state governments.
In the Supreme Court, a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, while agreeing to admit the PIL by a law student from Delhi seeking that Section 66A be declared unconstitutional, said the matter required their “consideration”, and asked for the assistance of Attorney General G E Vahanvati to decide the legal issues involved.
“When were these girls arrested? As per media reports, they were arrested after sunset? Might of the police, it seems, got activated only after sunset,” the bench said after senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the matter and called for its immediate intervention. He cited the arrest of two girls for questioning on Facebook, Mumbai being shut down after Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s death.
Agreeing to examine the matter at length on Friday, the bench told Rohatgi that the court had also been contemplating taking suo moto cognisance of the incident. “We were wondering why no one has approached the Supreme Court over this and even thought of taking up the issue suo motu. We were waiting to see what steps you take,” it added.
“The way in which the state has reacted in this case and also the police action, we think this matter requires some consideration from us,” the bench said.
The court also took note of a similar incident in which a professor from Jadavpur University in West Bengal was arrested for allegedly posting a cartoon online showing chief minister Mamata Banerjee in poor light. This came after Rohatgi cited the incident to demand that section 66A of the IT Act be dropped since it was “vague, undefined and was being used to curtail one’s freedom of speech and expression”.
Posting the matter for Friday, the bench, however, turned down Rohatgi’s plea to pass an interim order restraining police from arresting anyone under the IT Act during pendency of the case unless prior approval of an IGP is obtained.
In her PIL, law student Shreya Singhal contended that “the phraseology of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the constitution”.
Requesting the court to issue guidelines over arrest and investigation in such cases, her plea said that “unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law as it stands, is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country”.
Print Page
The new guidelines say approval from a police officer of IGP rank in metros and DCP rank in other areas will have to be sought before registering complaints under section 66A of the Act. Section 66A provides for a jail term of up to three years, and a case under it can be registered by a police station in-charge or an inspector-rank officer.
The revised guidelines say “the concerned police officer or police station may not register any complaints unless he or it has obtained prior approval at the level of an officer not below DCP rank in urban and rural areas and IG level in metros”, a source said. However, the source said there were some “procedural difficulties”, and the Centre would soon circulate the new guidelines to all state governments.
In the Supreme Court, a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, while agreeing to admit the PIL by a law student from Delhi seeking that Section 66A be declared unconstitutional, said the matter required their “consideration”, and asked for the assistance of Attorney General G E Vahanvati to decide the legal issues involved.
“When were these girls arrested? As per media reports, they were arrested after sunset? Might of the police, it seems, got activated only after sunset,” the bench said after senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi mentioned the matter and called for its immediate intervention. He cited the arrest of two girls for questioning on Facebook, Mumbai being shut down after Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s death.
Agreeing to examine the matter at length on Friday, the bench told Rohatgi that the court had also been contemplating taking suo moto cognisance of the incident. “We were wondering why no one has approached the Supreme Court over this and even thought of taking up the issue suo motu. We were waiting to see what steps you take,” it added.
“The way in which the state has reacted in this case and also the police action, we think this matter requires some consideration from us,” the bench said.
The court also took note of a similar incident in which a professor from Jadavpur University in West Bengal was arrested for allegedly posting a cartoon online showing chief minister Mamata Banerjee in poor light. This came after Rohatgi cited the incident to demand that section 66A of the IT Act be dropped since it was “vague, undefined and was being used to curtail one’s freedom of speech and expression”.
Posting the matter for Friday, the bench, however, turned down Rohatgi’s plea to pass an interim order restraining police from arresting anyone under the IT Act during pendency of the case unless prior approval of an IGP is obtained.
In her PIL, law student Shreya Singhal contended that “the phraseology of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the constitution”.
Requesting the court to issue guidelines over arrest and investigation in such cases, her plea said that “unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law as it stands, is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country”.
No comments:
Post a Comment