THE Indian Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a law that gave authorities powers to jail people for putting offensive online posts, a verdict hailed as a victory for free speech in the world’s largest growth market for the Internet. Section 66A of India’s Information and Technology (IT) Act was challenged in the country’s top court by law students, bloggers, writers and rights groups following arrests across the country for statements of critical nature posted on social media sites.
Justices Jasti Chelameshwar and Rohinton F Nariman in their judgment said they found “the law hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression”. “Our Constitution provides for liberty of thought, expression and belief. In a democracy, these values have to be provided within constitutional scheme. The law (Section 66A) is vague in its entirety,” they said.
The petitioners argued the “draconian law” introduced in 2008 by the previous government is being misused by politicians to hound critics. The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi said it welcomed the ruling. “The government absolutely respects the right to freedom of speech and expression on social media and has no intention of curbing it,” Telecom and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said.
Facebook, Twitter and Google did not immediately comment on the ruling but the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a trade body, said the ruling protected consumers and businesses. “This judgment will herald a new phase in the growth and evolution of the Internet in India,” the group said in a statement that also hailed a separate part of the judgment that makes it harder to force websites to take down content.
On the other hand, our ICT Act, passed in 2006 by the party now in opposition — the BNP, and amended by the party currently in power — Awami League, makes it possible for law enforcers to hold a person in confinement indefinitely without bail and makes certain offences non bailable and non referable. The new amendments also bring the law into conflict with the nation’s Right to Information Act. Enacted in 2009, this Act recognizes freedom of speech as one of the basic rights of citizens and promotes proactive disclosure from government and non-government agencies to ensure transparency and curb corruption.
The law appears to have been written, and fine-tuned, to satisfy the political needs of the administration who wish to retain broad power over critical voices in society. Many fear the law may be used to detain government critics for indefinite periods without bail, giving near absolute power to the investigating agencies and leaving regular citizens with very little opportunity for recourse. Evidently there are lessons we can learn from our neighbour in matters related to free speech.
Justices Jasti Chelameshwar and Rohinton F Nariman in their judgment said they found “the law hit at the root of liberty and freedom of expression”. “Our Constitution provides for liberty of thought, expression and belief. In a democracy, these values have to be provided within constitutional scheme. The law (Section 66A) is vague in its entirety,” they said.
The petitioners argued the “draconian law” introduced in 2008 by the previous government is being misused by politicians to hound critics. The government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi said it welcomed the ruling. “The government absolutely respects the right to freedom of speech and expression on social media and has no intention of curbing it,” Telecom and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said.
Facebook, Twitter and Google did not immediately comment on the ruling but the Internet and Mobile Association of India, a trade body, said the ruling protected consumers and businesses. “This judgment will herald a new phase in the growth and evolution of the Internet in India,” the group said in a statement that also hailed a separate part of the judgment that makes it harder to force websites to take down content.
On the other hand, our ICT Act, passed in 2006 by the party now in opposition — the BNP, and amended by the party currently in power — Awami League, makes it possible for law enforcers to hold a person in confinement indefinitely without bail and makes certain offences non bailable and non referable. The new amendments also bring the law into conflict with the nation’s Right to Information Act. Enacted in 2009, this Act recognizes freedom of speech as one of the basic rights of citizens and promotes proactive disclosure from government and non-government agencies to ensure transparency and curb corruption.
The law appears to have been written, and fine-tuned, to satisfy the political needs of the administration who wish to retain broad power over critical voices in society. Many fear the law may be used to detain government critics for indefinite periods without bail, giving near absolute power to the investigating agencies and leaving regular citizens with very little opportunity for recourse. Evidently there are lessons we can learn from our neighbour in matters related to free speech.
