The Great Indian Love Affair With Censorship

[lemontree]

And I have not even started about the crap AIB had to put up with

Just so its clear, we are talking about BOMBAY here, you know that big metropilitan, cosmo whatever it is. Not some village in cowbelt UP.

The AIB issue was initiated by some morons in the state govt in "Mumbai", and not by media or society.
Bombay, now also happens to a beeped word since the new censor board Chief jackass took over.

[Double Edge]

Bombay, now also happens to a beeped word since the new censor board Chief jackass took over.

Bombay High Court & Bombay Sappers ?

plan is to give the hindutva brigade some thing to be happy with. HRD, censor board, they make some noise here & there.Get them to settle and shut up so more important business can be done without them creating further obstacles.

[Double Edge]

Victory!

We do not have a definition for defamation or incitement. if the plaintiff said so then the cops acted on it to play it safe



66A was never debated in parliament and got passed in 2009 amongst shouting. Kapil Sibal promised to look into it but never did.

SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A | Hindu | Mar 24 2015



Updated: March 25, 2015 04:20 IST
JAYANT SRIRAM

‘It invades right to free speech, every expression used in it is nebulous’

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is unconstitutional in its entirety, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday striking down a “draconian” provision that had led to the arrests of many people for posting content deemed to be “allegedly objectionable” on the Internet.

“It is clear that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right,” said a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton F. Nariman. The definition of offences under the provision was “open-ended and undefined”, it said.

The Bench turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites and exemption from liability of intermediaries in certain cases, respectively.

In the judgment, the court said the liberty of thought and expression was a cardinal value of paramount significance under the Constitution. Three concepts fundamental in understanding the reach of this right were discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion, or even advocacy, of a particular cause, no matter how unpopular it was, was at the heart of the right to free speech and it was only when such discussion or advocacy reached the level of incitement that it could be curbed on the ground of causing public disorder.

The court then went on to say that Section 66A actually had no proximate connection with public order or with incitement to commit an offence. “The information disseminated over the Internet need not be information which ‘incites’ anybody at all. Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of ‘discussion’ or ‘advocacy’ of a ‘particular point of view’. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the [Indian] Penal Code at all,” the court held.

Holding several terms used in the law to define the contours of offences as “open-ended, undefined and vague”, the court said: “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not cause annoyance or inconvenience to another.”

The court pointed out that a penal law would be void on the grounds of vagueness if it failed to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. “Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place,” the court said.

SC rejects Centre’s plea

Striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre’s plea that it was committed to free speech and would ensure that the provision was administered in a reasonable manner.

“If Section 66A is otherwise invalid, it cannot be saved by an assurance from the learned Additional Solicitor-General that it will be administered in a reasonable manner. Governments may come and governments may go, but Section 66A goes on forever. An assurance from the present government, even if carried out faithfully, would not bind any successor govt.,” the court said.

:danc:

PS
Link to SC judgement : SHREYA SINGHAL Vs. U.O.I | Mar 24 2015 or pdf

[Oracle]

/\/\/\ Why are you partying? Your posts always favor the Government in power.

A great ruling by the hon'ble Supreme Court.

[Double Edge]

The girl who saved freedom of speech: Meet 24-year-old student Shreya Singhal | Firstpost | Mar 25 2015



In 2012, senior lawyer Manali Singhal, while having a discussion with her daughter about the arrest of two girls over a Facebook post under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act in Palghar, asked the latter to file a PIL in the Supreme Court if she was so concerned about freedom of speech and expression.

Three years later, on 24 March, 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act on the basis of the PIL filed by Manali Singhal's daughter.

"As it often happens at home, a discussion turned into a debate and an argument. I asked her, if you are so concerned, then why don't you file a PIL? Two days later she had the first draft ready. She had worked on it with a lawyer," The Times of India quoted Manali Singhal as saying.

Shreya Singhal, the 24-year-old law student who is now being hailed as the girl who saved free speech, was the first to petition against the draconian Section 66A, the provision in the cyber law which provided power to arrest a person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites.

Section 66A had been used by political parties like the Shiv Sena, Trinamool Congress and Samajwadi Party to get people arrested for posting online content against their leaders.

Elaborating on the grounds for holding the provision as “unconstitutional”, the Supreme Court had said that terms like “annoying”, “inconvenient” and “grossly offensive”, used in Section 66A are vague as it is difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to know the ingredients of the offence.

The first petition against this provision in the IT Act was filed by Shreya in November 2012, a day or two after a dinnertime discussion with her mother over the arrest of Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan for a Facebook post against the alleged shutdown of Mumbai due to the death of the then Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray.

Shreya spent three years studying astrophysics in the Bristol University in the UK, according to NDTV, before her gap year in 2012, which she used to apply to law schools in India. She will be the fifth generation lawyer in her family once she formally qualifies, according to Hindustan Times. Her grandmother Sunanda Bhandare was a judge with the Delhi High Court, according to The Telegraph. She is currently a second-year law student in the Delhi University.

The Palghar incident took place when she came back to India in July 2012. Shreya was shocked by the incident. "It could have been me or my friend. How could one be arrested for questioning a shutdown of the city and also for liking the post," Shreya recalled telling her mother.

She filed her petition with the support of lawyers Ninad Laud and Ranjita Rohtagi, according to Huffington Post. Her petition was argued by former Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, who appeared free of cost for Shreya, according to The Telegraph report.

The hardest part for her was the long wait in the case. "The judgment itself came in less than a month...But the journey itself has taken two and a half years," Huffington Post quoted her as saying.

After the apex court's verdict on Tuesday, a smiling Shreya told CNN-IBN, "I am ecstatic...I am very happy with the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has upheld the rights of the citizens today and it is a great day for everyone."

Talking about the draconian Section 66A, Shreya said, "It was a very vague section and it was being misused all the way upto 2 weeks ago where there was an arrest in UP."

"I don't want people to be scared to say something on the internet if they're not scared to say something in person. The internet as a medium connects you so instantly, and you can't curtail that right. It's so fundamental," she said.