Citizens cannot be prosecuted for violating Section 66A of IT Act: SC

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said no citizen can be prosecuted for violation of section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The court noted that the Supreme Court had scrapped the said section that granted government powers of arrest for grossly offensive information posted online. However, it said cases were still being registered.

The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices SR Bhat and Ajay Rastogi also directed for deleting the allegations and portions of cases where citizens are still facing prosecution under the stuck down section.
It also asked the home secretaries and director generals of police to ensure that the police force does not register any complaint or crime with respect to alleged violation of section 66A. 

Clarifying that this direction only applies with respect to the offences punishable under section 66A, the bench said, “If in the crime in question, other offences are also alleged then only reference and reliance in section 66A alone shall not be made.”

The bench also said readers of any government, semi-government or private publication on the IT Act should be made aware of the fact that section 66A has been struck down by the court. Earlier, SC had asked the Centre to get in touch with the chief secretary of errant states and impress upon them to take remedial measures and had granted the centre three weeks to complete the exercise.

The top court’s order came in a plea filed by NGO People Union for Civil Liberties PUCL which complained that cases under 66A were still being registered irrespective of the court’s clear pronouncement of declaring the draconian law as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal’s case. 

In 2021, a bench headed by Justice RF Nariman remarked that they were “amazed” that FIRs were being filed under the quashed provision. It had issued notice to all the states and had asked the Centre to explain its legal stand.

ALSO IN TOP COURT

Karnataka hijab ban verdict today

The apex court will on Thursday pronounce verdict in pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s ruling of upholding ban of hijab in educational institutions. A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia had reserved verdict in September. The hearing had witnessed battery of senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Salman Khurshid, Rajeev Dhawan, Sanjay Hegde, Devdutt Kamat arguing against the ban. For the State, submissions were made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, state AG Prabhuling Navadgi and ASG KM Nataraj.

Reply sought on note ban pleas

New Delhi: Remarking hat it was aware of the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ on judicial review of policy decisions made by the government, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed to consider the pleas challenging Modi government’s 2016 decision to ban notes of `1,000 & `500 denominations. 
Reviving the pleas, which were lying in the judicial closet since 2016, the bench asked the Centre and RBI to file their detailed affidavits. Posting the pleas for November 9, the apex court said, “We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the manner in which it was done has to be examined. We have to hear the counsel to decide that.” “Normally when issues are raised before the constitution bench, it’s the duty of the bench to answer them,” the bench remarked. The bench also said that it had to be decided whether the issue had become a “mere academic” exercise.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said no citizen can be prosecuted for violation of section 66A of the Information Technology Act. The court noted that the Supreme Court had scrapped the said section that granted government powers of arrest for grossly offensive information posted online. However, it said cases were still being registered. The bench of CJI UU Lalit, Justices SR Bhat and Ajay Rastogi also directed for deleting the allegations and portions of cases where citizens are still facing prosecution under the stuck down section. It also asked the home secretaries and director generals of police to ensure that the police force does not register any complaint or crime with respect to alleged violation of section 66A.  Clarifying that this direction only applies with respect to the offences punishable under section 66A, the bench said, “If in the crime in question, other offences are also alleged then only reference and reliance in section 66A alone shall not be made.” The bench also said readers of any government, semi-government or private publication on the IT Act should be made aware of the fact that section 66A has been struck down by the court. Earlier, SC had asked the Centre to get in touch with the chief secretary of errant states and impress upon them to take remedial measures and had granted the centre three weeks to complete the exercise. The top court’s order came in a plea filed by NGO People Union for Civil Liberties PUCL which complained that cases under 66A were still being registered irrespective of the court’s clear pronouncement of declaring the draconian law as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal’s case.  In 2021, a bench headed by Justice RF Nariman remarked that they were “amazed” that FIRs were being filed under the quashed provision. It had issued notice to all the states and had asked the Centre to explain its legal stand. ALSO IN TOP COURT Karnataka hijab ban verdict today The apex court will on Thursday pronounce verdict in pleas challenging Karnataka HC’s ruling of upholding ban of hijab in educational institutions. A bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia had reserved verdict in September. The hearing had witnessed battery of senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave, Salman Khurshid, Rajeev Dhawan, Sanjay Hegde, Devdutt Kamat arguing against the ban. For the State, submissions were made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, state AG Prabhuling Navadgi and ASG KM Nataraj. Reply sought on note ban pleas New Delhi: Remarking hat it was aware of the ‘Lakshman Rekha’ on judicial review of policy decisions made by the government, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court agreed to consider the pleas challenging Modi government’s 2016 decision to ban notes of `1,000 & `500 denominations.  Reviving the pleas, which were lying in the judicial closet since 2016, the bench asked the Centre and RBI to file their detailed affidavits. Posting the pleas for November 9, the apex court said, “We always know where the Lakshman Rekha is, but the manner in which it was done has to be examined. We have to hear the counsel to decide that.” “Normally when issues are raised before the constitution bench, it’s the duty of the bench to answer them,” the bench remarked. The bench also said that it had to be decided whether the issue had become a “mere academic” exercise.