New Delhi: The Supreme Court has expressed surprise over the registration of FIRs across the country on the basis of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. In 2015, the court had struck down this section. The court was informed through a petition that even after the verdict, about 1 thousand cases have been registered under this section across the country. The court has asked the Center to reply on the matter in 2 weeks.
What’s the matter?
Under Section 66A added in the IT Act in 2009, the police were empowered to arrest anyone on the basis of what was written on the Internet. A number of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court on the basis of its misuse across the country. On 24 March 2015, a bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Rohinton Nariman of the Supreme Court, while delivering the verdict on these petitions, termed Section 66A as a violation of freedom of expression and personal freedom in the FIR. The court struck down the section.
The NGO People’s Union Phir Civil Liberty (PUCL) had filed a petition in the Supreme Court and informed that the police is still using this section across the country. Even after the court’s decision in 2015, this section has been added in 1307. Today the matter was taken up in the bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai.
After hearing senior advocate Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioner, the bench’s chairman Justice Nariman said, “It is shocking and disturbing that people are still facing this section.” The counsel for the petitioner told the court that information about the Supreme Court’s decision has been sent to all the High Courts. The High Court has also issued appropriate directions to the lower courts. But the police is still adding this section to the FIR.
Important changes will happen soon
During the hearing, Attorney General KK Venugopal, who was present in the court, told the court that this section is still written in the Act. Venugopal said, “The section is still in the Act. Just the Supreme Court’s decision has been mentioned at the bottom of that page. The quashing of the section should have been written along with it. This mistake was rectified soon.” Will go.” After this, the court put the matter for hearing after 2 weeks, giving time to the Attorney General to respond.
Read this also.