SC takes up student’s plea against IT Act, which allowed Police to Arrest Maharashtra girls

New Delhi, Nov 29 (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Attorney General G E Vahanvati, the government’s chief legal advisor, to help it in deciding a petition by a student seeking to amend the Information Technology Act, which has been used to crack down on social-media users.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Delhi student Shreya Singhal seeking changes to the IT Act, especially Section 66A, under which several people have been arrested for making comments on social media sites or over email.

Earlier in the day, voicing concern over such recent incidents, a bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir had said it was considering to take suo motu cognisance of recent incidents and wondered why nobody had so far challenged the particular provision of the IT Act.

The bench had also agreed to hear the public interest litigation later in the day.

Singhal has contended in her plea 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.”

She has submitted 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.”

The arrests which have been referred to by Singhal in her petition include that of a 21-year-old girl for questioning on Facebook the shutdown in Mumbai after Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death, which was 'liked' and shared by her friend, who was also arrested.

Singhal has also referred to an April 2012 incident, when a professor of chemistry from Jadavpur University in West Bengal, Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for posting a cartoon concerning a political figure on social networking sites.

She has also referred to the arrest of businessman Ravi Srinivasan in October 2012 by the Puducherry Police for having made a allegation on twitter against a politician from Tamil Nadu as well as the May 2012 arrests of two Air India employees, V Jaganatharao and Mayank Sharma, by the Mumbai Police under the IT Act for posting content of Facebook and Orkut against a trade union leader and some politicians.

Singhal has also sought issue of guidelines by the apex court, to “reconcile section 41 and 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code with Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution” and that offences under the Indian penal Code and any other legislation if they involve the freedom of speech and expression be treated as a non-cognizable offence for the purposes of Section 41 and Section 156 (1).

Section 41 of the CrPC empowers the police to arrest any person without an order from the magistrate and without a warrant in the event that the offence involved is a cognizable offence. Section 156 (1) empowers the investigation by the police into a cognizable offence without an order of a magistrate.

Every cloud has a silver lining.

Could this be the silver lining of the arrest faced by the girls?