But what about Section 69A?

As your social media timeline is flooded with news of a pathbreaking verdict by the Supreme Court of India on freedom of speech, there is reason to pause. While holding that Section 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, is unconstitutional and laying down guidelines for online takedowns under the intermediary rules, the court, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, has upheld Section 69A and the blocking rules framed under it.

Click here to continue reading

Sitting Down For Patriotism

The case of M. Salman, a 25- year old philosophy student, arrested in Thiruvananthapuram on 19 August 2014, for his refusing to stand while the national anthem was played in a cinema during a screening, highlights the legal provisions that stifle dissent. He was finally granted bail on September 22, 2014, and is currently out on bail, but still faces the prospect of a life term in prison if found guilty of sedition by the judicial process.

Click here to continue reading

Dangerous law that must go soon #Sec66A

In this I tackle the second argument which is made in the defense of Sec. 66A fails on the first (i.e. the problems are not with the provision but its implementation). The second argument is an appeal to emotion, stating that Sec. 66A helps in cases of online harassment and abuse directed towards women. Through this article I argue this is a disingenuous argument.

Click here to continue reading

A flawed act #Sec66A

Rarely has one single section of the law spurred such intense debate on issues of free speech and the limits which should be placed on it for internet communications. The section in question is 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provides for a three year jail term for offensive communications.

Click here to continue reading

Virtual Menace

The debate about Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is growing heated. As more cases of its abuse surface, even Communications and IT Minister Kapil Sibal has begun to mull changes to the act. The key question to be probed is whether individual actions booked under the provision are isolated instances of abuse or the section itself flawed.

Click here to continue reading