Law and practice
- PDP, BJP seal alliance to form government in Jammu & Kashmir
- RK Pachauri, accused of sexual harassment, quits UN climate change panel
- Centre's land bill is anti-farmer, says Kejriwal at Anna protest rally
- SpiceJet launches low-fare offer for Holi; one lakh seats on the block
- BJP defends Bhagwat, claims Mother Teresa admitted she was not a social worker
Apex court is seized of the IT Act's 66A, but tightening the law may not be sufficient to prevent its misuse
Thanks to a PIL, the Supreme Court has come to grips with the controversial Article 66A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008, which has been misused to penalise political dissent. The three clauses of the section are designed to criminalise improper communications online, ranging from menacing messages to spam, but they are phrased in ambiguous terms and can be easily misinterpreted. Problematic terms include "grossly offensive", "annoyance" and "insult", which are open to subjective interpretation. The Supreme Court has said it was waiting to be approached in this matter, indicating that it will suggest a course correction in the Act to deter misuse while retaining its potency against genuine wrongdoing.
Tightening the law alone may be insufficient. Its language can be made more specific to reduce opportunities for wilful misinterpretation, but an exhaustively detailed law may also be too rigid to cover all bases in a rapidly evolving medium. The original IT Act of 2000 had to be amended in 2008 because the Internet had developed new platforms and usages like blogging. And even then, social media was not quite the phenomenon that it is today. A law that narrowly defines punishable behaviour may be unable to anticipate future behaviour, and may be resistant to interpretation by the courts. At the same time, according excessive discretionary powers would invite misuse. A mean must be discovered between these extremes.