NEW DELHI: In a passionate debate on section 66A of the IT Act in the Upper House on Friday, several MPs strongly supported the amendment of the section. Most called it " anti-democratic"; one MP from Karnataka even called it an instance of " legislative terrorism". The resolution for amendment of section 66A was moved by CPM MP from Kerala, P Rajeeve. The Union minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal is expected to respond when the House reconvenes next week.
MPs such as Gyan Prakash Pilania of the BJP, D. Bandyopadhyay of the AITC and Baishnab Parida of the BJD, Narendra Kumar Kashyap of the BSP and Basavaraj Patil of the BJP supported the resolution. INC MP from Odisha Rama Chandra Khuntia partially supported the motion, differing on the point of reducing the scope to one-to-one communication. Goa MP Shantaram Naik of INC opposed the resolution, saying misuse of a law isn't strong enough reason to scrap or amend it.
P Rajeeve questioned the distinction between print, visual and new media (internet) when it came to freedom of speech. "Most print and visual media have published cartoons, stories or editorials that are more critical than online content. But they are not booked. Why is this not allowed to new media?"
As for Sibal's position of putting in place guidelines when enforcing 66A, Rajeeve said that the guidelines were in contravention of the parent Act. According to Sibal's proposed guidelines, a complaint can be registered only after authorization of the Inspector General of Police or the Director General of Police. Sections 78 and 80 of the IT Act allow any police officer "not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police" to investigate and make arrests. "These guidelines do not have the force of law," said Rajeeve.
Rajeeve also pointed out how the bill was passed without discussion. "The bill was passed in seven minutes on 23 December 2008 -- the last day of the winter session -- without any discussion," he said. He further noted how the jail terms for the same offences, such as defamation, causing nuisance etc, were longer under the IT Act than under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
During question hour, Sibal had defended the current shape of the law by citing the US and the UK laws that deal with internet governance. Responding to that, Rajeeve called the drafting of the Indian Act a "poor cut and paste exercise". He quoted parts of the Indian Act that were verbatim taken from the UK ones before pointing out one difference. "It is important to note that it (the UK law) deals with information sent from one person to another," said Rajeeve, adding that hence, it was not applicable in social media where the act has been invoked in India so far.
Independent MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar recommended that "reducing the scope of Section 66A to direct communications would make it less prone to misuse."
Both ministers also quoted from the archaic Indian Post Office Act which prohibits sending by post materials of "grossly offensive character," a phrase that has come in for scrutiny for vagueness within the IT Act as well. "The big difference between Section 20 (b) of the IPO Act and Section 66A of the IT Act is that the former is clearly restricted to one-to-one communication, as is the case of almost all the international precedents being referred to by the Hon'ble Minister," said Chandrasekhar.
Section 66A of IT Act undemocratic: RS MPs
This article
Section 66A of IT Act undemocratic: RS MPs
can be opened in url
http://newsepiscopant.blogspot.com/2012/12/section-66a-of-it-act-undemocratic-rs.html
Section 66A of IT Act undemocratic: RS MPs
