NEWS  Several steps can be taken to ensure that people are not booked under laws held unconstitutional.

CONTEXT

• Recently, the Supreme Court had expressed shock that despite its declaration of Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 as being unconstitutional six years ago in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, criminal cases are still being registered by the police under this Section.
• As per the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), 1,307 cases had been registered since 2015 across States.

SECTION 66A OF IT ACT, 2000

• The section gave authorities the power to arrest anyone accused of posting content on social media that could be deemed ‘offensive’.
• It provided punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services.
  • A conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail and a fine.
• In 2015, the Supreme Court had declared Section 66A of the IT Act, violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • The court stated that the act does not come under the ambit of reasonable restrictions defined in Article 19(2).

SHREYA SINGHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA (2015)

• In this case, the Supreme Court had declared Section 66A of the IT Act, violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • The court stated that the act does not come under the ambit of reasonable restrictions defined in Article 19(2).
• Also the court ruled that section did not distinguish between speech that was merely “offensive or annoying” and that which was guilty of inciting a disruption of public order.
• It had said that the expressions used in Section 66A were open-ended, undefined and therefore arbitrary.

CONCERNS

• Despite the declaration of several provisions as unconstitutional, criminal cases are still being registered by the police under these provisions.
• Other similar trends have been noticed regarding other provisions struck down by the Supreme court:
  • Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provided capital punishment for murder by a person serving a life term in another case.
  • Section 377 of the IPC, which criminalised “unnatural sex”.
  • adultery as defined under Section 497 of the IPC, which was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the dignity of a woman.

WAY FORWARD

• Police officers need to be educated in order to avoid faulty registration of offences under sections held unconstitutional.
• Police must ensure that no FIR is registered under unconstitutional sections and no one is harassed for the negligent actions of SHOs.
  • There should be appropriate accountability measures in place to fix responsibility on the erring officer.
  • Those responsible for the negligence should not only be answerable to the courts for contempt but also be liable for departmental action.
• Also, the unconstitutional sections of the IPC can be disabled in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS).
• The Court must come out with appropriate guidelines against the registering of FIRs under unconstitutional provisions.

Reference:

1. https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/disable-unconstitutional-sections/article35309107.ece