It is shocking. We will issue notice: Supreme Court on Continued Use of Scrapped Section 66A of IT Act

A bench of Justices RF Nariman, KM Joseph and BR Gavai issued notice in a plea by an NGO - the People Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) - seeking directions to the centre to advise all police stations against registering FIRs under this law, as more than 1,000 cases have been filed invoking Section 66A of the IT Act despite it being struck down seven years ago. "It is shocking. We will issue notice," the bench said. "Amazing. What is going on is terrible.” Justice Nariman added.

Section 66A of Information Technology Act that allowed authorities to arrest individuals for posting "offensive" content online was struck down by the Supreme Court in March 2015. There have been many instances in which police have used this section to arrest people for posting critical comments on social networking sites about social and political issues and political leaders.

Sanjay Parikh, senior advocate for PUCL, stated that 687 cases were filed under Section 66A before it was struck down. Parikh said around 1307 cases are pending since the section was struck down.

AG K K Venugopal said the Acts published after striking down of Sec 66A still contained the provision with a small footnote that says the SC has struck down the Section. "It is shocking, distressing and amazing that police across the country are still registering cases under Section 66A of Information Technology Act", the bench said.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog