New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that “terrible and troublesome” that the application of state 66A from the action of information technology to arrest people to post social media continues, six years after the court has removed it from the statuta book because it is a violation of the right to Freedom of speech is guaranteed based on Article 19 of the Constitution.
Appearing for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh informed RF Nariman Judges, KM Joseph and BR Gavai who ignored the laws declared Void, the police who were too excited throughout America had ordered many people under the section 66A after being canceled.
Not only that, misuse of provisions continued even after the APEX court in 2019, responded to the PUCL petition, asking the main secretary to attach the police to use the section.
Taking a petition, a bench led by Judge Nariman, who has written a Rating March 24, 2015 at Shreya Singhal Case which attacks the part 66a, “Extraordinary is what I can say.
What is happening is terrible and troublesome.
How the provision can be called by the police Even six years after the Supreme Court has come down? “Parikh said that it was surprising that more cases under Section 66A had registered post-2015 assessments.
He said Maharashtra, who has registered 349 cases before assessment, registered 381 more firs called part 66a.
Uttar Pradesh just registered 22 cases before 2015, but the police went on to submit 245 cases after the assessment.
Jharkhand only had 43 fir before assessment, but continued to register 291 firs after March 2015.
Rajasthan had 75 cases, but then registered 192 post-judgments.
“Surprisingly is the right word to use,” said Judge Nariman and asked the United States to submit a response to Pucl Plea, who asked the court to direct the center to collect data on all cases registered by the police and pending trials under Section 66a, and Send communication to all courts and DGP to close the case / stop using the provisions that are beaten.
“We will do something,” Judge Nariman assured the applicant before turning to the Attorney General for Venugopal for the initial explanation with “shocking” ignoring by the police from the Supreme Court’s assessment, which was based on Article 142 of the Constitution of Legal.
throughout India.
Venugopal offers a reasonable explanation: “All post-assessment publications from the Information Technology Act containing part 66A with footnotes in a small font that have been hit by the Supreme Court.
Rarely a police officer reading footnotes.
That might be why this is surprising the bottom.
Called.
“SC asked the center to submit a response in two weeks.
Pucl said they had to rely on personal website statistics on misuse section 66a even after it was surprised because the government website did not compile information about this problem.
“The cases listed are only below Section 66A, which should be closed after the assessment, still continuing …
The experimental court has passed orders for cost frames in section 66a even though the provisions have occurred.
Not only have these cases where the accusation is Under part 66a was raised along with other violations, but urgently revealed the framed costs solely for violations under Section 66a, “claimed.
In Singhal Shreya’s assessment, SC has hit the part of the 66A ACT and section 118 (d) of the Kerala police law, both of them are the same.
It has survived that “section 66a creates unclear and excessive violations, and, therefore, is not constitutional based on article 19 (1) (a) (a) …
we also argue that a broader circulation range on the internet is not Can limit content from the right under Article 19 (1) (a) also cannot justify the rejection.
What is said about Section 66A will apply directly to section 118 (d) of the police law Kerala.
“However, it upholds constitutional validity Part 69A from Act It.