New Delhi: The Ministry of Home Affairs on Wednesday wrote to all states and Union regions asking them to instruct the police station in their jurisdictions not to register new cases under Section 66A from the Information Technology Act and also immediately withdraw the case after Enhanced.
, It came a few days after the Supreme Court said it was surprising that people were still ordered and tried under the removed section six years ago.
Section 66a of the IT Law, 2000 states that everyone who by electronic means information is very offensive or has a threatening character; Or whatever information he knows is wrong, but for the purpose of causing disruption, discomfort, danger, obstruction, insults must be punished with prison sentences that can be expanded to three years and well.
The Supreme Court has an assessment on March 24, 2015 in terms of Shreya Singhal vs.
Union of India, crashing into parts 66A, call it “vague” and “arbitrary”.
MHA on Wednesday says this makes the 66A null part and canceled with the effect of the SC order date and therefore there is no action that can be taken in this section.
In addition to asking the State and UTS to direct all police stations under their jurisdiction not to register cases under the departure of the revoked 66A, MHA requested to be sensitive to law enforcement agencies for orders compliance issued by the Supreme Court at 24.03.2015.
The ministry of the house also requested that if there were cases ordered under the revoked section, it must be pulled immediately.
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), a civil rights group, had last week informing the APEX court that 745 cases were being tried under Section 66A were still delayed before various court trials in 11 states.
In an application that was submitted in front of the top field, PUCL claimed prosecution based on the released law continued not only in the police station, but also in cases before the court throughout India.
In some cases, the court court continued with the cost breaking under the dead TI provisions, even after finding out to find out the judgment of the Court, SC was told.
SC, while expressing distress and surprises in Section 66A is still used six years after it declare it as “vague and arbitrary”, giving the government two weeks to submit the answer, and PUCL is given a week to submit the answer.
The Center asks to declare not submitting a case below section 66A acting
