Modi government says it differed with UPA ministry’s stand on Section 66A of IT Act

New Delhi: Government, whose counsel had defended the constitutional validity of Section 66A of IT Act, maintained on Tuesday that it respects freedom of speech and expression and is not in favour curbing dissent on social media.

At the same time, it said it had conveyed a request to the court that government is willing to come out with additional, more stringent guidelines so as to prevent abuse of Section 66A of the Act which allows arrest of a person for posting allegedly “offensive” content on websites.

“Our government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi took a very conscious decision that we don’t support the stand of the previous government.

“We respect the freedom of speech and expression. We respect communication of ideas on social media and we are not in favour of curtailing communication of honest dissent, opinion, disapproval or criticism on social media,” Union IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said.

In a landmark judgement upholding freedom of expression, the Supreme Court today struck down a provision in the cyber law which provides power to arrest a person for posting allegedly "offensive" content on websites.

Read: Landmark judgement: Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A, calls it 'unconstitutional'

Terming liberty of thought and expression as "cardinal", a bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman said, "The public's right to know is directly affected by section 66A of the Information Technology Act."

Justice Nariman, who pronounced the verdict in a packed court room, also said that the provision "clearly affects" the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under the Constitution.

Elaborating on the grounds for holding the provision as "unconstitutional", it said terms like "annoying", "inconvenient" and "grossly offensive", used in the provision are vague as it is difficult for the law enforcement agency and the offender to know the ingredients of the offence.

In his initial comments on the Supreme Court verdict, he said the government had stressed that it will not support any interpretation of Section 66A of IT Act that curtails the ideas of freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.

“It is very important to be noted that in our affidavit filed, apart from reiterating our new position on behalf of Government of India, we have clearly conveyed that if Section 66A of the IT Act cannot be interpreted in consonance with Article 19(1) read with Article 19(2), then we don’t support that interpretation at all,” he said.

Though Prasad said he will come with a structured response once he reads the entire judgement that runs into 200 pages, he said, on government’s instruction the additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also conveyed a request to the bench that “government is willing to come out with additional more stringent guidelines so as to prevent abuse of Section 66A of the Act”.

“I am awaiting the judgement. The Government of India’s stand is quite different from the previous government’s and it has been very clear and consistent which I have just mentioned. I will come with a structured response after going through the judgement,” he said.

Read: Scrapped IT provision was poorly drafted, misused: P Chidambaram

Meanwhile, the CPI(M) also welcomed the SC judgement, saying it not only defends civil liberties and fundamental rights of citizens but has sent the "correct message" to state govts like West Bengal that they cannot suppress dissent.

"This clause, it is not so much as misuse as used by the some of the ruling governments like Mamata Banerjee's government in West Bengal to supress any kind of dissent or criticism. We hope Mamata Banerjee and leaders like that who have used 66A to supress dissent will get the correct message from the Supreme Court," CPI(M) politburo member Brinda Karat said.

Maintaining that both BJP and Congress had taken the "same anti-democratic position" on the issue, she said what the Congress had argued was the same argument that the BJP had put before the apex court.

"Both these parties have made it clear that they are not committed at all. On the contrary, they would like such clauses to be used against political dissent. Both parties have shown that they hold the same views as far as suppression of democratic dissent is concerned," Karat said.

Her senior party colleague Sitaram Yechury also termed the judgement as "a big relief" and said the provision had been used for "political vendetta against some people" which was completely unjustified.

In a statement, the CPI(M) Politburo said the "draconian" Section 66A of the IT Act was "used to arrest people who express dissenting views against the government and the State and to suppress criticism of those in power."