S66A of cyber law unconcerned with public order, defamation:SC

Supreme Court today held that the controversial provision of section 66A in cyber law was not concerned with disruption of public order as it has "no nexus" between a message and the action that could be taken on it.
The court also said that section 66A of the Information and Technology Act does not have the ingredients to cover defamatory statements either, as it "does not concern itself with injury to reputation".
"Equally, section 66A has no proximate connection with incitement to commit an offence," a bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman said.
"Written words may be sent that may be purely in the realm of 'discussion' or 'advocacy' of a 'particular point of view'. Further, the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the Penal Code at all.

"They may be ingredients of certain offences under the Penal Code but are not offences in themselves. For these reasons, section 66A has nothing to do with 'incitement to an offence'," the court said.
On whether the provision deals with the expressions decency or morality, the court said "what may be grossly offensive or annoying under the section need not be obscene at all - in fact the word 'obscene' is conspicuous by its absence in Section 66A."

The provision, which had come under the scanner of the court after two Mumbai girls were arrested for posting and liking a comment on Facebook relating to shutdown in the city following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death, was also invoked recently against a youth in Uttar Pradesh for his post on the state minister Azam Khan.

The court also referred to various judgments of the past to hold that "expressions used in 66A are completely open-ended and undefined".
While quashing section 66A, which was brought through an amendment by previous UPA government and defended by present NDA regime, court said the provision is "unconstitutionally vague" as "every expression used is nebulous in meaning".
The court also said "there is no demarcating line" that is conveyed by any of the expressions in the provision and that is what renders section 66A vague.
The bench also referred to various judgments to hold that "... It is clear that section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right.