jurisdictional magistrateremanded
Kanojia to custody for 14 daysfor his
socialmediapostsandtweets.“We
are notinclined to sit back on tech-
nicalgrounds,”thebench saidand
justified its interventionin viewof
the excessiveness of the action taken.
Kanojia’s arrestled to protestsby
mediapersons. TheEditorsGuildof
Indiadescribedthepolice action as
an “authoritarianmisuseof lawsand
an effortto intimidatethepress”.It
soughtdecriminalisationof thede-
famationlawandcalledtheinvoca-
tionof theprovisions of theIndian
PenalCode(IPC)andtheInforma-
tionTechnology(IT)Act, 2000 , as
motivatedandvindictive.Kanojia’s
arrestwasfollowed by the arrestsof
EshikaSingh,managingdirectorof a
privatetelevision newschannel,Na-
tionLive,andAnujShukla,the chan-
nel’smanaging editor, for telecasting
thecontroversial video clip. The
show’sanchor,AnshulKaushik,was
alsoarrestedon June11, closeon the
heelsof the SupremeCourt’sorderto
releaseKanojia. Theorderseemsto
havehadlittleeffecton the Gautam
BudhNagarDistrictCourt,which
refusedto entertainthe bailpleasof
the arrestedmediapersons.
TheNetwork of Women in Me-
dia, the Indian Women’s Press
Corps,the PressClubof India,South
AsianWomen in Mediaand the
Press Association issued a joint
statementcondemningthearrests.
Hundredsof mediapersons andact-
ivistsstageda protestmarchin New
Delhion June 10, describingthe ar-
restsas an attack on the freedomof
expression.
SECTION66AOFITACT
In 2015, the Supreme Courtdeclared
Section 66Aof the IT Act, 2000 ,ul-
travirestheConstitution inShreya
Singhalvs Unionof India. Thispro-
visionsoughtto penalise“anyperson
whosends,by meansof a computer
resource or a communicationdevice
(a) anyinformationthatis grossly
offensiveor has menacing character;
(b) anyinformationthathe knowsto
be false,butfor the purpose of caus-
ing annoyance, inconvenience,
danger,obstruction, insult,injury,
criminal intimidation, enmity,
hatredor ill-willpersistentlyby mak-
ing use of suchcomputer resourceor
a communication device;and(c) any
electronicmailor electronic mail
message for thepurpose of causing
annoyanceor inconvenience or to
deceiveor to mislead theaddressee
or recipientaboutthe origin of such
messages, shallbe punishablewith
imprisonment for a termwhichmay
extendto threeyearsandwithfine.”
ThecourtstruckdownSection
66Asayingit wasvague,wentover-
boardandwasinconsistent withany
of thespecified groundsunderArt-
icle19(2)of the Constitution,which
justifyrestrictionson the freedom of
expression.Thetwo-judge benchof
JusticesJ. ChelameswarandRohin-
ton F. Narimanhadsaidin its order:
“It is clearthatSection66Aarbitrar-
ily,excessivelyanddisproportion-
atelyinvades the rightof freespeech
andupsetsthe balancebetweensuch
rightandthe reasonablerestrictions
thatmaybe imposedon suchright.”
Thedefinitionof offences underthe
provision was“open-ended andun-
defined”, it said.
Thecourtsaid:“Theinformation
disseminated overthe Internetneed
notbe informationwhich‘incites’
anybody at all. Writtenwordsmaybe
sentthatmaybe purelyin the realm
of ‘discussion’or ‘advocacy’ of a ‘par-
ticularpointof view’.Further, the
merecausing of annoyance,incon-
venience, danger, etc., or beinggrosslyoffensiveor having a men-
acingcharacterare notoffences un-
der the [Indian]PenalCodeat all.”
However, it appears that the
newsof the demiseof Section66A,at
the handsof the SupremeCourt, has
notyet reachedsomeof theStates
whosepolicecontinue to invokethe
provisions.Onbeingtoldthatthe
theseprovisions hadbeenconsigned
to thearchivesof history,theyhave
no compunctionin relyingon its
grounds,evenif theyhaveto citean
irrelevantlegalprovision.SECION 500,IPC,INVOKED
KanojiawasbookedunderSection
500 (defamation) of theIPCand
Section66 of the IT Act.Section 66
saysthatif anyperson, dishonestly or
fraudulently,doesanyact referredto
in Section43, he shallbe punishable
withimprisonment for a term,which
mayextendto threeyears,or with
fine, whichmayextendto Rs.5lakh,
or withboth.Section43 dealswith
penaltyandcompensationfor dam-
ageto computer,computersystem,
etc.
Section 500 of the IPCdealswith
criminaldefamation,whichis a non-
cognisable offence.Thatis, the police
cantakecognisance of it onlyaftera
privatecomplaintis madeby the ag-
grievedpersonbeforea magistrate.
In thiscase,Adityanath,whomight
havebeenthe aggrievedperson,did
not makeanycomplaint beforea ma-UTTARPRADESHChiefMinisterYogi Adityanath.Thepublic sharingof a
videoclip has apparentlyhurthisimageasa bachelor.RAJEEVBHATT