Section 66A in The Information Technology Act, 2000

 

Section 66A in The Information Technology Act, 2000

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.* -

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

(a)any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b)any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or

(c)any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.Explanation. -For the purpose of this section, terms "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.Held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523[In Shreya Singhal v Union of India in 2015, Section 66A was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 (inserted by amendment) made messages deemed by the police to be offensive or menacing to anyone, or those that caused "annoyance" a criminal offense if these were sent through a computer or computer resource. It prescribed a prison term of up to three years on conviction. In a PIL filed by Shreya Singhal in 2015, the Supreme Court declared Section 66A of the IT Act as being violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and not saved under the ambit of reasonable restrictions defined in Article 19(2). It had also said that the expressions used in Section 66A were open-ended, undefined and therefore arbitrary. The definition of offense under this section was vague. It was so broadly defined that it took into its sweep protected speech also, and, therefore, upset the balance between the exercise of the right of free speech and the imposition of reasonable restrictions on it. Still, the police used the penal section to deprive the writers on social media of their freedom.] [source https:indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/ https:globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/]