No Person Should Be Prosecuted Under Section 66A IT Act : Supreme Court Issues Directions To Enforce Shreya Singhal Judgment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that no one should be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015 in the Shreya Singhal Case.

The Court issued a slew of directions to the Director Generals of Police and Home Secretaries of all States to ensure that reference to Section 66A is removed from all pending cases. The Court also directed that the bareacts of the IT Act published should adequately inform the readers that Section 66A has been invalidated.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Ajay Rastogi was hearing a writ petition filed by the NGO 'Peoples Union for Civil Liberties' (PUCL) which highlighted the issue of Section 66A IT Act being invoked despite the judgment in Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) 5 SCC 1.

In its last hearings, the court had asked the Union Government to get in touch with the Chief Secretaries of the States where FIRs under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act were continuing to be registered despite the provision being declared as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015. The Court had asked the Union to impress upon such states to take "remedial measures as soon as possible".

Today, Advocate Zoheb Hussain, appearing for the Union of India placed an All-India Status report with regards complaints under Section 66A. The bench noted that the information provided by Adv. Hussain suggested that despite the issue regarding the validity of Section 66A being dealt with in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, a number of crimes and criminal proceedings still reflected on the provision of Section 66A of the 2000 Act and citizens were still facing prosecution under the same. The bench noted the gravity of the matter and stated that– "Such proceedings are directly infringing directions under Shreya Singhal."

Accordingly, the following directions were passed by the bench:

"1. It needs no reiteration that Section 66A is found to be in violation of the Constitution and as such no citizen can be prosecuted for violation of alleged offences under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000.

2. In all cases where citizens are facing prosecution for violations of Section 66A, the reference and reliance upon 66A from all crimes shall stand deleted.

3. We direct all Director Generals of police, Home Secretaries and competent officers in States and Union Territories to direct the entire police force not to register any complaint with respect to violation of Section 66A. This direction shall apply only with reference to Section 66A. If the crime has other facets, where other offences are also alleged, those shall not be deleted.

4. Whenever any publication, whether government, semi government or private, about IT Act is published and Section 66A is quoted, readers must be adequately informed that the provisions of 66A have been pronounced upon by this court as to be violative of Constitution."

With these directions, the application filed by the PUCL was disposed of.

Background

PUCL approached the Court with the assistance of Internet Freedom Foundation, raising the following issues :

a) Whether the Judgment of Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) 5 SCC 1 has been complied with?

b) Whether the steps taken by the Union of India are adequate?

c) What steps need to be taken for effective implementation of the Judgment in Shreya Singhal to avoid wrongful investigation and prosecution?

d) What steps should be taken to ensure that the Judgments of the Court passed in important cases touching protection of legal and constitutional rights of the people, are effectively implemented?

As per the application, the steps taken by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) towards ensuring effective implementation of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India were far from adequate.

It stated that the Union of India, instead of implementing the judgement, shirked its responsibility by pleading that the responsibility of implementation lied with the States as well law enforcement agencies. Accordingly, the application prayed the court to direct Union of India to collect details of the cases registered by the Police/Law Enforcement Agencies under Section 66A of the IT Act since the pronouncement of the judgment in Shreya Singhal and in matters where the case was at the stage of investigation, direct the Director General of Police in the States and the Administrators/Lieutenant Governors in the cases of Union Territories to drop further investigation under Section 66A. It further prayed for the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to issue advisories to all the subordinate courts (both Sessions Courts and Magistrate Courts) to drop all charges/trial under Section 66A and discharge the accused in such cases and all the High Courts (through Registrar Generals) to communicate to all the District Courts and Magistrates that forthwith there should be no cognizance taken under the repealed Section 66A of the IT Act. It also prayed for the DGPs of all the States/Administrators of all the UTs to initiate disciplinary action against the Police/Law Enforcement Agencies that were found to be registering cases under the repealed Section 66A of the IT Act and allow the High Courts to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against those responsible for registering a case under Section 66A or for investigating it or for prosecuting it in spite of being informed that Section 66A has been struck down.

CASE TITLE: PEOPLES UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES Versus UNION OF INDIA MA 901/2021 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 199/2013

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 846

Click Here To Read/Download Order