Supreme Court Asks Union To Impress Upon States Which Continue To Register FIRs Under Section 66A IT Act To Take Remedial Steps

The Supreme Court on Thursday 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 are continuing to be registered despite the provision being declared as unconstitutional by the Court in 2015. The Court asked the Union to impress upon such states to take "remedial measures as soon as possible".

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat 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.

The bench noted that the matter was extremely serious and issued notice to States and High Courts. The matter is now to be heard three weeks later. 

At the outset, Senior Advocate Sanjay Parikh for the petitioner submitted details of the cases registered by the Police/Law Enforcement Agencies under Section 66A of the IT Act even after the judgement of Shreya Singhal v. UOI. After hearing the contentions, the bench stated–

"The grievance based in this application is about non implementation of directions issued by this court in Shreya Singhal v. UOI striking down Section 66A of IT Act. It is submitted that despite the directions of this court, in various crimes, offences in relation to violation of 66A are still being projected. Instances in that behalf have been given. This court therefore issues notices to all the states. All states are before us."

The court also noted that most of the states had unequivocally submitted that the directions issued by the Court had been followed and that no case was presently pending in respect of offence under 66A. In the oral hearings, the standing counsels for the States of  UP, Sikkim, Himachal, Meghalaya and West Bengal told the bench that there were no cases pending in these states.

However, the bench noted that–

"However, there still appears some instances where the concerned provision has been invoked and the offences in that behalf are still pending consideration. It is a matter of serious concern that despite pronouncement of this court, offences under 66A are still being considered."

The bench asked Advocate Zoheb Hossain, appearing on behalf of the Union of India to get in touch with Chief secretaries of States in this regard. He stated that–

"In the circumstances we have asked Mr. Hossain, on behalf of UOI to get in touch with Chief Secretary of States where offences are still being registered and impress upon them to take remedial measures as early as possible. Mr. Hossain shall be rendered due assistance by the concerned advocates appearing for the State. In order to have complete assistance, he will have liberty to write to Chief Secretaries asking for required information. States are directed to supply all information as required by Mr. Hossain. Let the entire exercise be finished in 3 weeks."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for after three weeks. 

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 UOI 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 are far from adequate.

It states 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 prays 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 cases where the case is 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 prays 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 prays for the DGPs of all the States/Administrators of all the UTs to initiate disciplinary action against the Police/Law Enforcement Agencies that are 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