 "Most politicians welcome SC verdict scrapping Section 66A")
Politicians across the spectrum welcomed the Supreme Court judgment striking down Section 66 A of the IT Act.
Former finance minister P Chidambaram said: "I welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court holding that Section 66A of the IT Act is unconstitutional. The section was poorly drafted and was vulnerable. It was capable of being misused and, in fact, it was misused. There could be a case of misuse of the freedom of speech. In such cases, the ordinary laws should apply and the offender should be dealt with under those laws. If some provisions of the law have to be strengthened, that could be considered. But Section 66A was not the answer."
It may be recalled that Chidambaram's son Karti, who is also a Congress activist, used the provisions of this clause in the IT Act to press for the arrest of a Puducherry businessman who had tweeted inaccurate and defamatory remarks about his assets. He was arrested by the Puducherry police from his house after being charged under Section 66-A of the IT Act. Though he was later released on bail, the world woke up to the provisions of the clause.
Congress leader Manish Tewari welcomed the Supreme Court's order, saying, "The Supreme Court made an appropriate decision, Section 66A was the antithesis of freedom of speech and expression. It gave too much power in hands of law enforcement agencies, it's a welcome decision."
"It is a landmark day for freedom of speech... There is no distinction between what has been said by the court and what was said by the party," said Nalin Kohli of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who claimed his party had been for quashing the Act all along. Shiv Sena's Sanjay Raut said the police needed a law to tackle falsehoods that are spread about people in public life.
"Social media does have a positive impact, but it's also being misused, police must have some powers in their hand," he said. "You don't say anything against the Supreme Court or the high court to avoid contempt of court, but say anything you feel like against others in public life," Raut said, adding there is a need for a method to curb it.
Former finance minister P Chidambaram said: "I welcome the judgment of the Supreme Court holding that Section 66A of the IT Act is unconstitutional. The section was poorly drafted and was vulnerable. It was capable of being misused and, in fact, it was misused. There could be a case of misuse of the freedom of speech. In such cases, the ordinary laws should apply and the offender should be dealt with under those laws. If some provisions of the law have to be strengthened, that could be considered. But Section 66A was not the answer."
It may be recalled that Chidambaram's son Karti, who is also a Congress activist, used the provisions of this clause in the IT Act to press for the arrest of a Puducherry businessman who had tweeted inaccurate and defamatory remarks about his assets. He was arrested by the Puducherry police from his house after being charged under Section 66-A of the IT Act. Though he was later released on bail, the world woke up to the provisions of the clause.
More From This Section
"Delighted that #Sec66A has been scrapped by Supreme Court; it had an implicit threat of criminal intimidation. Free speech reigns supreme," tweeted Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha, though he had earlier tweeted there was a need for a mechanism that controlled libellous and slanderous content on social media.
Congress leader Manish Tewari welcomed the Supreme Court's order, saying, "The Supreme Court made an appropriate decision, Section 66A was the antithesis of freedom of speech and expression. It gave too much power in hands of law enforcement agencies, it's a welcome decision."
"It is a landmark day for freedom of speech... There is no distinction between what has been said by the court and what was said by the party," said Nalin Kohli of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who claimed his party had been for quashing the Act all along. Shiv Sena's Sanjay Raut said the police needed a law to tackle falsehoods that are spread about people in public life.
"Social media does have a positive impact, but it's also being misused, police must have some powers in their hand," he said. "You don't say anything against the Supreme Court or the high court to avoid contempt of court, but say anything you feel like against others in public life," Raut said, adding there is a need for a method to curb it.