It would be a "complete violence to the language of section 66A" if the ingredients of reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression provided in the Constitution are read into the controversial provision of the cyber law to save it, the Supreme Court said today.
A bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman refused to undertake the exercise saying they would be doing "complete violence to the language of section 66A" if they read into the provision, "something that was never intended to be read into it".
The court refused to read into the provision the subject matters -- interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence -- contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution which are reasons for reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
The Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the government, had prayed to the court to save section 66A by reading these restrictions into the provision.
"We are afraid that such an exercise is not possible for the simple reason that when the legislature intended to do so, it provided for some of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) in section 69A (of the Act). We would be doing complete violence to the language of section 66A if we were to read into it something that was never intended to be read into it.
"What the Additional Solicitor General is asking us to do is not to read down section 66A - he is asking for a wholesale substitution of the provision which is obviously not possible," the court said.
