Tuesday 24 March 2015

Free speech on internet

The Supreme Court has held that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act,2000, that lays down the punishment for publishing "grossly offensive" matter online is unconstitutional and untenable.
Section 66A provides that any person who posts any content online that is grossly offensive or has menacing character to another person ; or posts something that he knows to be false for the purpose of annoying or insulting or causing inconvenience to anyone or sends through electronic mail or message any offensive or annoying content shall be punishable with a term of three years and with fine.
The Court observed that the term grossly offensive is a vague term and what may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another. Examples for the same were that a pro life person will find a mail supporting abortion as offensive and a believer of creationist theory will find an article on evolution as false.
The said Section was being misused by various ruling parties by punishing any dissenting individual who criticized them. Two girls in Thane were arrested for posting on the death of Bal Thakeray and recently a class XII student was arrested for posting against SP minister in UP.
The judgement is being hailed as a victory of free speech on Internet.

Sunday 8 March 2015

Rape and live-in relationships

In a recent PIL before the Delhi High Court, seeking for an order to keep live-in relationships outside the purview of rapes (section 366) and instead put such cases under fraud (section 420), the Court dismissed it saying that by doing so it would give the status of marriage to such relations while the legislature had not intended to do so. The PIL was in reference to cases where one live-in partner files a complaint against another, with the cases ending with acquittal of the accused though with loss of reputation.
The essential ingredient if the offence of rape is the absence of consent including the consent obtained by fraud, coercion, intoxication, misrepresentation. In such cases, the accused can show the consent as a valid defence. The court felt that live-in relations are very different from marriage and by keeping them outsid from the purview of rape would accord them the status of marriage.
The court observed that the defence of consent will be available to the accused and the present order does not take away such defence. The court further sought direction from the Centre and the State government to provide remedy in the form of securing the constitutional right of providing compensation for the loss of reputation to the acquitted party and also constituting legal proceedings against those who misuse the law.
The court further instructed that the investigating officer should not make arrest before conducting preliminary investigation and medical examination to avoid false implication.