Section 66A of IT Law - Cyber Laws Sending offensive messages through communication service, etc

Section 66A of IT Law - Cyber Laws  Sending offensive messages through communication service, etc

*[ 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.. - Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms Electronic mail  and Electronic Mail Message  means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

[* Inserted vide Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008]

Struck down of Section 66-A by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:

It shall be noted that this section 66 A of Information Technology Act was struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgement dated March 24, 2015 in a batch of writ petitions filed before it for the reasons that the terminology "grossly offensive”, “menacing” “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” or “obstruction” given in the section is vague, the section is coming in the way of freedom of expression provided by Constitution of India.

The background of the issue is that two girls were arrested by the Mumbai police in 2012 for expressing their displeasure, by posting their remarks over their Facebook profiles at the bandh called in the wake of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackery’s death. The arrested women were released later on and it was decided to close the criminal cases against them, yet the arrests attracted widespread public protest. It was felt that the police has misused its power by invoking section 66A inter alia contending that it violates the freedom of speech and expression. The apex court judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act on the grounds of its vague and ambiguous and was being misused by the law enforcing authorities.

Section 66A – Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service

• Relevant Case #1: Fake profile of President posted by imposter On September 9, 2010, the imposter made a fake profile in the name of the Hon’ble President Pratibha Devi Patil. A complaint was made from Additional Controller, President Household, President Secretariat regarding the four fake profiles created in the name of Hon’ble President on social networking website, Facebook. The said complaint stated that president house has nothing to do with the facebook and the fake profile is misleading the general public. The First Information Report Under Sections 469 IPC and 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered based on the said complaint at the police station, Economic Offences Wing, the elite wing of Delhi Police which specializes in investigating economic crimes including cyber offences.
• Relevant Case #2: Bomb Hoax mail In 2009, a 15-year-old Bangalore teenager was arrested by the cyber crime investigation cell (CCIC) of the city crime branch for allegedly sending a hoax e-mail to a private news channel. In the e-mail, he claimed to have planted five bombs in Mumbai, challenging the police to find them before it was too late. At around 1 p.m. on May 25, the news channel received an e-mail that read: “I have planted five bombs in Mumbai; you have two hours to find it.” The police, who were alerted immediately, traced the Internet Protocol (IP) address to Vijay Nagar in Bangalore. The Internet service provider for the account was BSNL, said, officials.