The defensive Centre said its laws are meant to fight cyber crime and not curb free expression

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-lends-powerful-voice-to-cyber-expression/article6853164.ece?homepage=true

Facing a tough time explaining in the Supreme Court where free speech ends and restrictions start for social media, the government on Tuesday said its laws are meant to fight cyber crime and not curb free expression.

The government was arguing before a Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and Rohinton Nariman, which is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of certain legal provisions in the Information Technology Act, especially Section 66 A. This section prescribes a punishment of up to three years' in jail if found guilty of causing “annoyance or inconvenience” on the Net, including social media.

“Central government has no intention to curb the freedom of speech and expression. Section 66 A pertains to only certain cyber crimes and not freedom of speech,” Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta sought to clarify.

One of the petitions filed is by Shreya Singhal, a law student, which deals with the arrest of two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan, at Thane district in Maharashtra for allegedly posting a comment against the shut down in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death. The second girl had allegedly 'liked' the comment.

But Justice Chelameswar countered Mr. Mehta, noting that it is the Station House Officer (SHO) of a local police station who would be the first judge of whether an Internet user has been annoying or not and requires to be arrested.

To this, Mr. Mehta said the police has a cyber cell.

“What is this cyber cell? You form a group of police officers and name them 'cyber cell' and now they are suddenly experts,” Justice Chelameswar responded.

At this juncture, Justice Nariman posed a hypothetical query to Mr. Mehta, highlighting how terms used in Section 66A is undefined and vague. “What happens when a message or text is sent? For example, my community is opposed to conversion. If someone sends a message promoting conversion. Can they go to the police station and claim the message to be a gross threat to the community?” Justice Nariman asked.

“But nobody can file a complaint saying something caused me annoyance or inconvenience. The provisions of the Act requires there should have been a serious obstruction – like a planting malware in a bank's software," Mr. Mehta protested.

The ASG went to reveal how hackers had targeted the mails of defence top brass, and an investigation was currently on. He did not reveal any further details, but underlined that cyber attacks pose a clear and present danger to the security apparatus of the country.

In an earlier hearing, the government had submitted that comments expressing political dissent, and “decent” humour were excluded from what constitutes “grossly offensive” or “menacing” under Section 66 A of the Act.

Mr. Mehta had contended that prohibitions under the 2000 Act are “reasonable” and in consonance with the restrictions placed on free speech in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.