Headlines
Section 66A vague, nebulous, observes Supreme Court
New Delhi, March 24
The Supreme Court, which
on Tuesday struck down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act,
said expressions such as "grossly offensive" or "menacing" in it were
vague and nebulous in meaning, and there were no manageable standards by
which a person can be held to have committed an offence.
"Quite
apart from this, as has been pointed out above, every expression used is
nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to one may not be offensive
to another. What may cause annoyance or inconvenience to one may not
cause annoyance or inconvenience to another," said a bench of Justice J.
Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman in their judgment.
The
court said that use of word "persistently" for repeated sending of
message is "completely imprecise", and wondered what would constitute
"persistently" - sending a message three times or eight times before it
could be described as persistent.
"There is no demarcating line
conveyed by any of these expressions - and that is what renders the
section unconstitutionally vague," the verdict said.
Not
accepting the government's contention that expressions used in the
section could be incapable of any precise definition but not
constitutionally vulnerable due to this, the court noted the two
opposing conclusions that could be reached in dealing with vague and
nebulous expressions, citing two British judgments where on the same
facts, judges arrived at opposite decisions.
"If judicially
trained minds can come to diametrically opposite conclusions on the same
set of facts, it is obvious that expressions such as 'grossly
offensive' or 'menacing' are so vague that there is no manageable
standard by which a person can be said to have committed an offence or
not to have committed an offence," it held, terming the expressions used
in Section 66A "completely open-ended and undefined".
None of
the expressions used in Section 66A - not even "criminal intimidation"
with the act's definition clause - not saying that the words and
expressions defined in the Indian Penal Code will apply here.
Thus,
"authorities who are to enforce Section 66A have absolutely no
manageable standard by which to book a person for an offence under
Section 66A".
"This being the case, having regard also to the two
English precedents, it is clear that Section 66A is unconstitutionally
vague," the verdict said.