SC says registration of FIR under Section 66A of IT Act, terrible and shocking

The Supreme Court on Monday expressed shock at the practice of police registering FIRs under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was struck down by the top court in the 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case.
 | 
SC says registration of FIR under Section 66A of IT Act, terrible and shocking

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed shock at the practice of police registering FIRs under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was struck down by the top court in the 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case.

After hearing a petition filed by the PUCL, seeking action against those persons who are allegedly involved in registering the FIRS despite the SC has earlier strike down Section 66 A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, the Supreme Court also issued a notice.

A three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, while expressing its serious displeasure, said, "what is going on is terrible? Why it is happening (registering FIRs under Section 66A)?"

Sanjay Parikh, the senior lawyer appearing for the People's Union For Civil Liberties (PUCL), submitted to the apex court that please look at how cases have increased in these types of matters.

To this, the apex court expressed its displeasure and said, "yes yes, we are issuing notice in the matter."

"There has to be some kind of method. people are suffering. The SC had already struck down Section 66A of the IT Act," Parikh also said.

But the Attorney General (AG) KK Venugopal, the top law officer appearing for the Centre, told the apex court that "even if it (Section 66A of the IT Act) is struck down by the division bench of the Supreme Court, Section 66A is still there."

"You (Centre) file a counter as it is a shocking state of affairs," the apex court observed.

Justice Nariman asked the Centre to file a counter reply and fixed the matter for further hearing after two weeks.

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had in 2015, held that Section 66A is not only vague and arbitrary but that it also "disproportionately invades the right of free speech." (ANI)