A few minutes ago, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement striking down Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This was in response to a PIL that challenged the constitutionality of this provision. In light of this, we present a background to Section 66 A and the recent developments leading up to its challenge before the Court. What does the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide for? The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides for legal recognition for transactions through electronic communication, also known as e-commerce. The Act also penalizes various forms of cyber crime. The Act was amended in 2009 to insert a new section, Section 66A which was said to address cases of cyber crime with the advent of technology and the internet. What does Section 66(A) of the IT Act say? Section 66(A) of the Act criminalises the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices. Under this provision, any person who by means of a computer or communication device sends any information that is:
Over the past few years, incidents related to comments, sharing of information, or thoughts expressed by an individual to a wider audience on the internet have attracted criminal penalties under Section 66(A). This has led to discussion and debate on the ambit of the Section and its applicability to such actions. What have been the major developments in context of this Section? In the recent past, a few arrests were made under Section 66(A) on the basis of social media posts directed at notable personalities, including politicians. These were alleged to be offensive in nature. In November 2012, there were various reports of alleged misuse of the law, and the penalties imposed were said to be disproportionate to the offence. Thereafter, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, challenging this provision on grounds of unconstitutionality. It was said to impinge upon the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. How has the government responded so far? Subsequently, the central government issued guidelines for the purposes of Section 66(A). These guidelines clarified that prior approval of the Deputy Commissioner or Inspector General of Police was required before a police officer or police station could register a complaint under Section 66(A). In May 2013, the Supreme Court (in relation to the above PIL) also passed an order saying that such approval was necessary before any arrest is to be made. Since matters related to police and public order are dealt with by respective state governments, a Supreme Court order was required for these guidelines to be applicable across the country. However, no changes have been made to Section 66 A itself. Has there been any legislative movement with regard to Section 66(A)? A Private Member Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in 2013 to amend Section 66(A) of the IT Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill stated that most of the offences that Section 66(A) dealt with were already covered by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. This had resulted in dual penalties for the same offence. According to the Bill, there were also inconsistencies between the two laws in relation to the duration of imprisonment for the same offence. The offence of threatening someone with injury through email attracts imprisonment of two years under the IPC and three years under the IT Act. The Bill was eventually withdrawn. In the same year, a Private Members resolution was also moved in Parliament. The resolution proposed to make four changes: (i) bring Section 66(A) in line with the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution; (ii) restrict the application of the provision to communication between two persons; (iii) precisely define the offence covered; and (iv) reduce the penalty and make the offence a non-cognizable one (which means no arrest could be made without a court order). However, the resolution was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, how has the PIL proceeded? According to news reports, the Supreme Court in February, 2015 had stated that the constitutional validity of the provision would be tested, in relation to the PIL before it. The government argued that they were open to amend/change the provision as the intention was not to suppress freedom of speech and expression, but only deal with cyber crime. The issues being examined by the Court relate to the powers of the police to decide what is abusive, causes annoyance, etc,. instead of the examination of the offence by the judiciary . This is pertinent because this offence is a cognizable one, attracting a penalty of at least three years imprisonment. The law is also said to be ambiguous on the issue of what would constitute information that is “grossly offensive,” as no guidelines have been provided for the same. This lack of clarity could lead to increased litigation. The judgement is not available in the public domain yet. It remains to be seen on what the reasoning of the Supreme Court was, in its decision to strike down Section 66A, today.
The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021 was introduced in Lok Sabha today. It seeks to dissolve certain existing appellate bodies and transfer their functions (such as adjudication of appeals) to existing judicial bodies (mainly high courts) (see Table 1). It also amends the Finance Act, 2017, to bring certain provisions (such as qualifications, appointments, term of office, salaries and allowances of tribunal members) under the purview of the Bill. Currently, these provisions are notified through Rules under the Finance Act, 2017.
Note that the 2017 Act reorganised the Indian tribunal system to ensure uniformity in their administration by amalgamating certain tribunals based on the similarity in their functional domain. It also delegated powers to the central government to make Rules to provide for the qualifications, appointments, term of office, salaries and allowances, removal, and other conditions of service for chairpersons and members of these tribunals.
This Bill replaces an Ordinance with similar provisions that was promulgated in April 2021. The 2021 Ordinance was challenged in the Supreme Court over its compliance with past Supreme Court judgements. In July 2021, the Court struck down certain provisions of the Ordinance, such as the four-year term of office for members, and the minimum age bar of 50 years to be appointed as a member of a tribunal. Table 2 shows a detailed comparison of key provisions of the 2021 Bill with the 2021 Ordinance and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgement. The Bill does not conform to the judgement of the Supreme Court and retains the provisions of the Ordinance that were struck down by the Court.
For an analysis of the 2021 Ordinance, please see our note here. For more details on the evolution of the tribunal system in India, please see our note.
Table 1: Transfer of functions of key appellate bodies as proposed under the Bill
|
Appellate body |
Role |
Proposed entity |
|
Appellate Tribunal under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 |
Adjudication of appeals against the Board of Film Certification |
High Court |
|
Appellate Board under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 |
Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Registrar |
High Court |
|
Appellate Board under the Copyright Act, 1957 |
Adjudication of certain disputes and appeals against orders of the Registrar of Copyright. Disputes include those related to publications and term of the copyright |
Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of a High Court* |
|
Authority for Advance Rulings under the Customs Act, 1962 |
Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Customs Authority for advance rulings |
High Court |
|
Appellate Board under The Patents Act, 1970 |
Adjudication of appeals against decisions of the Controller on certain matters. Matters include applications for patents and restoration of patents. |
High Court |
|
Airport Appellate Tribunal under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 |
Adjudication of:
|
|
|
Airport Appellate Tribunal under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 |
Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Highway Administration on matters including, grant of lease or licence of highway land, removal of unauthorised occupation, and prevention of damage to highway. |
Civil Court# |
|
Appellate Tribunal under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 |
Adjudication of appeals against certain orders of Registrar or Plant Varieties and Farmer Rights Authority |
High Court |
|
Appellate Board under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 |
Adjudication of appeals against orders of the Registrar |
High Court |
Notes: * Constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; # Refers to a Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in the exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Sources: The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021; Parent Acts of the appellate bodies; PRS.
Table 2: Key provisions in the 2021 Bill and the Ordinance vis-a-vis the Supreme Court judgements
|
Provisions |
2021 Ordinance |
Supreme Court Judgement of July 2021 |
2021 Bill |
|
Term of office of Chairperson and members |
Four-year term with eligibility for re-appointment. |
The Court stated that a short tenure of members (such as three years) along with provisions of re-appointment increases the influence and control of the Executive over the judiciary. In a short tenure, by the time the members achieve the required knowledge, expertise and efficiency, one term gets over. This prevents enhancement of adjudicatory experience, thereby, impacting the efficacy of tribunals. The Court struck down the provision of four -year term and reiterated its past judgements, which recommended a five-year term with eligibility for re-appointment. |
Same as that in Ordinance. |
|
Minimum age requirement for appointment of Chairperson and members |
50 years |
The Court observed that the minimum age requirement of 50 years violates past Court judgements, where the Court has stated that advocates with at least 10 years of relevant experience must be eligible to be appointed as judicial members, as that is the qualification required for a High Court judge. Such a high age limit also prevents the recruitment of young talent. The provision was struck down. |
Same as that in Ordinance. |
|
Time limit for appointments |
Preferably within three months from the date of the recommendations of the search-cum-selection committee. |
The Court noted that not mandating the central government to make appointments within three months (from the date of recommendation of the search-cum-selection committee) leads to delay in the appointment of members. This impacts the functioning and efficacy of tribunals. The provision was struck down over non-compliance with past judgements, which mandated the appointments to be made within three months. |
Same as that in Ordinance. |
|
Number of recommendations for a post |
Two names for each post. |
The Court stated that the recommendations for appointment of members by the search-cum-selection committee should be final. The Executive must not be allowed to exercise any discretion in matter of appointments in a tribunal. The Court struck down the provision and reiterated its past judgement, which specified that the selection committee must suggest one name for each post. The Committee may recommend one name in wait list. |
Same as that in Ordinance. |
Sources: The Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021; The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2021; Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 000502 of 2021; PRS.
