Meet Shreya Singhal, the woman who led the fight against Section 66A

Image courtesy: Twitter
Saket Parekar Saket Parekar folomojo staff

By now, most of you must have heard about the landmark SC judgement that struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which gave police officials the power to arrest individuals based on messages or comments made on social media.

But before we praise the apex court for the historic decision, let’s first learn a bit about the woman whose petition started it all.

That woman is Shreya Singhal, a New Delhi law student, who was the first one to submit a petition against the outdated and vaguely worded section of the IT Act.

When she put in the PIL in 2012, Shreya was only 21 and had just returned from the UK after spending three years there for her studies.

Here’s Singhal’s interview from 2013, in which she underlines the flaws of Section 66A and why she petitioned against it.

What is Section 66 A?

The controversial section of the IT Act basically gives police officials the right to arrest anyone who posts an ‘offensive’ message through an electronic device. The offence is punishable by imprisonment of up to three years.

Any information which may be false or may cause ‘annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will’ is punishable under this section.

Where the problem lies

The biggest problem with the provisions of this law is that it’s vaguely defined. Terms like ‘annoyance’ and ‘inconvenience’ can be open to interpretations, which would inevitably turn out to be subjective.

This fact has been quite evident in the numerous arrests made under this section in recent times. Here are a few notable examples.

1. Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan were arrested in Mumbai in 2012 when they posted a comment on Facebook questioning the Bandh in the city following Bal Thackeray’s death.

2. Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested in Jadavpur in April 2012 after forwarding a cartoon mocking Mamta Banerjee.

3. Ravi Srinivasan was arrested in Puducherry for posting ‘offensive’ tweets about P Chidambaram’s son.

The list can go on and on. But the bottom line is, the only people ‘abusing’ the law were the cops, or rather the politicians using the cops to silence dissent by arresting citizens for expressing their honest views through relatively harmless posts.

The petitions sought to put an end to this draconian law.

Here’s what the Supreme Court said:

Underlining the issues with the vague phrasing and interpretation of the law, the court ruled out the government’s argument, which expressed fear that the quashing of the section could lead to ‘abuse’ of the internet. The court even questioned the defendants on who could determine what constitutes ‘grossly offensive’ content, and added that in the event of misuse of the internet and posting of objectionable content, the cops cannot be allowed to carry out an arrest without consulting senior officers.

Here’s the full text of the SC judgment.

Reactions

The decision was naturally welcomed by people across the country. Twitter exploded with congratulatory messages directed towards the judiciary, the activists that fought for this decision and particularly, towards Shreya Singhal, who had a lion’s share in making this possible.