Unfortunate That Offences Under 'Unconstitutional' Section 66A Information Technology Act Are Still Being Registered: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court remarked that it is unfortunate that offences under Section 66A of Information Technology Act,2000, are still being registered.
The Court noted that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) has been held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase observed, “Taking into consideration the contents of the FIR, when offence under Section 66A of the I.T. Act has been registered, the said Section has been held unconstitutional by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India, [AIR 2015 SC1523]. The registration itself ought not to have been made under that Section. It is unfortunate that still the offences are being registered under that Section.”
Advocate Bhushan S. Dhawale appeared for the applicant, while APP M. K. Goyanka represented the respondents.
The applicant was accused under Sections 66A and 66B of the IT Act along with Section 500 of the IPC. The applicant argued that his arrest was illegal. The complaint was lodged by a police constable, in a personal capacity, following an alleged defamatory message related to a family dispute involving the applicant and his ex-wife.
There was a divorce between the applicant and the sister of the police constable two years ago and the sister had lodged an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 504, 506 and 325 of the IPC.
The High Court stated that when the offence was registered, it was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (supra).
“The registration of the offence under those two Sections of the I.T. Act was illegal, however, it has been then pointed out that now by arresting the applicant it is stated that the offence that is attracted is Section 67A of the I.T. Act,” the Court remarked.
The Court noted, “In short, when it is the case of defamation, a private complaint should be filed. Of-course, if it is with other Sections, then FIR may lie. By communication dated 06.08.2024, it appears that Police Inspector, Hingoli Police Station has tried to say that Section 66A and 66B are inadvertently invoked and then on the same day, the applicant was produced before the Magistrate.”
Consequently, the Court directed the applicant to add the Investigating Officer and Police Inspector by their names as respondents.
“Amendment to be carried out within two days. After the amendment is carried out, issue notice to the respondents. Learned APP waives notice for respondent No.1 – State. We also issue notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, as to why they should not be asked to compensate the applicant,” the Bench ordered.
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing on September 9, 2024.
Cause Title: Ashwinkumar Pandhari Sanap v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.