The Supreme Court in its judgement on striking down of Section 66A was hailed as a saviour of wrongful arrests under ITA 2008. Now it is reproted that a techie in Chennai has been arrested under Section 67.
We are not in a position to comment whether the arrest was right or wrong. But we need to make a point that if there is a need to arrest a person under ITA 2008, one cannot rule out other sections being used than the one which was held to be violative of Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
In fact it is amusing to think that the subject judgement on Section 66A hailed other sections including Section 67 as having been drafted in a more precise manner while Section 66A was “Vague”. We would like to draw the attention of the public that section 67 is perhaps more vague than Section 66A.
For example under Section 67 what is punishable is “Publishing or Transmitting” in “Eletronic Form” any material which is “lascivious” or “appeals” to the “prurient” interest or if its effect is such as to “tend to deprave and corrupt” persons who are “likely”, having regard to all “relevant circumstances”, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it,
The Nation wants to know if these words used in Section 67 are clear and precise as compared to the words used in Section 66A on which the Supreme Court came down viciously.
The words used in Section 67 have been repeatedly examined by the Courts under ITA 2000/8 as well as IPC where similar words have been used and over a period the Courts have read down some meaning to these words. If this can be accepted for Section 67, what makes Section 66A different?
I request all those journalists and activists who hailed the decision as “Land Mark” and “Saving of Democracy” etc convince me that the striking down of Section 66A was logical.