“Cyber Flashing” exposes the Error of Judgement on scrapping of Section 66A

The new cyber crime reported from UK where a women has complained of unsolicited obscene image being flashed on her iPhone has once again highlighted why the scrapping of Section 66A was an erroneous judgement of the Supreme Court of India.

The case reported here by BBC may still come under Section 67 of ITA 2008 since the image can be considered as “Obscene”. However if the same technology is used for any sending any image which is not considered “obscene”, it would be considered as “Free Speech”, thanks to the judgement in the Shreya Singal case. Despite whatever adverse impact the image may have on the recipient including he or she going into depression and committing suicide, it would still be defendable as “Free Speech”.

The Supreme Court may say that they have no responsibility on the after effects of any of their decisions and it is for the Government to take corrective action. Perhaps they are right in legal terms but the fact that the Court was not in a position to understand the impact of their decision and why Section 66A was not required to be scrapped to provide justice against its misuse by Police on several occasions cannot be denied.

Instead of the Court waiting for the Government to bring back Sec 66A in a re drafted form, it would be good if the Supreme Court suo moto admits its mistake and recalls its own order and modify it suitably.

But will any Court have the courage to admit its mistake? on its own?..


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

About Vijayashankar Na

Naavi is a veteran Cyber Law specialist in India and is presently working from Bangalore as an Information Assurance Consultant. Pioneered concepts such as ITA 2008 compliance, Naavi is also the founder of Cyber Law College, a virtual Cyber Law Education institution. He now has been focusing on the projects such as Secure Digital India and Cyber Insurance
This entry was posted in Cyber Law. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to “Cyber Flashing” exposes the Error of Judgement on scrapping of Section 66A

  1. Kamal Dave says:

    I would agree to your view point. Actually the apex court did not appreciate the view point of the victim of cyber crime and rather the view point of the ISPs/ social networking site have been appreciated. Probably the Govt Standing counsel had made submissions on behalf of the government, and the view point of the persons who are alleged of committing crime have put their submission vigourously. Thus victim of alleged cyber crime remained unrepresented. The apex court ought to have given due consideration to their (victim’s) rights as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.