Something about section 66A

Something about section 66A

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.
Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,—

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation.— For the purpose of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, images, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

When was the first PIL filed? 

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls -- Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan -- were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it.

Some prominent cases where 66A has been used 

• JU professor Ambikesh Mahapatra was arrested by West Bengal police for sharing cartoons on Mamata Banerjee. Subsequently HC asked the state government to give 50 thousand rupees compensation to Mahapatra. 
• Activist Aseem Trivedi was arrested for drawing cartoons which were critical of the Parliament and constitution.  Businessman Ravi Srinivasan was booked for allegedly tweeting offesive remarks against son of a prominent politician. 
• The apex court had on May 16, 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like IG or DCP.
• The direction had come in the wake of numerous complaints of harassment and arrests, sparking public outrage. It had, however, refused to pass an interim order for a blanket ban on the arrest of such persons across the country.
• The court asked centre in December last year to clarify stand on the provisions that ensues arrest or be ready for such laws to be stayed. 
• At a later date, Apex Court said the Information Technology Act provision, which gives power to arrest a person for posting objectionable comments on social websites, cannot be quashed on the ground that it does not have 'mens rea' (motive or knowledge of wrongdoing) as one of the pre-requisites to constitute an offence.

The court's observation came when a lawyer said Section 66A of the IT Act deserves to be quashed as it creates a situation where a person can be arrested and jailed despite the fact that he neither intended nor had the knowledge that he was committing an offence.

Source: DNA and TOI