FB arrests: SC issues notices to centre, five states

The Supreme Court, hearing a public interest litigation against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with 'offensive' content posted on the internet, today issued notices to the union government as well as five states - Maharashtra, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Delhi.

The PIL was filed by Delhi law student Shreya Singhal, who pleaded that the law is unconstitutional and violates freedom of speech guaranteed under the Constitution. Her petition follows the arrest of several persons for posting comments critical of political leaders on social networking sites, the latest instance being the arrest of two girls in Maharashtra for protesting against the shutdown of Mumbai for Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's funeral earlier this month.

Clearly leaning in favour of the petitioner, Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabir had on Thursday wondered why this particular law had never been challenged so far, and said the apex court had even considered taking suo motu action on the matter.

In its notice to the Maharashtra government, the court sought an explanation as to why the two young women there were arrested for their posts on Facebook. The arrests were made under Section 66A, which the petitioner contends is vaguely worded and can be interpreted subjectively rather than objectively. It allows for up to three years in jail for "annoying" or "offensive" messages sent electronically.

Clarifying the position of the government, attorney general G E Vahanvati admitted that the arrests were unjustified, but said there was no need to strike down Section 66A of the IT Act as the government has come out with guidelines to prevent its misuse.

Vahanvati told the bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J Chelameswar today that the law is "well-intended."