On March 24th, the highest court of land, Supreme Court of India will pronounce its verdict on the validity of 66A IT act amendment which has been in the eye of storm due to it's draconian powers. Ever since this amendment came into effect in 2009, there have been numerous cases being filed against common citizens for their online posts on social media namely, Twitter & Facebook. 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.

The PIL was filed on 30th november, 2012 by Delhi student Shreya Singhal.

The Supreme Court of India has struck down the IT act 66A terming it as unconstitutional. Indians all over social media have been responding cheerfully on the ruling. The PIL was filed by a 24 year old law student, Shreya Singhal in 2012. Various lawyers supported her cause & extended their legal support. Many MPs led byJay Panda & R.Chandrashekhar had been raising the voice over the law ever since in it's inception! Successive governments, UPA & NDA had backed the law in the SC during the course of hearing!

Salient point -

The law many believed was draconian in nature & was a mere tool into the hands of politicians to thwart any dissent against them on social media platforms where the millions of citizens connect to one another on the click of a button! Many people faced the irk of the state when they had to go to jail for expressing their opinion on facebook & twitter as a freedom of expression! Defamation was given as a reason by the complainant without any basis of future!

Now that 66A is gone, the cases involving this section will ultimately fall flat on it's face in a court of law. The freedom of speech guaranteed under the constitution should be absolute in letter as well as spirit to achieve

However 69A was held constitutionally valid, under which the Centre can exercise its power to issue directions to block an internet site, saying there are adequate procedural safeguards.

"Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid," a bench of justices J Chelameswar and RF Nariman said.

Though many petitioners still believe that 69A is easy to abuse and they may soon be going for a review petition.