IFEX
International Press Institute
The recent arrest of a lawyer in India's Andhra Pradesh state over a
Facebook post has added to the controversy surrounding a section of the
country's Information Technology Act, which has been used to punish
social media users critical of the government. The incident highlights
the need for the world's largest democracy to guard against such
violations of freedom of expression by swiftly amending such laws.
On May 14 2013, a court in the town of Padmarao Nagar in the
Prakasam District, state of Andhra Pradesh, sentenced lawyer Jaya
Vindhayala, the state general secretary of the People's Union for Civil
Liberties (PUCL), to 12 days in judicial custody for posting comments on
her Facebook account that criticised a local governor and a Congress
Member of the Legislative Assembly, Indian online news website Niti
Central reported.
According to The Times of India, Vindhayala was arrested and charged
under the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT)
Act for an "objectionable" Facebook post that specifically named Tamil
Nadu Governor K. Rosaiah and Chirala Member of the Legislative Assembly,
Amanchi Krishna Mohan. Vindhayala's arrest and subsequent conviction
come on the heels of a recent crackdown on social media owing to
amendments, in 2009, to the country's Information Technology Act,
specifically Section 66A.
Talking to IPI, Narasimhan Ravi, Director of The Hindu
newspaper and an IPI Executive Board member, noted that the problem with
Section 66A is that it "is all encompassing and vague, using such terms
as 'grossly offensive', 'annoyance' and 'inconvenience', 'menacing
character' and 'insult', which are not established legal concepts and
are undefined."
He added: "The sense of these words is left to the interpretation of
the police and this coupled with the fact that the offence is regarded
as serious (it carries a penalty of imprisonment up to three years and
fine) leads to pre-trial arrests. Section 66A by itself is the problem,
not just its application; though confining its reach and applicability
would be of some help."
Earlier this year, another man was arrested in Agra, Uttar Pradesh,
for making what local police said were, "communal and inflammatory
comments on Facebook about Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Telecom
Minister Kapil Sibal and Samajwadi Party Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav," The Hindu noted.
Sanjay Chowdhary, a civil engineer and resident of Dayalbagh, an
Agra suburb, was arrested on Monday, Feb. 4 and his laptop, a sim card
and a data card were also seized.
Agra police said
that they were "not involved in the political angle of the whole
issue," that their concerns were "the inflammatory comments and posts on
Chowdhary's Facebook wall," and that they "acted to prevent any
communal flare-up."
The posts on Chowdhary's Facebook page were deleted after his arrest
and his account was deactivated. Chowdhury was charged under section
153 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with "the promotion of
enmity between groups" and "acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony"
as well as Section 66 A of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
In another case covered by Niti Central, two women in a suburb of Mumbai were arrested in connection with negative comments about the founder of a Hindu nationalist political organisation in November 2012.
Maharashtra's Palgarh police arrested 21-year-old Shaheen Dhada for
posting a message on Facebook that criticized Bal Thackeray, who founded
the Shiv Sena organization. Dhada's friend, Renu Srinivasan, was also
arrested and charged with 'liking' the post.
A Mumbai court asked Dhada to apologise for her Facebook post and remove it.
The cases were eventually dropped after a Mumbai court found
evidence of misconduct on the part of police officers who had arrested
the girls.
Other cases,
such as the arrests of three men in Kashmir for "anti-Muslim" Facebook
posts and the detaining of a 20-year old in the Odisha province for
uploading an "objectionable" photo slandering Hindus respectively also
made news headlines.
"These incidents not only demonstrate the arbitrary nature of
Section 66A and the wide discretion that Indian authorities have in
regulating social media, but also constitute a threat to freedom of
expression," IPI Deputy Director Anthony Mills noted.
Free press activists in India have recently taken to social media to campaign for amendments to Section 66A.
While the media in India has generally been vigorous in safeguarding
its rights and the rights of journalists, the Internet has created a
new platform where the same legal rules do not necessarily apply and
where freedom of expression can be challenged under the guise of
"maintaining the peace."
"IPI strongly urges Indian lawmakers to consider amending Section
66A of the Information Technology Act in accordance with international
standards for freedom of expression," Mills added.