Section 66A

Section 66A of IT Act provided for punishment of 3 years for “Offensive” comments posted, propagated through computer, internet etc. Article 19(1)a of constitution has provided for fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. This right is restricted by article 19(2) which imposes “reasonable” restriction upon such freedom. Such reasonable restrictions include sovereignty and integrity of nation, public order, morality, insult and defamation, security or state, decency and incitement of an offence.

In light of above background let’s debate validity of Sec 66A of IT act. Posting and propagating any message or comment through computer and internet is a form of expression. Communication through internet differs from traditional methods of communication in audience and speed of dissemination. Messages over internet are subjected to very high speed of dissemination and can reach to large number of audience in very short interval of time. “Offensive comment” literally means anything that causes hurt to anyone. Being offended depends upon individual’s personality. Similar comment may leave one unaffected and other deeply hurt. Such wide interpretations make the phrase “offensive comment” very vague in meaning.

Today social media has become important tool to show and propagate one’s dissent, anger and frustration especially over public discourse. Such expression may involve direct or veiled attack upon individuals and institutions. It may be in the form of satire, sarcasm, cartoons etc. In diverse democracy of India everyone can not be expected to be in consent with public affairs. Different point of view ought to exist. This diversity is healthy for Indian Democracy. Vagueness of section 66A gave opportunity to gag such freedom through misuse of statute. Most of the highlighted arrests made under this section had been for trivial issues.

As for as “reasonable restrictions” mentioned under article 19(2) are concerned, there are various laws and sections of IPC to enforce such restrictions. Aggrieved person can approach competent authority under appropriate sections for redressal. Vagueness of said section and availability of other remedies were basis of striking down of it by SC.

However, uniqueness of internet media in terms of audience and speed demands special law to handle misuse of IT. Such law should provide sufficient safeguards against misusing and trivialization. Any intentional hurt caused to anyone should be punished as one’s liberty ends at the point where others’ start. Absolute freedom of liberty should not degrade into absolute liberty.

Absoluteness of Morality

Morality in simple terms means codes concerning with good or bad behaviour. There can not be debate over necessity of morality. What constitutes morality remains topic of contention. Debate over morality raises many questions, most curious question remains over absoluteness of morality. Whether it changes with time and space or there is any universally applicable codes of morality.

Proponents of "subjective morality" argue that acceptability any code of conduct by society makes it moral. They equate acceptability by society with correctness of behaviour. They support point of view that any code is moral because society accepts is as correct. Acceptability by society of any behaviour depends upon prevalence of such behaviour. For example live-in relationship was unacceptable in Indian societies 15-20 years ago thus was considered immoral. With passage of time prevalence of such relationships increased and becoming more and more acceptable at-least in urban societies. Thus this is no more considered immoral. Similarly opposing live-in relationship was considered moral 15-20 years ago, now it becomes immoral. Since composition of society varies with time and space thus morality also varies with time and space. Contemporary societies also differ in their concept of correct conduct. Such subjective conception of morality creates problems for followers of moral conduct. It creates confusion with regards to good conduct. An individual may define moral codes as per his or her convenience. Such like minded individuals may come together and constitute a society and for this society certain act may be justified and may be argued as moral because this "society"accepts it. One of the greatest example of such misuse of acceptability concept is justification of violence, rape, torture by ISIS. As per their code of morality believers of some other faith needs to be slaughtered like animals. Also certain tribes had backing to head hunting. Can such act be ever called moral? This dilemma gives birth to "Objective Morality'.

Concept of "objective morality" believes that moral concepts are absolute. Any deviation from such code of conduct becomes immoral. Problem with such concept is with respect to what are conducts. Is there any compilation of such codes? Can religious scriptures be taken as such compilation? To larger extent answer of this question is yes but there should be reasonable interpretation. Opponents discard religious morality arguing that religion is matter of faith and morality a territory of reason. Such blind opposition fails to assimilate fact that  interpretation of religious texts needs reasoning. Further reasoning may strengthen faith whenever faith is proved. All religions have common teachings like mercy, non-violence, truthfulness etc. Therefore reasonably interpreted texts can act as good guide with respect to moral codes.

Another approach towards morality can be based upon means and ends. Any behaviour can be put to test so as to what are means to commit an act and possible outcomes. If any of means or ends are wrong then such act becomes immoral. This concept also falls under objective morality. Accepting absolute concept of morality avoids problems of subjectivity. Pious concepts of morality can not be left to the mercy of society.