1. The purpose of the section is not clear. The Minister for IT Mr. Kapil Sibal recently said in an interview to Ms. Barkha Dutt that the section is for protection of women. However, the section has been used in a wide range of cases like cyber squatting, defamation, blasphemy, obscenity, impersonation, stifling political criticism, criminal intimidationand so on.
2. It controls everything else but cyber harassment. In all of the above-mentioned cases, it has been used either in conjunction with existing sections of the Indian Penal Code or as a substitute for missing laws like cyber squatting and political criticism! Wherever it is used in conjunction with other sections of the IPC, it practically has no purpose since the IPC already covers these offences. In cases where it has been used as a substitute for missing laws, it simply invents new crimes. How does uploading politically incorrect cartoons to a website amount to cyber harassment? How does criticism of historical figures amount to cyber harassment? How does booking a domain name like "pratibhapatil.com" amount to cyber harassment?
3. Why are ordinary citizens booked for hate speech under Section 66A for merely expressing their opinions among their friends and relatives on Facebook? How many times are politicians booked for making inflammatory speeches in public rallies?
4. Why are cyber laws so much stricter than traditional laws? The punishment is highly disproportionate and the section has no precedents in Indian law. Within the limits of decency we, as Indian citizens, have the right to offend, annoy, cause inconvenience and even insult.
5. The government claims that section 66A controls cyber harassment but it is NOT limited to pointed communication. An innocent man tweeting about a powerful figure to his dozen odd followers can, at best, be tried for defamation. But Sec 66A has become a handly tool in the hands of powerful people to get innocent people arrested for vendetta.
6. Why do people need to be arrested for their opinions as if they are deadly criminals while deadly criminals get away with very little punishment?
7. The Indian Constitution restricts free speech only in very extreme circumstances for example when it is in the interest of public order or national security. But Section 66A puts severe curbs on harmless online speech. So, it is unconstitutional.
8. The Ministry of IT has issued new guidelines which require a senior cop to clear the FIR under Sec 66A. But it must be remembered that senior cops have applied such laws earlier in various controversial cases. If it is not clear to even senior officers what the law should be used for, how can they prevent abuse of the section? If the police refuses to file an FIR, a case can be registered through the judiciary. So, as long as the section exists it is open to abuse.
