--- layout: default title: "Outcry Over Man's Arrest for Tweets Against Chidambaram's Son" description: "A Times of India report on the arrest of a businessman under Section 66A of the IT Act for tweets critical of Karti Chidambaram, triggering public debate on free speech, online expression, and internet governance in India." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2012-11-01 source: "The Times of India" authors: ["Kim Arora"] permalink: /media/outcry-arrest-tweets-chidambaram-son-times-of-india/ created: 2025-12-25 --- **Outcry Over Man's Arrest for Tweets Against Chidambaram's Son** is a news report published by *The Times of India* on 1 November 2012, written by Kim Arora. The article covers the arrest of Pondicherry-based businessman S Ravi under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act for posting "offensive" tweets about Karti Chidambaram, son of then Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram. It features commentary from Sunil Abraham on concerns around the scope of Section 66A and its implications for free expression. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
πŸ“° Published in:
The Times of India
✍️ Author:
Kim Arora
πŸ“… Date:
1 November 2012
πŸ“„ Type:
News Report
πŸ“° Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

NEW DELHI: The arrest of a Pondicherry-based businessman on Tuesday for posting "offensive" tweets against Karti Chidambaram, son of Union finance minister P Chidambaram, has again stoked the free speech and internet governance debate.

The businessman in question, S Ravi, was arrested under Section 66 A of the IT Act which covers sending of "offensive" or "menacing" tweets. He was later released on bail.

Ravi's Twitter handle could not be traced at the time of writing.

The section used against the businessman is the same that Mamata Banerjee had used against professor Ambikesh Mahapatra earlier this year. Activists, and certainly, many on Twitter see the move as unfair. "Heard the arrest of Industrialist for tweeting against Karti Chidambaram? Where is free speech?" tweeted @praveenkris. A cheekier @NameFieldmt tweeted the same words that landed Ravi in trouble adding, "This is a test tweet. Waiting for action."

Sunil Abraham, director of Bangalore-based group Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) says they have been advocating against Section 66A ever since the 2008 amendment to the IT Act. "It goes beyond the constitutional limits on free speech," he says, adding, "That a few tweets by a person from the bottom of the 'Twitter attention pyramid' can cause harm to a reputation is hard to believe."

Cyber lawyer Pavan Duggal says that it is possible to invoke sections 66 A and 43 in cases like this. "What counts as 'offensive' is for the court to decide," said Duggal, who declined to comment further saying he was yet to come into full knowledge of the details of the case.

Mishi Choudhary, executive director of Software Freedom and Law Center, India, says that Karti Chidambaram's move is perfectly legal, but goes on to locate the problem in exactly that. "It is legitimate as the law permits it. But this section is defective by design," she says.

Section 66A of the IT Act says 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.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The article was published in November 2012, when the use of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act had begun to attract sustained public scrutiny. Introduced through amendments in 2008, the provision allowed criminal penalties for online speech considered "offensive", "menacing", or likely to cause annoyance or inconvenience. Its broad wording gave law enforcement significant discretion, leading to growing unease about how the law was being applied to online expression. By this period, several arrests under Section 66A had already triggered debate among legal experts, civil liberties groups, and internet users. Cases involving political satire, social media commentary, and critical speech were increasingly cited as examples of how online expression was being policed more harshly than comparable speech in offline or print contexts. Social media platforms, particularly Twitter, became focal points for public discussion about free speech and proportionality in digital regulation. The reactions captured in this report reflect these early concerns. Commentators questioned whether existing criminal law was being stretched to address reputational harm, and whether online speech by individuals with limited reach could reasonably be treated as a serious threat. The article documents a moment when questions of legality, proportionality, and constitutional limits began to shape India’s emerging debate on internet governance and freedom of expression. ## External Link - [Read on The Times of India](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/social/twitter-outcry-over-mans-arrest-for-tweets-against-chidambarams-son/articleshow/17044513.cms)