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 66 A 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.
Earlier this month, singer Chinmayi Sripada had also filed a similar complaint after she was allegedly bullied by some individuals on Twitter despite repeated blocking. The singer allegedly received repeated nasty comments, and even threats of bodily harm. Abraham feels Chinmayi's case was strengthened by the fact that the offenders used criminal intimidation. "You can be as annoying as you want as long as you don't indulge in criminal intimidation," says Abraham.
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.