--- layout: default title: "Parl Panel Recommendations to IT Act Leave Online Activists Divided" description: "A Firstpost report by Danish on the Parliamentary Committee's critique of the IT Intermediary Rules and Section 66A, with Sunil Abraham welcoming the proposed constitutional safeguards." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2013-04-03 authors: ["Danish"] source: "Firstpost" permalink: /media/parl-panel-recommendations-it-act-online-activists-divided-firstpost/ created: 2026-03-07 --- **Parl Panel Recommendations to IT Act Leave Online Activists Divided** is a *Firstpost* article written by Danish and published on 3 April 2013. The piece reports on the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation's recommendations to reform the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 and the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, with [Sunil Abraham](/sunil/) of the Centre for Internet and Society welcoming the proposed changes while others, including Medianama, warned that definitional ambiguity could persist. ## 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
📰 Published in:
Firstpost
📅 Date:
3 April 2013
👤 Author:
Danish
📄 Type:
News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

The recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation on Intermediary Rules which has lambasted the government for its laws governing Internet use, has got mixed reactions from advocates of Internet free speech. The Committee found faults with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 including the implementation of the highly controversial section 66A of the IT Act which led to a spate of arrests last year. According to section 66A, 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; (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.

The Committee chaired by P Karunakaran addressed criticism that the absence of solid definitions for terms such as "offensive", "grossly harmful", "blasphemous", "obscene", "hateful", or "racially, ethnically objectionable" and "disparaging", the implementation of section 66A was open to misuse. "In order to remove ambiguity/misgiving in the minds of people, the definition of those terms used in different laws should be incorporated at one place in the aforesaid rules for convenience of reference by the intermediaries and general public," noted the Committee. "The terms which are not defined in any other statute (law), should be defined and incorporated in the rules to ensure that no new category of crimes or offences is created in the process of delegated legislation," it added.

Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society, said that the changes recommended by the Committee would bring the IT Act in parity with the safeguards guaranteed in the constitution. "The standing committee has asked the government to make changes to the rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person's freedom of speech or privacy are legitimately curtailed," he said. CIS was one of the organisations which submitted evidence to the Committee.

However, not everyone was as optimistic on the recommendations. While the Committee's move to define terms is welcome, there are chances that the definition of terms itself can be vague or open to interpretation, noted Medianama. "Can the Indian government be trusted to actually ensure that the IT rules are open to interpretation? Frankly, in our opinion, the following terms should be removed: grossly harmful, blasphemous, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging. The way things are working right now, if the government wants to mess with you, they can. And they're creating provisions that will allow them to do that. If the law is vague, the rule of law doesn't necessarily mean it will be used to protect and not harm people."

Last year, the arrest of two girls in Palghar, Maharashtra, which caused massive outrage, highlighted many of the problems with the IT Act and section 66A in particular. Shaheen Dhadha, was arrested for criticising the shut down of her city because of Bal Thackeray's death in a Facebook status message, as was her friend who had 'liked' it. A Jadavpur University professor was arrested under the IT Act for lampooning West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee. A Puducherry businessman was booked when he tweeted that P Chidambaram's son had amassed more wealth than even Robert Vadra. However, it is not only the government which misuses section 66A. There has also been a spurt in cases where citizens have used the vague wording of the IT Act to target fellow citizens and authorities, as this Firstpost story noted.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation, chaired by P Karunakaran, submitted its report on the IT Intermediary Guidelines Rules in early 2013 following a period of intense public controversy over Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provision, which criminalised online speech deemed "grossly offensive" or likely to cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience", had been used to arrest individuals across India for Facebook posts, tweets, and cartoons — cases that drew sharp criticism from civil liberties groups and the press alike. CIS was among the organisations that submitted formal evidence to the Committee, and Sunil Abraham's response reflects the position CIS had been consistently advancing: that vaguely worded speech restrictions are structurally incompatible with constitutional guarantees of free expression and privacy. The Committee's recommendation to define contested terms was a partial concession to that argument, though as Medianama's sceptical response in the article illustrates, the concern was that definitional exercises in legislation can simply transfer the ambiguity rather than eliminate it. Section 66A was ultimately struck down in its entirety by the Supreme Court in *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India* in March 2015, on the grounds that its vague language had a chilling effect on free speech and was unconstitutional. The 2013 Parliamentary Committee report — and the civil society submissions to it — formed part of the record that informed the legal challenges which led to that judgment. ## External Link - [Read on Firstpost](https://www.firstpost.com/tech/parl-panel-recommendations-to-it-act-leave-online-activists-divided-684202.html)