--- layout: default title: "A Safe Internet and a Free Internet Can Co-exist" description: "A Hindu report on celebrations following the Supreme Court's striking down of Section 66A of the IT Act, featuring expert analysis of the landmark judgment's implications for free speech and intermediary liability." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2015-03-25 authors: ["K. V. Aditya Bharadwaj"] source: "The Hindu" permalink: /media/safe-free-internet-coexist-hindu/ created: 2026-01-19 --- **A Safe Internet and a Free Internet Can Co-exist** is a *The Hindu* report published on 25 March 2015 by K. V. Aditya Bharadwaj. The article documents reactions to the Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, examining both the celebrations amongst free speech advocates and concerns from law enforcement about addressing online rumour-mongering. ## 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:
The Hindu
📅 Date:
25 March 2015
👤 Authors:
K. V. Aditya Bharadwaj
📍 Location:
Bengaluru
📄 Type:
News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online (Subscription required)
## Full Text

Striking down of 66A kicked off celebrations in the IT capital

Social media was celebrating on Tuesday. "Such a party going on on Twitter today #66A!" said one exuberant user, while another put a rap on it: "Made an FB post and didn't go to jail. I gotta say today was a good day." Another group was quick to point though: "Enjoy the freedom responsibly!"

The day the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, those who had consistently termed it a "tyrannical" and "draconian" legal provision did a victory lap, calling it a "triumph for free speech in India". Bengaluru, often called the information technology capital of the country, can stake claim for some of the legwork, with many from the city having either campaigned for the cause or took part in the PIL.

MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, one of the litigants, said, "A free and fair Internet is crucial for innovation, connection and economic growth. By repealing section 66A, India is now ready for a technological leap. A safe Internet and a free Internet can co-exist, and the government should now draft carefully worded amendments that enable this co-existence."

Stating that the Section was more your foe than a friend, cyber law expert Pavan Duggal said, "Section 66A symbolised the tyranny of ambiguous vague terms over the purity of legitimate free speech. It represented a tool for suppressing bonafide free speech, which was extensively misused. Freedom of speech and expression on the Internet is sacrosanct and only subject to reasonable restrictions given under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India."

Intermediaries

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said there were other positives in the landmark judgement.

"For the first time since the 1960s, the SC has struck down a section of law deeming it unconstitutional. Section 79 gave an adjudicatory position to intermediaries (such as Facebook, Twitter or bloggers). They were liable if they took the wrong decision or if they did not act on 'take down' requests within 36 hours. Now they are immune either way," he explained. He said small-time bloggers, newspapers, and open source encyclopaedia, such as Wikipedia, will now be protected.

'Retain spirit of Section 66A(b)'

While even cops handling cyber crimes have welcomed scrapping sub-sections (a) and (c) of Section 66A of IT Act, 2000, they make a case for retaining the spirit of sub-section (b) in an amended law expected to be brought in shortly.

Section 66A(b) deals with a person sending out messages using electronic medium, which he knows to be false. It was under this provision that cops booked rumour-mongers who spread hatred messages through WhatsApp and other social media, which was scrapped.

A classic case was the one where two men were arrested for sending out provocative WhatsApp messages in July 2012, leading to an exodus of North-East Indians from the city. "Similar baseless WhatsApp messages led to chaos after the December 2014 Church Street blast and D.K. Ravi's death. Even Twitter was abuzz with parody profiles and fake claims made by people after the bomb blast. Rumour mongering and sending provocative messages have turned out to be a major area of concern in urban centres," said a senior official.

An official said that in the absence of Section 66A(b), such rumour-mongers could only be booked under the Karnataka Police Act, which carries a very light punishment.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background The article appeared on the day the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*, striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 as unconstitutional. Section 66A had criminalized sending "offensive" or "menacing" messages through communication services, with penalties of up to three years' imprisonment. The provision's vague language had led to widespread misuse, with arrests for social media posts criticizing politicians, sharing cartoons and expressing dissenting views. The judgment represented the first time since the 1960s that the Supreme Court had struck down a parliamentary statute as unconstitutional on free speech grounds. Beyond Section 66A, the court clarified protections for online intermediaries under Section 79, ruling that platforms could not be held liable for user-generated content unless they received actual knowledge through court orders or government notifications, rather than private takedown requests. Several Bengaluru-based activists and organizations, including MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar and the Centre for Internet and Society, had been involved in the public interest litigation challenging Section 66A. The provision had been particularly controversial following high-profile arrests, including two young women in Maharashtra who were detained for Facebook posts questioning the shutdown for politician Bal Thackeray's funeral. Whilst free speech advocates celebrated the judgment, law enforcement officials expressed concerns about addressing genuine instances of online rumour-mongering, particularly following incidents where WhatsApp messages had triggered communal tensions and panic, including the 2012 exodus of North-Eastern residents from Bengaluru and false information circulating after the 2014 Church Street blast. ## External Link - [Read on The Hindu](https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/a-safe-internet-and-a-free-internet-can-coexist/article7031117.ece) (Subscription required)