no edit summary
>Omnilegent No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
The '''Information Technology Act, 2000''' (also known as '''ITA-2000''', or the '''IT Act''') is an Act of the [[Indian Parliament]] (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in [[India]] dealing with [[cybercrime]] and [[electronic commerce]]. | The '''Information Technology Act, 2000''' (also known as '''ITA-2000''', or the '''IT Act''') is an Act of the [[Indian Parliament]] (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in [[India]] dealing with [[cybercrime]] and [[electronic commerce]]. | ||
[[Primary and secondary legislation|Secondary or subordinate legislation]] to the IT Act includes the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]]'''.''' | [[Primary and secondary legislation|Secondary or subordinate legislation]] to the IT Act includes the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]]'''.'''.. | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| Publishing images containing [[Pornography in India|sexual acts]] | | Publishing images containing [[Pornography in India|sexual acts]] | ||
| Imprisonment up to seven years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|1,000,000|INR}} | | Imprisonment up to seven years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|1,000,000|INR}} | ||
|- | |-No]] or [[Sexual predator|predating children]] online | ||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |- | ||
| 67C | | 67C | ||
| Line 128: | Line 126: | ||
|Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}} | |Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| | |74466 | ||
|Publication for fraudulent purpose | |Publication for fraudulent purpose | ||
|Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}} | |Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}} | ||
| Line 142: | Line 140: | ||
===Section 66A=== | ===Section 66A=== | ||
* In September 2012, a freelance [[cartoonist]] [[Aseem Trivedi]] was arrested under the Section 66A of the IT Act, Section 2 of [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971]] and for [[sedition]] under the Section 124 of the [[Indian Penal Code]].<ref name=Sedition>{{cite news|title='If Speaking The Truth Is Sedition, Then I Am Guilty'|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article/If-Speaking-The-Truth-Is-Sedition-Then-I-Am-Guilty/282245|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Outlook India]]|date=10 September 2010}}</ref> His cartoons depicting widespread corruption in India were considered offensive.<ref name=IndianCartoonist>{{cite news|title=Indian cartoonist Aseem Trivedi jailed after arrest on sedition charges|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/10/indian-cartoonist-jailed-sedition|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=10 September 2010}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cyberlawhub.com/it-act-2000/chapter-11-offences/section-66a-punishment-for-sending-offensive-messages-through-communication-service-etc.php Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.]</ref> | * In September 2012, a freelance [[cartoonist]] [[Aseem Trivedi]] was arrested under the Section 66A of the IT Act, Section 2 of [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971]] and for [[sedition]] under the Section 124 of the [[Indian Penal Code]].<ref name=Sedition>{{cite news|title='If Speaking The Truth Is Sedition, Then I Am Guilty'|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article/If-Speaking-The-Truth-Is-Sedition-Then-I-Am-Guilty/282245|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Outlook India]]|date=10 September 2010}}</ref> His cartoons depicting widespread corruption in India were considered offensive.<ref name=IndianCartoonist>{{cite news|title=Indian cartoonist Aseem Trivedi jailed after arrest on sedition charges|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/10/indian-cartoonist-jailed-sedition|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=10 September 2010}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cyberlawhub.com/it-act-2000/chapter-11-offences/section-66a-punishment-for-sending-offensive-messages-through-communication-service-etc.php Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.]</ref> | ||
* On 12 April 2012, a Chemistry professor from [[Jadavpur University]], Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for sharing a cartoon of [[West Bengal]] [[Chief Minister]] [[Chief Minister of West Bengal|Mamata Banerjee]] and then [[Minister of Railways (India)|Railway Minister]] [[Mukul Roy]].<ref name=PokingFun>{{cite news|title=Professor arrested for poking fun at Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=14 April 2012}}</ref> The email was sent from the email address of a housing society. Subrata Sengupta, the secretary of the housing society, was also arrested. They were charged under Section 66A and B of the IT Act, for defamation under Sections 500, for obscene gesture to a woman under Section 509, and abetting a crime under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.<ref name=Mamata>{{cite news|title=Cartoon a conspiracy, prof an offender: Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/cartoon-a-conspiracy-prof-an-offender-mamata/article1-840108.aspx|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=13 April 2012}}</ref> | * On 12 April 2012, a Chemistry professor from [[Jadavpur University]], Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for sharing a cartoon of [[West Bengal]] [[Chief Minister]] [[Chief Minister of West Bengal|Mamata Banerjee]] and then [[Minister of Railways (India)|Railway Minister]] [[Mukul Roy]].<ref name=PokingFun>{{cite news|title=Professor arrested for poking fun at Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702120532/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=2 July 2014|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=14 April 2012}}</ref> The email was sent from the email address of a housing society. Subrata Sengupta, the secretary of the housing society, was also arrested. They were charged under Section 66A and B of the IT Act, for defamation under Sections 500, for obscene gesture to a woman under Section 509, and abetting a crime under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.<ref name=Mamata>{{cite news|title=Cartoon a conspiracy, prof an offender: Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/cartoon-a-conspiracy-prof-an-offender-mamata/article1-840108.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518131202/http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/cartoon-a-conspiracy-prof-an-offender-mamata/article1-840108.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=18 May 2015|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=13 April 2012}}</ref> | ||
* On 30 October 2012, a [[Pondicherry|Puducherry]] businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested under Section 66A. He had sent tweet accusing [[Karti Chidambaram]], son of then [[Finance Minister]] [[P. Chidambaram]], of corruption. Karti Chidambaram had complained to the police.<ref name=MangoMan>{{cite news|title=Arrest over tweet against Chidambaram's son propels 'mango man' Ravi Srinivasan into limelight|url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arrest-tweet-chidambaram-son-karti-ravi-srinivasan/1/227402.html|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[India Today]]|date=2 November 2012}}</ref> | * On 30 October 2012, a [[Pondicherry|Puducherry]] businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested under Section 66A. He had sent tweet accusing [[Karti Chidambaram]], son of then [[Finance Minister]] [[P. Chidambaram]], of corruption. Karti Chidambaram had complained to the police.<ref name=MangoMan>{{cite news|title=Arrest over tweet against Chidambaram's son propels 'mango man' Ravi Srinivasan into limelight|url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arrest-tweet-chidambaram-son-karti-ravi-srinivasan/1/227402.html|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[India Today]]|date=2 November 2012}}</ref> | ||
* On 19 November 2012, a 21-year-old girl was arrested from [[Palghar]] for posting a message on Facebook criticising the shutdown in Mumbai for the funeral of [[Bal Thackeray]]. Another 20-year-old girl was arrested for "liking" the post. They were initially charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (hurting religious sentiments) and Section 66A of the IT Act. Later, Section 295A was replaced by Section 505(2) (promoting enmity between classes).<ref name=FearNotRespect>{{cite news|title=Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not respect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece?ref=relatedNews|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=19 November 2012}}</ref> A group of [[Shiv Sena]] workers vandalised a hospital run by the uncle of one of girls.<ref name=10Sainiks>{{cite news|title=FB post: 10 Sainiks arrested for hospital attack|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/fb-post-10-sainiks-arrested-for-hospital-attack/article4114966.ece?ref=relatedNews|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=20 November 2012}}</ref> On 31 January 2013, a local court dropped all charges against the girls.<ref name=ScrapsFBRow>{{cite news|title=Facebook row: Court scraps charges against Palghar girls|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/facebook-row-court-scraps-charges-against-palghar-girls/article4365469.ece|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=31 January 2013}}</ref> | * On 19 November 2012, a 21-year-old girl was arrested from [[Palghar]] for posting a message on Facebook criticising the shutdown in Mumbai for the funeral of [[Bal Thackeray]]. Another 20-year-old girl was arrested for "liking" the post. They were initially charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (hurting religious sentiments) and Section 66A of the IT Act. Later, Section 295A was replaced by Section 505(2) (promoting enmity between classes).<ref name=FearNotRespect>{{cite news|title=Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not respect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece?ref=relatedNews|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=19 November 2012}}</ref> A group of [[Shiv Sena]] workers vandalised a hospital run by the uncle of one of girls.<ref name=10Sainiks>{{cite news|title=FB post: 10 Sainiks arrested for hospital attack|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/fb-post-10-sainiks-arrested-for-hospital-attack/article4114966.ece?ref=relatedNews|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=20 November 2012}}</ref> On 31 January 2013, a local court dropped all charges against the girls.<ref name=ScrapsFBRow>{{cite news|title=Facebook row: Court scraps charges against Palghar girls|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/facebook-row-court-scraps-charges-against-palghar-girls/article4365469.ece|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=31 January 2013}}</ref> | ||
| Line 176: | Line 174: | ||
In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the [[Lucknow]] bench of the [[Allahabad High Court]] claiming that the Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]]. They said that the section was vague and frequently misused.<ref name=UltraVires>{{cite news|title=After Mumbai FB case, writ filed in Lucknow to declare section 66A, IT Act 2000 as ultra-vires|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/After-Mumbai-FB-case-writ-filed-in-Lucknow-to-declare-section-66A-IT-Act-2000-as-ultra-vires/articleshow/17310326.cms?referral=PM|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=21 November 2012}}</ref> | In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the [[Lucknow]] bench of the [[Allahabad High Court]] claiming that the Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]]. They said that the section was vague and frequently misused.<ref name=UltraVires>{{cite news|title=After Mumbai FB case, writ filed in Lucknow to declare section 66A, IT Act 2000 as ultra-vires|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/After-Mumbai-FB-case-writ-filed-in-Lucknow-to-declare-section-66A-IT-Act-2000-as-ultra-vires/articleshow/17310326.cms?referral=PM|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=21 November 2012}}</ref> | ||
Also in November 2012, a Delhi-based law student, [[Shreya Singhal]], filed a [[Public Interest Litigation]] (PIL) in the [[Supreme Court of India]]. She argued that the Section 66A was vaguely phrased, as result it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November 2012.<ref name=PIL66A>{{cite news|title=SC accepts PIL challenging Section 66A of IT Act|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-accepts-PIL-challenging-Section-66A-of-IT-Act/articleshow/17412246.cms|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=29 November 2012}}</ref><ref name=Shreya>{{cite news|title=Shreya Singhal: The student who took on India's internet laws|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32036574|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[BBC News]]|date=24 March 2015}}</ref> | Also in November 2012, a Delhi-based law student, [[Shreya Singhal]], filed a [[Public Interest Litigation]] (PIL) in the [[Supreme Court of India]]. She argued that the Section 66A was vaguely phrased, as result it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November 2012.<ref name=PIL66A>{{cite news|title=SC accepts PIL challenging Section 66A of IT Act|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-accepts-PIL-challenging-Section-66A-of-IT-Act/articleshow/17412246.cms|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=29 November 2012}}</ref><ref name=Shreya>{{cite news|title=Shreya Singhal: The student who took on India's internet laws|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32036574|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[BBC News]]|date=24 March 2015}}</ref> | ||
In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to petitions | |||
In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to petitions filed by the [[Internet and Mobile Association of India]] (IAMAI) which claimed that the IT Act gave the government power to arbitrarily remove user-generated content.<ref name=SCSeeksReply>{{cite news|title=SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act|url=http://www.livemint.com/Politics/DSjZ9XsezZ4fN2GGfkWu1N/SC-seeks-govt-reply-on-PIL-challenging-powers-of-IT-Act.html|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Live Mint]]|date=30 August 2015}}</ref> | |||
====Revocation by the Supreme Court==== | ====Revocation by the Supreme Court==== | ||
| Line 196: | Line 195: | ||
On 2 April 2015, the Chief Minister of [[Maharashtra]], [[Devendra Fadnavis]] revealed to the state assembly that a new law was being framed to replace the repealed Section 66A. Fadnavis was replying to a query [[Shiv Sena]] leader Neelam Gorhe. Gorhe had said that repeal of the law would encourage online miscreants and asked whether the state government would frame a law to this regard. Fadnavis said that the previous law had resulted in no convictions, so the law would be framed such that it would be strong and result in convictions.<ref name=NewLaw66A>{{cite news|title=Centre working on new law similar to Section 66A: Devendra Fadnavis|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social/Centre-working-on-new-law-similar-to-Section-66A-Devendra-Fadnavis/articleshow/46780443.cms|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref> | On 2 April 2015, the Chief Minister of [[Maharashtra]], [[Devendra Fadnavis]] revealed to the state assembly that a new law was being framed to replace the repealed Section 66A. Fadnavis was replying to a query [[Shiv Sena]] leader Neelam Gorhe. Gorhe had said that repeal of the law would encourage online miscreants and asked whether the state government would frame a law to this regard. Fadnavis said that the previous law had resulted in no convictions, so the law would be framed such that it would be strong and result in convictions.<ref name=NewLaw66A>{{cite news|title=Centre working on new law similar to Section 66A: Devendra Fadnavis|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social/Centre-working-on-new-law-similar-to-Section-66A-Devendra-Fadnavis/articleshow/46780443.cms|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref> | ||
On 13 April 2015, it announced that the [[Ministry of Home Affairs (India)|Ministry of Home Affairs]] would form a committee of officials from the [[Intelligence Bureau (India)|Intelligence Bureau]], [[Central Bureau of Investigation]], [[National Investigation Agency]], [[Delhi Police]] and ministry itself to produce a new legal framework. This step was reportedly taken after complaints from intelligence agencies that, they were no longer able to counter online posts that involved national security matter or incite people to commit an offence, such as online recruitment for [[ISIS]].<ref name=SofterSec66A>{{cite news|title=Section 66A of the IT Act likely to be back in softer avatar|url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-14/news/61142309_1_social-media-posts-shreya-singhal-ministry-official|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Economic Times]]|date=14 April 2015}}</ref><ref name=NewPanel>{{cite news|title=New panel to work on Section 66A alternative|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-panel-to-work-on-sec-66a-alternative/article1-1336917.aspx|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=14 April 2015}}</ref> Former Minister of State with the Ministry of Information Technology, [[Milind Deora]] has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A".<ref name=Deora>{{cite news|title=Former IT minister Milind Deora: Why we need a new Section 66A|url=http://www.rediff.com/news/column/former-it-minister-milind-deora-why-we-need-a-new-section-66a/20150402.htm|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Rediff]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref> | On 13 April 2015, it announced that the [[Ministry of Home Affairs (India)|Ministry of Home Affairs]] would form a committee of officials from the [[Intelligence Bureau (India)|Intelligence Bureau]], [[Central Bureau of Investigation]], [[National Investigation Agency]], [[Delhi Police]] and ministry itself to produce a new legal framework. This step was reportedly taken after complaints from intelligence agencies that, they were no longer able to counter online posts that involved national security matter or incite people to commit an offence, such as online recruitment for [[ISIS]].<ref name=SofterSec66A>{{cite news|title=Section 66A of the IT Act likely to be back in softer avatar|url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-14/news/61142309_1_social-media-posts-shreya-singhal-ministry-official|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Economic Times]]|date=14 April 2015}}</ref><ref name=NewPanel>{{cite news|title=New panel to work on Section 66A alternative|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-panel-to-work-on-sec-66a-alternative/article1-1336917.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415090939/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-panel-to-work-on-sec-66a-alternative/article1-1336917.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=15 April 2015|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=14 April 2015}}</ref> Former Minister of State with the Ministry of Information Technology, [[Milind Deora]] has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A".<ref name=Deora>{{cite news|title=Former IT minister Milind Deora: Why we need a new Section 66A|url=http://www.rediff.com/news/column/former-it-minister-milind-deora-why-we-need-a-new-section-66a/20150402.htm|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Rediff]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref> | ||
==Importance of the Information Technology Act== | ==Importance of the Information Technology Act== | ||
| Line 202: | Line 201: | ||
== Secondary legislation == | == Secondary legislation == | ||
The [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]] suppresses India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dalmia|first=Vijay Pal|date=4 March 2021|title=Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021|url=https://www.mondaq.com/india/social-media/1042586/information-technology-guidelines-for-intermediaries-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021 | The [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]] suppresses India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dalmia|first=Vijay Pal|date=4 March 2021|title=Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021|url=https://www.mondaq.com/india/social-media/1042586/information-technology-guidelines-for-intermediaries-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021|access-date=2021-03-05|website=www.mondaq.com}}</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||