| Wednesday , March 25 , 2015 |
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150325/jsp/frontpage/story_10719.jsp#.VRII-_yUeSo
GIRL WHO SAVED FREE SPEECH- (and gave a bloody nose to a national coalition of control freaks) | |
| R. Balaji and Our Bureau | |
 Shreya Singhal, the first petitioner Shreya, the girl who once woke up with consternation to news that two girls in Maharashtra had been booked for a Facebook post, was the first petitioner who approached the Supreme Court against Section 66A, which was struck down today. (Why Section 66A was killed, salient features of court order in chart below) Section 66A of the Information Technology Act has been the favourite tool of those in power to arrest and torment critics.  Today, P. Chidambaram, whose son had used the section against a critic, welcomed the verdict although the amendment was added when the UPA was in power. The BJP split hairs and denied a somersault, although it had defended Section 66A in court and the current law minister was on a parliamentary panel that sought measures to make cyber offences a cognisable offence, which permits discretionary arrests. This is what the Supreme Court had to say about Section 66A before striking it down: "Such is the reach of the section and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total." Amid the rush among national movers and shakers to embrace free speech after the verdict, Shreya pointed out: "A change of government makes no difference. Earlier the UPA government was defending it and the new NDA government also did so. The impunity with which people were arrested was shocking. Even when the matter was pending in the court, police were making arrests." While some national leaders grinned and bore it, Mamata, whose government had arrested Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for circulating a joke on her and charged him under Section 66A, remained silent. At 7pm, Mamata tweeted "congratulations to all the winners" of the national film awards. No prizes for guessing Mamata did not congratulate Shreya, who was recovering from a nervous night and beginning to savour the triumph of free speech. "I was nervous last night. But today I will celebrate. You never know, another argument might just lead to another case," said Shreya, who had filed the initial petition, following which others had joined in. Shreya has reason to be wary. The death of Section 66A does not ensure the survival of free speech or personal liberties. There are enough provisions in the Indian Penal Code to harass citizens if those in power are willing to pursue them with vengeance. In fact, the offences under Section 66A were bailable, which meant the suspects picked up could be given bail at the police station itself. The police slapped other laws to keep some in custody or, as in the case of the JU professor, simply kept the accused in the dark about their rights. Mahapatra was kept in the police station for "his own protection" although he was not charged with any non-bailable offence. But Shreya added: "I am very happy with the judgment. The Supreme Court has only reinforced our faith in it. Our freedom of speech and expression has been upheld. My family has always been my pillar of strength." Shreya had graduated in science in July 2012 from the University of Bristol, the UK. But her regular visits to the Supreme Court to pursue this case with her mother Manali left such an indelible impression on her that she chose to take up juridical studies. Shreya is now a second-year law student at Delhi University, making her a third-generation member of her family to pursue law. Her mother Manali is a senior lawyer while her grandmother Sunanda Bhandare was a judge with Delhi High Court. Shreya had just returned to Delhi from abroad in 2012 when she read about the arrest of two Mumbai girls for a Facebook post on the shutdown that followed the death of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray. "It could have been me or my friend. How could one be arrested for questioning the shutdown of a city?" Shreya recalled telling her mother. Manali said she had suggested in a lighter vein that her daughter should file a PIL in the apex court if she was so concerned about freedom of speech and expression. Shreya consulted Ninad Seth, a younger colleague of Manali, and moved court. Former attorney-general Soli Sorabjee, whom Manali had assisted in a number of cases, appeared free of cost for Shreya. Important judgments of the Supreme Court are included in the curriculum of law students. Shreya will have to wait and see if today's judgment makes the curriculum next year before she graduates.  |