Fear of No Regulation of Internet

The Supreme Court of India has struck down the Section 66A of Information Technology act. Online activist who campaigned for removal of section 66A welcomed the move. Yet all laws don't exist without conflict of opinion. Few sections of people including activist, political parties, lawyers has question what would the result of the verdict.

Supreme Court scraps section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000:

Today, in a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court upheld the section 66A as unconstitutional as the word "grossly offensive", etc are vague. The verdict paved way for the protection of online citizens who express opinion through Social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. The arrest of two college girls in Mumbai for posting comments against the manner of funeral provided for Shiva Sena Chief Bal Thackeray has created huge uproar against the atrocious section of the Act. While Supreme Court granted interim relief to get prior permission of Commissioner of Police or police officer at the rank of DCP to arrest person who post objectionable contents online by 2013.

Concerns following the Verdict:

Few people have raised concerns that scrapping of Section 66A would promote anti-social elements to propagate any ideology against anybody. Thus net neutrality would provide free for all situation. It might seen as a justifiable concern. When the world mulls for regulation of Internet through centralized body, such verdicts would puzzle people who advocate for Internet regulation. But such concerns are unnecessary. 

Section 66A is Not the Only Solution

A few months backs we would have heard that Department of Telecommunication (DOT) which ordered all Internet Service Providers (ISP) to block 34 websites. The reason cited was these websites were used to propagate terrorist activities in India. The whole scenario didn't warrant Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.

This would serve as a good example that Government of India could control Internet Content without the atrocious Section 66A. Moreover, the recent arrest of School boy for posting comments on Social Networking Site is a good example that it would do more harm than good. 

Without Section 66A Government is all capable of controlling the Internet content. Blocking of 34 websites is good precedent to explain how DOT could control offensive web contents. For people, who worry about scrapping of Section 66A, it will not do any harm to social peace and security.

Supreme Court: Sec 66A Stuck Down

Section 66 A of IT Act unconstitutional, Supreme Court rules

Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc- any Person who sends, by means of a computer source 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 misled 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.

Police to arrest anybody who post objectionable contents online

The Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000, gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Section 66 A of the Information and Technology Act as unconstitutional.

The public’s right to know is directly affected by Section 66 A of the IT Act, the Court said.

It also termed the provision as vague and says “what may be offensive to a person, may not be offensive to others.”

The Section gives the police powers to arrest those who post objectionable content online and provides for a three-year jail term.

Freedom of Speech and Expression upheld

A bench of justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman had on 26 February reserved its judgement on one of the most controversial issues regarding the freedom of expression that the court has had to deal with in recent times. The verdict was reserved after the government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be declared unconstitutional merely because of the possibility of its “abuse”.

The government said it did not want to curtail the freedom of speech and expression but contended that the cyber space could not be allowed to remain unregulated. During hearing however, the court had found several issues with the wording of the law. In particular, it said that terms like ‘grossly offensive’ and ‘of menacing character’, used to classify content as illegal, were vague expressions and these words were likely to be misunderstood and abused.

Interim Relief in 2013

The first PIL on the issue was filed in 2012 by a law student Shreya Singhal, who sought amendment in Section 66A of the Act, after two girls — Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan — were arrested in Palghar in Thane district as one of them posted a comment against the shutdown in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death and the other ‘liked’ it. The apex court had on 16 May 2013, come out with an advisory that a person, accused of posting objectionable comments on social networking sites, cannot be arrested without police getting permission from senior officers like the IG or the DCP.

Right to Equality and Equal Protection of Law

Right to Equality

Indian Constitution provide Equality for all. But reality is it absolute? The point is no right is absolute in India. A reasonable restrictions are towed along with the rights granted to Indian citizens. Yet what happen when such reasonable restrictions go beyond normal human reasoning? This what happens in Chennai Domestic Arrival. The VIP culture dominate common man needs.

Renovated Chennai International Airport

Recently, The Chennai International Airport was renovated. The infrastructure facilities went beyond the expectations. Yet people enjoy the benefits of such infrastructure projects. What is expected & what is the reality? The question is obvious when we enter the practical life of Chennaite. 

Discrimination in Chennai International Airport

If you are an ordinary passenger then you will not be able to board on your taxi or cars on the lane in front of arrival section. The reason is the lane is earmarked for the important key functionaries of the Government. Yet we understand the importance of Government functionaries. But the those related to such functionaries and film stars get the special treatment. Even on occasions, when no VIP arrives, the lane remains unused.

To Find Profit with Parking

The cabs and car owners cry foul that the aim of the authorities to collect irrational parking charges from the terminal users. Even to pick up someone we have to pay up the parking charge and wait near the arrival than to just drive and pick them up from the arrival. It is ordeal for elderly and senior citizens who deserves most care from the authorities. Those people have to either take walk to the car or wait until they can claim special benefit at the mercy of authorities.

Blame Game

A Policeman said the lane had to be restricted for use as it was being taken over by drivers who arrived early and slept in their cars. AirPassengers Association of India President Mr. Sudhakar Reddy said it was an excuse to benefit from parking lot revenue.

All are Not Equal

The tussle with which domestic arrival passengers are treated convey a clear message that all passengers coming out of that gate at Chennai airport are not 'equal'.

Madras High Court: Conviction without Trial not valid

Madras High Court quashes murder case without trial

Madras High Court has upheld that a conviction without trial is invalid. Mere confession before the police officer is not sufficient to convict the accused.

Confessions Cannot Be the Basis for Conviction, Court Needs Recovery' - Justice R.S.Ramanathan

A case of wife-killing, slapped on a man, his lover and five of his family members, was quashed by the Madras High Court which said that they need not be made to go through the rigorous trial, as the entire case had been built on mere confessions made by key suspects to police.

"Chargesheet cannot be filed against the accused solely on the basis of confession, which does not lead to recovery. In this case, except the confession, there is no recovery, Therefore, confession cannot be the basis for conviction, even accepting it as true," said Justice R S Ramanathan, quashing the murder case against Natarajan and others, all from Namakkal district.

According to police, Natarajan had developed intimacy with another woman, and murdered his wife Vijayalakshmi, in order to marry her, After the crime, gold ornaments, mobile phone and other materials belonging to Vijayalakshmi were given to Natrajan's parents and brothers.

Besides Natarajan, police had his parents, sister, brother-in-law and paternal uncle as accused, apparently for having tried to tamper with evidence by destroying mobile phone and personal belonging of Vijayalakshmi. Chargesheet for murder and abetment was filed against all suspects before the judicial magistrate court in Paramathi, Namakkal district.

Supreme Court on Confessions and Recovery:

Counsel for suspects, seeking the quashing of the chargesheet, told the high court that except the confessions of Natarajan and his mother, no other incriminating statements or evidence had been obtained by police, and other evidence like mobile phone too had not been recovered by police.

Justice Ramanathan, accepting the arguments and relying on Supreme Court judgement covering the issue, said when the confession does not lead to recovery, the confession is inadmissible n law, and the chargesheet based on such confession has no legal basis, and is liable to be quashed.

"As confession is inadmissible as no recovery has been made following the confession, to permit the prosecution to proceed against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of the court," the Judge said.

While framing charges on the accused, a court has to consider only the unrebuttable evidence which could get the suspect convicted, he said, adding: "If the evidence is not sufficient to convict the accused, then the court would not be justified in framing the charge against the accused." Non-recovery of the mobile phone too proved costly for the prosecution, as court declined to believe their claim that the co-suspects of Dharmalingam had destroyed the handset and SIM card, inviting another criminal charge of concealing evidence.

Facebook Faces Legal Action for Sexual Harassment

"A sacked Facebook employee, who was asked to leave the company in 2013, has filed a legal complaint against the social networking giant, alleging the company of sex discrimination, sexual harassment and emotional torture." - efytimes.com

Work environment Hostile

The former Facebook employee, Chia Hong, claimed that the work environment was very hostile in the company that she faced severe humiliation as she was asked to organize parties and serve drinks to male colleagues. She alleged that she was asked why she didn't only bother taking care of her child than working for the company.

Racial Discrimination

She further added that she was discriminated for being a woman and also for her nationality. She was Taiwanese working for the social networking giant. She was employed at the company for more than 3 years. She started out as product manager and then shifted to technology partner in finance. The company served pink slip in 2013.

Facebook is on Right Track

According to the Facebook spokeperson, the company work extremely hard to avoid such situation within the company and further stated that the company believes they are on right track.The spokesperson defended that the Facebook treated it employees fairly. Chia Hong has sued Facebook for punitive damages.

Legal Consequence for Harassment of Women in Workplace

If the incident is proved beyond all reasonable doubt it cast a shadow upon the tech giants regarding the safety of woman at workplace. In India, the prevention of harassment of woman at workplace is guided by the famous Supreme court judgement which is popularly known as Vishaka Guidelines which was later replaced with an Act of 2013.

Caveat Petition: Know next move of your opponent in Civil proceedings

What is Caveat?

Caveat is just a preemptive measure to know on the event of suit being initiated against you with respect to particular dispute between the parties.

What is Caveat Petition?

Caveat petition or application could be sought be any person who feels imminent threat of getting sued by others. Caveat Petition must be placed before the court under whose jurisdiction caveator may be sued by the opposite party or parties.

Lapse of Caveat

“Nothing is permanent and perpetual so the caveat”

A cause is limited with a prescribed time period. So the caveat application. They are not ever lasting upon the opposite parties. Any Caveat application is valid for 90 days from the date of application of Caveat application before any court.

Most difficult part with the caveat is the time gap of one or two days from the expected date of being sued to the actual date of filing the suit by the opposite parties. For instance, consider you have own the suit in the trial court, but you sense that the opponent who lost the suit would appeal before the appeal court and decided to file a caveat application before the appeal court to notify you on event of an appeal suit being filed or injunction suit. There would be no problem if the caveat application is filed without any delay. But an unforeseen incident caused a delay of 2 days to file the caveat application then you can see an opportunity for the opponent party to file an appeal suit within 2 days thus frustrate your caveat application.

Advantage of Caveat application:

Nothing changes the consequence of the suit proceeding with or without your caveat application. Remember, caveat is just a preemptive measure to know on the event of suit being initiated against you with respect to particular dispute between the parties. So this will not prevent your opponent to move next appeal court to settle the dispute.

The great advantage which comes with caveat application is that no interim injunctions would be granted against you by the appeal court without hearing you. To be simple, the appeal court or court to which caveat application has been presented will not grant an exparte injunction against you with respect to that particular dispute.

PIL to exempt film actors from Service Tax

Madras High Court refused to grant exemption for film actors

Is a film actor equal to a theatre artist and eligible for service tax exemptions for his earnings? No, the Madras High Court has ruled, refusing to grant exemption for actor Siddharth Suryanarayanan, who wanted to be treated on a par with theatre/folk artists and give tax exemptions.

“The mere fact that there is an element of drama or acting both in case of theatre and films does not mean that the two activities are identical”, said the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh in an order last week.

Siddharth, who has acted in Tamil, Telugu and Hindi movies, said his job involved skills to display different kinds of emotions, dialogue delivery skills and acting out characters specified by the film director. “These skills are not different from those of an actor who performs in a drama,” he said, assailing a June20, 2012 notification of the Centre exempting performing artists or folk or classical art forms of music, dance or theatre from the liability of paying Service Tax under Section 66 B of the Finance Act, 1994.

Noting that same benefits were not extended to other performing artists such as film actors, Siddharth said the notification was arbitrary and discriminatory and there was no reasonable basis behind such a classification.

Distinction in exemption of service tax is reasonable:

The Centre, in its reply, said the distinction was based on valid differences and pointed out the huge expenditure involved in films as well as the earnings of film actors.

This is distinct from native art and culture, which required protection as it is more in the nature of a non-profit activity, it said. Protection to cultural and educational right and preserving the heritage of composite culture of the nation is a constitutional mandate under Article 29, the Centre said.

PIL misconceived & without any merit:

Describing the PIL as misconceived and without any merit, the bench said: “In our view, the two categories are clearly different and distinguishable and cannot be treated at parity. The mere fact that there is an element of drama or acting both in case of films does not mean that two activities are identical, taking into consideration the circumstances in which films are made and theatre is performed. It is towards the object of Article 29 of the Constitution that a salutary endeavor has been made to give support to native art and culture and encourage them as they suffer from financial constraints. This is not the position of films.”

Also, taxation statutes have to be dealt with due deference to the legislative intent, the judges said, adding: “What is reasonable is a question of practical details and variety of factors, which the court would be reluctant and ill-equipped to investigate.” They then dismissed the petition filed by the actor.

Self Defence not offence: Madras High Court

Every Person has right to Defend Body

Five years after two criminals- Dindigul Pandi and Velu- were gunned down by the city police in an encounter, the Madras High Court on Tuesday said the police action “done in exercise of the right of private defence” could not be termed as an offence.

“An action done in the exercise of the right to private defence can’t be termed as an offence under Section 96 of IPC. Every person has a right to defend his own body,” ruled the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh.

On February 8, 2010, Pandi and Velu were killed in an encounter at Neelankarai in Chennai. The two were accused in several cases. A PIL was filed by advocate P.Pugalenthi, director of NGO Prisoners Rights Forum, seeking a direction to TN government to register case of murder against the police personnel involved in the encounter.

Police said when they intercepted a vehicle of Pandi and Velu, the duo attacked police, injuring some policemen. In self defence, police retaliated by opening fire.

Police ought to have filed FIR & Probed:

M.Radhakrishnan, counsel for Pugalenthi, said the self-defence plea was available at the time of trial, and that the jurisdictional police ought to have registered an FIR and investigated. Since the death had occurred at the instance of police personnel, an independent probe ought to have been initiated, he said.

Independent probe by Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO):

The bench, pointing out that the report of the revenue divisional officer was exhaustive, said: “A perusal of the report would show that an exhaustive inquiry was conducted and statements from the deceased family members have been obtained. Publications calling for statements were made in the dailies. The report was accepted by the government.”

Pointing out that the petitioner has not assailed the report, they said, “we don’t have factual any premise leading to a conclusion of an offence having been committed.”

Disinterest towards Marital Life is Domestic Violence

Madras High Court ruling on Husband’s disinterest towards marriage life

The madras High Court’s ruling on Domestic Violence Act comes after a complaint was lodged by a woman named “Kalpana” against her husband, who was behaving differently, not showing any interest in the marital life. She said she was threatened that if she or her son revealed his condition, they would not get any share of his properties.

She married the man in August, 1993, and their son was born in March, 1995. She lodged the domestic violence complaint in 2010, when the boy was in Class 11. She demanded her jewellery, dowry and other assets she had brought from her home. She also wanted the court to order her husband to pay Rs. 15 lakh incurred as cost of the boy’s engineering education, besides maintenance of Rs. 10,000 each a month.

In July, 2012, a magistrate court in Coimbatore reiterated the magistrate court’s order and asked him to pay 50% of capitation fee, besides Rs.5000 as monthly maintenance for him.

The father then filed the present petition in the high court. Justice Manikumar, dismissing his appeal, said the man must pay Rs.2.11 lakh within 10 days.

Madras High court on Domestic Violence Victims for Monetary assistance

Madras high court had ruled that Victims of Domestic Violence be paid adequate monetary assistance

In a landmark ruling, the Madras High Court has said women who are victims of Domestic Violence must be paid adequate monetary assistance for food, shelter, health and education, at every stage of proceedings under the protection of women under Domestic violence act, 2005.  Justice S.Manikumar delivered a 120 page verdict to light up lives of thousands of women fighting Domestic violence cases as it provides for maintenance and compensation for almost every conceivable aspect of a married woman’s life.

Protection of Women and Children

Holding that the law envisaged exhaustive protection for the woman and child, Justice S.Manikumar said that man was legally and morally bound to provide for material assistance to a wife who has alleged domestic violence and child. Listing the circumstances in which interim monetary relief could be ordered by a magistrate. Justice Manikumar said:

“The magistrate may direct the husband to pay monetary relief to meet expenses incurred and losses suffered by the woman and her child as a result of domestic violence. Such relief may include, but not be limited to, loss of earnings, medical expenses, loss caused due to destruction, damage or removal of any property from the control of the aggrieved person and maintenance for the woman and her children, if any.”

Need not hear Husband/ exparte order is valid:

To award interim maintenance, the magistrates need not hear the husband and order could be even exparte, Justice S.Manikumar observed. “If any application prima facie discloses that the husband is committing, or has committed act of domestic violence or that there is likelihood that he may commit, the magistrate may grant an ex parte order on the basis of an affidavit by the women.”

No wait till Final Order :

Perhaps aware of the practice among the magistrates to address a woman’s concerns in the final order, Justice Manikumar said: “if contention of the man that lumpsum payment can be awarded only at the time of final disposal of the main application is accepted, then the woman who is in dire necessity to meet medical expenses for children would be put to irreparable hardship.”

Domestic Violence: Economic abuse

Economic abuse is deprivation of financial resources to which the woman is entitled under any law or custom, Justice Manikumar observed. Further, he added: “It is customary that father is morally bound to maintain his wife and child by providing basic amenities like food, shelter and clothing. He is also bound to provide health and education. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is intended to provide for effective protection of rights of women guaranteed under the constitution.”