Objectionable Effort

The Kerala government may have decided not to implement the controversial amendment related to cyberspace, but the debate whether such laws should be the sole prerogative of the centre remains alive

- Na Vijayashankar

WHEN Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (ITA) 2000/8 was scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2015, most people hailed the decision as a torchbearer of the freedom of speech. Many, however, felt that the top court had erred in not distinguishing between “publishing” and “messaging” and also not reading down the Section instead of scrapping it altogether along with provisions related to spamming, cyber stalking, cyber bullying, cyber extortion and cyber harassment.

Since then, the central government has not come up with an alternative to Section 66A and only tried to tinker with the intermediary guidelines in a half-hearted manner. Hence, fake news and cyber defamation continue without appropriate controlling measures under ITA 2000.

The inability of the central government to come up with an alternative to Section 66A since 2015, when the judgment was pronounced, led to a situation where the Kerala government had to come up with an ordinance under the State Police Act which challenged both the Supreme Court as well as the central government’s powers and intentions to regulate cyberspace.

However, later, after facing a barrage of criticism from across the political spectrum, including the LDF alliance, on the ordinance, the Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, announced that the provisions of the ordinance will not be implemented. Later, the Kerala government also decided to bring an ordinance to withdraw the controversial amendment.

The U-turn taken by the state government on the ordinance does not in any way lay to rest a debate on the issue that cyber legislation is the sole domain of the central government and there is a need for a law on cyberspace.