Read Time: 07 minutes

Supreme Court today issued notice in plea seeking compliance of Shreya Singhal Judgment, striking down Section 66A Information Technology Act, 2000. Directions are inter-alia sought against the Home Ministry, to issue an advisory to all police stations not to register cases under the repealed Section 66A, IT Act, 2000.

It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the dictum laid in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, the said provision continues to be invoked by the State Investigative Agencies, as well as judiciary, which is in clear contravention of Deep Chand v. State of UP, AIR 1959 SC 648, wherein the Court said that a declaration of unconstitutionality results in rendering a provision void ab initio, either wholly or in part, as the case may be.

A Full Judge Bench of Justice RF Nariman, Justice KM Joseph and Justice BR Gavai, while issuing notice, remarked,

"Amazing! What is going on is terrible"

Senior Advocate Sanjay Parekh appearing for Peoples Union for Civil Liberties apprised the bench about the increase in number of cases despite striking down the said provision.

Learned Attorney General of India KK Venugopal appeared for the Union of India.

Highlighting the areas wherein Section 66A still seems operational, petitioner puts forth the following points,

1. Cases which are registered only under Section 66A, which ought to have been closed after the judgment was given in Shreya Singhal, are still continuing, even when the Court has taken cognizance of the said judgment
2. Courts have passed orders framing charges under Section 66A despite the provision having been struck down.
3. Trials are ongoing in such cases in which only charges under Section 66A have been framed or have been framed together with other IPC offences. The net result is that an accused person is facing trial for a provision declared as unconstitutional.
4. In several cases, where Section 66A exists with other provisions, further investigation has been ordered by merging those provisions under IPC with Section 66A. The Courts have even issued non-bailable warrants in these cases.

Reliance is placed by the petitioner on information available at www.zombietracker.in, developed by a team of independent researchers belonging to “Internet Freedom Foundation” and “Civic Data Labs”, which provides information of cases pending/being prosecuted under Section 66A IT Act, 2000.

“The findings of the Zombie Tracker Website reveal that as on 10.03.2021, as many as a total of 745 cases are still pending and active before the Districts Courts in 11 States, wherein accused persons are being prosecuted for offences under Section 66A of the IT Act,” the plea states.

Prayer is inter-alia sought to direct the NCRB or any other agency to collect all the data regarding FIRs/investigations pending under Section 66A, IT Act, 2000.

Directions are further sought to the Supreme Court Registry to communicate all District Courts to take cognizance of the judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, by which Section 66A of the IT Act has been struck down in its entirety - in all proceedings where Section 66A has been invoked either at the stage of framing of charge or subsequent thereto, so that no person should suffer or face any adverse consequences which violate his Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The intervention plea is filed in PUCL v. Union of India, by AOR Aparna Bhat.