words per minute
10
DubeyVikash
00:00
Speed
The petitioners contend the that very basic of section 66a - that it has given rise to new forms to crimes - is incorrect, and that Sections 66 B to 67 C and various sections of the Indian penal Code (which wikk be referred to hereinafter are good enough to deal with all these crimes. 5.5 The petitioners various counsel raised a large number of points as to the constitutionally of Section 66 A. According to them first and foremost Section 66 A infringes the fundamental right to free speech and expression and is not saved by any of the eight subjects covered in Article 19(2) According to them, the causing of annoyance, inconvenience danger obstruction, insult, injury criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred of ill-will are all outside the purview of Article 19(2).
Further, in crating an offence, Section 66A suffers from the vice of vagueness because unlike the offence ctated by the section 66 of the same Act, none of the aforesaid terms are even attempted to ne defined and cannot be defined. the result being that innocent persons are roped in as well as those fall; and it would be open to the authorized to be as arbitary an whimsical as they like in booking such persons under the sais Section. In fact, a large number of innocent persons have been booked and many instances have been given in the form of a note to the court. The enforcement of the said Section would really be an insidious form of censorShip which impaIrs a core 6 value contained in Article 19(1) (a)/ In Addition the said Section has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression.