Annoying messages can send you to jail!

BY Geeta Seshu| IN Censorship | 21/09/2012

In the space of a month, a hitherto lesser-known section of the Information Technology Act, 2000, - Sec 66A - has been used by police in two instances – in the well-known case against cartoonist Aseem Trivedi  and against a woman who posted allegedly abusive messages against traffic police in Chandigarh.

(Last year, this section of the infamous act was used against a hapless Kolkata University professor, Ambikesh Mohapatra, for forwarding a cartoon that poked fun at West Bengal Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee on his building society’s email list).

Of course, Mohapatra’s arrest drew widespread condemnation, as also the application of sedition against Trivedi. While the charge of insulting national honour did generate some debate, what didn’t attract too much notice, unfortunately, was the charge of transmitting offensive messages in an electronic communication. Sec 66A reads:

Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource 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 makes 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 mislead 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.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms “Electronic mail” and “Electronic Mail Message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

Of course, the penalty for offence under this non-bailable section, is a whopping three years! But the issue is the terminology of the charge – anything that is grossly offensive, of menacing character, or false and can cause annoyance or inconvenience! One can think of so many instances of online content that can cause annoyance and an equal number of inconvenient things. Are our police going to lodge cases against all the complaints that fall in these categories?

Obviously, they’ll do so if it suits them. In the Chandigarh case, Henna Bakshi, described in news-items as a 24-year old who was given the Geeta Chopra bravery award a decade ago, tried to lodge a complaint with Chandigarh police over the theft of her vehicle. It appears she didn’t get any response from the police and vented her anger on the Facebook page of the Chandigarh traffic department. The police of course promptly hit back by charging her under Sec 66A of the infamous act!

In all the three cases cited here, there are distinct dimensions in the use or misuse of Sec 66A. In the FIR lodged against Aseem Trivedi, there is no specific mention about the transmission of allegedly offensive messages either by email or through a computer resource. Trivedi’s websitewww.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com was blocked and he transferred his cartoons to a blog. But the question this charge begs is: does the mere fact of publication of content constitute their transmission? If yes, then the net this charge can cast is the widest possible, affecting all writers, website hosts, bloggers, etc.

In the debate over the Mohapatra case, two issues came up: whether the professor should have confined his communication to issues related to his Society and the ‘private’ nature of communication between members who share the same email group and the offense taken by some members of the group to emails they receive. As events later revealed, the latter group took advantage of the email to settle scores over society disputes. The alacrity with which police lodged a case against the professor was condemned widely and the West Bengal Human Rights Commission ordered compensation to the professor for the harassment he faced.

The Bakshi case throw up entirely different questions: Police officers are designated ‘public servants’ and are wont to cry foul at the slightest hint that their service is being obstructed, citing legal protections against such ‘obstruction’ to boot! However justified one’s criticism of officers for incompetence or dereliction of duty, can one vent freely and make comments that liberally use abusive language on a public internet page or site? Or, does one say public officers, like celebrities, need to take it on the chin?

The other question needs more introspection: Abuse and slang are rampant on the internet, but is that a good thing? Politeness is a hopelessly old-fashioned notion as people express themselves more freely than ever before in a medium that technically promises the dismantling of hierarchy. People can turn censors and report abuse, dislike videos and block comments they dislike.

All very well and egalitarian, some might say, except when they run afoul of a greater censor! One that can actually (b)lock them out of sight for three years!