Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
|
The Center presented the police and police directives as subjects of the State before the Supreme Court. The State has the primary obligation to oversee the execution of the decision of Shreya Singhal as forth in Section 66a of the IT Act. In addition, the law enforcement authorities bear equal responsibility for the execution of the decision. The Centre's plea to the Court was as follows: "Police and public order are state subjects in accordance with India's Constitution, and the primary responsibility of states is to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute crimes and the development of police personnel. Legal action against cybercrime offenders is taken by law enforcement authorities and so the LEAs have the same duty for complying with such decision in accordance with legislation."
Although the police recording of FIRs was shocked by the high court on 5 July by its 2015 Shreya Singhal case under Section 66A of the IT Act, the PUCL published an announcement at the appeal of the Supreme Court. Next 2 August, the Court will hear the case. The Supreme Court has notified the Center that the CEO and administrators of all States, States, and UTs have been ordered to direct all police stations not to record cases pursuant to section 66A. The Center believes that the Supreme Court of Shreya Singhal ruling is a crucial step towards sensitizing law enforcement authorities and guaranteeing compliance. Furthermore, by request of the Chief Secretaries of States and UTs, law enforcement officials, and concerned authorities, the Ministry of Information and Technology had written to the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2016 regarding the verdict in Shreya Singhal. The ruling has been hailed since 2015 as a standard to address usurpations of Article 19(1) rights (a).
The judgment by Shreya Singhal was handed down as a breach of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution by a group of judges J Chelameswar and RF Nariman. In its benchmark opinion, Justice Nariman further remarked that "There is also an unconstitutional Section because of the fact that the Section takes in its sweep-protected speech and speech which is of an innocent character and might therefore have a refreshing impact on freedom of expression.
Tags : #IT ACT #SC #POLICE ORDER
Allow Cookies!By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.