Final hearing in petitions challenging validity of certain provisions of the IT Act gets underway in the Supreme Court; hearing to resume on Wednesday

Final hearing in the batch of petitions assailing the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act got underway before a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar and S A Bobde.

 

Supreme Court of India

During the course of hearing, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta admitted before the Supreme Court that in most of the incidents cited in the petitions filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, the power was abused. He submitted that the abuse of power in certain cases was “evident” and that the Centre did not seek to justify the incidents where whimsical arrests were made. He added that action had been taken against the erring police officers.

The list of incidents included arrest of two girls in Maharashtra by Thane Police in 2012 over a Facebook post, arrest of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricature on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook, arrest of Aseem Trivedi for drawing cartoons lampooning Parliament and the Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness.

One among the petitions being heard now before the Bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and S.A. Bobde has been filed by a law student Shreya Singhal who has challenged the validity of section 66A of the Act.

Shreya had filed the PIL after two girls--Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan--were arrested in Palghar in Thane district under section 66A of IT Act after one of them posted a comment against the shut down in Mumbai following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray's death and the other 'liked' it. Subsequently, NGO’s Common Cause and People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) also impleaded themselves in the matter.

Shreya Singhal had contended in her petition that “phraseology of the aforesaid section (Section 66A) is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse” Senior counsel Soli Sorabjee, appearing for Singhal, told the court that section 66A is unconstitutional as it violates the constitution's article 19(1)(a) guaranteeing fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

Prashant Bhushan, appearing for ‘Common Cause’ also said that expression used in section 66A were vague and are grossly abused by those in power and cited instances to back up his plea.

As the final arguments on the petitions began, the Bench sought to know if the provisions in the IPC were not adequate to deal with the offences arising out of electronic messages and hence Section 66A was drafted in the IT Act.

Senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, Prashant Bhushan and Sanjay Parikh, appearing for the petitioners, replied that not only were the IPC provisions enough, they were better drafted and explained the circumstances when the alleged offences could be attracted. This, they contended, was not the case in Section 66A which was vague and left it to the subjective discretion of the police to decide when to arrest.

The Bench will resume hearing the case on Wednesday.

Nursery admission: Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reserves orders in interim applications seeking stay of single judge’s judgment

The Delhi High Court will pass interim orders on Wednesday in the appeals filed by the Delhi Government and an NGO-Social Jurist, challenging the decision of a single-judge to quash the Lt. Governor's guidelines on nursery admissions in the capital's unaided private schools.

  

Delhi High Court

A Division Bench of the Court comprising of Chief Justice G. Rohini and Justice R.S. Endlaw reserved orders for Wednesday on applications that sought interim stay of the judgment passed by the single-judge.

The judgment of the learned Single Judge was to the effect that the neighbourhood, sibling and alumni criteria set as per the notification will go and schools can now set their own criteria according to the 2007 Ganguly Committee guidelines.

On November 28, Justice Manmohan quashed the points system, saying the guidelines were in violation of the fundamental rights of the school managements to have maximum autonomy in day-to-day administration, including the right to admit students.

The Lt. Governor had issued the guidelines related to nursery admissions on December 18, 2013, after which a number of petitions were filed against them.

The guidelines outlined several criteria, including the neighbourhood factor, which sought that schools give preference to children living within eight km of it.

This criterion was given the maximum weightage of 70 points out of 100 in the open category seats. Other criteria were siblings studying in the same school (20 points), applications of girls (five points), and wards of school alumni (five points).

Seeking that the single judge bench's order be quashed, the Delhi government and NGO Social Jurist said there cannot be any discrimination, question of autonomy in the matter of admitting children around three years of age in nursery.

During the hearing Senior Advocate P.P. Malhotra, appearing for the Delhi Government said that "there cannot be any discrimination or question of autonomy in the matter of admitting children around three years of age in nursery" and that the judgment of the learned Single Judge was totally opposed to law.

"The judge erred to hold that if parents are given freedom to choose schools, the good schools would attract more students and would expand and not-so-good schools would lose students," he said.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Malhotra, appearing for the Delhi Government further contended the verdict has not appreciated the correct legal position and scheme of Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 21-A (Right to Education) of the Constitution besides laying undue emphasis on the right of schools.

 

Advocate Ashok Agarwal appearing for NGO told the court that the guidelines were child-centric and deserved to be upheld by law. "There was no question of schools' autonomy in the matter of admission of tiny tots," he added.

Counsel appearing for private unaided schools, however, opposed the contentions of the appellants in the case- the Delhi Government and the NGO, submitting before the Division Bench that the single judge in its order has held that there is no proof to show that schools were indulging in any malpractice or were misusing their right to admit students.

The learned single judge quashing the lieutenant governor's guidelines had said the power to decide the school for a child should lie with the parents and not with the Government.

The Court had said it nowhere stipulates that "children would have to take admission only in a neighbourhood school or that children cannot take admissions in schools situated beyond their neighbourhood".  

The Court had also said that "children should have the option to go to a neighbourhood school, but their choice cannot be restricted to a school in their locality".

"This Court is unable to appreciate that a student's educational fate can be relegated to his position on a map," Justice Manmohan had said in his judgment. 

Orders are expected to be pronounced by the Division Bench in the interim applications filed along with the appeals, tomorrow.