Pages

Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts

Monday, May 4, 2020

Penal provisions for fake posts in the times of the Corona Virus

Karnataka State Police in collaboration with Check4Spam to counter rumours amid the coronavirus outbreak has initiated a portal to verify any suspected news and also upload the content for its verification and clarification.  It is urged to the public not circulate any unverified news concerning coronavirus, which is likely to create panic and disturb social tranquillity. 
Penal provisions under Indian Laws:
Information Technology ACT, 2000
Section 66C- Punishment for identity theft. – Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.
The Disaster Management ACT, 2005
Section 54. Punishment for false warning.
Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster  or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on conviction, be  punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with  fine. —Whoever makes or circulates a false alarm or warning as to disaster or its severity or magnitude, leading to panic, shall on  conviction, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to  one year or with fine.
Indian Penal Code
Section 153. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause  riot- if rioting be committed- if not committed.-
Whoever, malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting to be committed, shall, if the offence of rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both; and if the offence of rioting be not committed, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.—
Whoever—
(a) by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different reli­gious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communi­ties, or
(b) commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities, and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the public tranquillity, ……………….
(2) Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (1) in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious wor­ship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]
Section 182. False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.—
Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant—
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.
Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public serv­ant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple impris­onment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 
Section 269. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease danger­ous to life.
Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Section 270. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease danger­ous to life.
Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 336. Act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with impris­onment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees, or with both.
Section 465. Punishment for forgery.
Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 505. Statements conducing to public mischief.
(1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,—
(a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any offi­cer, soldier, 3[sailor or airman] in the Army, 4[Navy or Air Force] 5[of India] to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or
(b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public, or to any section of the public whereby any person may be induced to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquillity; or
(c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to 6[three years], or with fine, or with both. 7[(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes.—Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote, or which is likely to create or promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different reli­gious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communi­ties, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc.—Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-section (2) in any place of worship or in an assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.]

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Freedom of Expression on Face Book and its Aftermath....

Minister of State for Communications and IT Milind Deora on Tuesday slammed the police for “acting in haste” by arresting two young girls for their Facebook post questioning shutdown of the city for Bal Thackeray‘s funeral and called for checks to prevent misuse of the IT Act.

“Question isn’t about amending 66A of the IT (Information Technology) Act, it’s about preventing misuse by the police, who clearly acted in haste and applied wrong sections of IPC & IT Act,” Deora wrote on social networking Website Twitter.

Police had on November 18 arrested 21-year-old Shaheen Dhada under section 66A of IT Act and section 505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes) for posting a message on Facebook questioning the shutdown in the city for Shiv Sena patriarch Bal Thackeray’s funeral.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/milind-deora-criticises-cops-over-fb-post-case-529419.html
Firstpost said - It is hard to see how Shaheen Dhada violated the two sections of the law under which she has been charged – Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (“outraging religous feelings of any class”) or even the draconian Section 66A of the IT Act (“sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.”) – with her contemplative post, or what crimes Renu Srinivasan committed in merely ‘liking’ the post.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/arrests-over-facebook-posts-why-were-on-a-dangerous-slide-528537.html
The message posted by Shaheen read: “With all respect, every day, thousands of people die, but still the world moves on. Just due to one politician died a natural death, everyone just goes bonkers. They should know, we are resilient by force, not by choice. When was the last time, did anyone showed some respect or even a two-minute silence for Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Azad, Sukhdev or any of the people because of whom we are free-living Indians? Respect is earned, given, and definitely not forced. Today, Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not due to respect.

Now consider this - 

Mumbaites shutting down their shops and offices and sitting at home fearing violence is one thing, and more than 20 Lakh people actually marching in the funeral procession is another. 

Any political party cant bring 20 lakh people for a funeral procession, the economics is just not workable. So by that yardstick late Thackeray had earned public respect and support, and its but natural for his supporters to react or overreact when someone publishes a statement, even before the deceased's funeral pyre had not even stopped burning.
IPC Section 297 - Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or.....with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded,.... or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies,....

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/indianpenalcode/s297.htm
The statement, which is the subject herein, is posted in the course of the funeral procession, and so section 297 IPC is applicable. And how would we expect the police to handle the situation, when the whole City is on its nerves; one wrong step and everything will fall down. We should admire how the situation in its totality was handled by the Mumbai Police. 

And again The Indian Constitution protects freedom of speech as a facet of fundamental rights under Article 19, subject to reasonable restrictions, including decency and defamation. What becomes critical therefore is balance: The fine equilibrium required between protecting freedom of speech, fair comment and criticism (including investigative journalism and whistleblower action) on the one hand and transgression into malicious defamation of a person for oblique or political purposes on the other.

IT Act 2002 Section 66A. 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.


In the case of Mr. Srinivasan he had tweeted that “karthick chidambaram had amassed more wealth than vadra” and the police arrested him on the basis of an e-mail complaint lodged by Mr. Karti.
The same IT act was used to arrest a person in Pondicherry who supposedly posted comments against Karthi Chidambaram. 
What was the media doing then ?

http://www.firstpost.com/india/it-act-should-not-be-used-to-throttle-dissent-says-sibal-528414.html


..... it is doubly perverse for Kapil Sibal to claim in all innocence that he is “deeply saddened” by the arrest of the two young women and to insinuate that the IT Act, which he was instrumental in passing, was being misused on grounds of improper implementation.
The fact of it is that the IT Act that he fathered, and particularly the notorious Section 66A, was deliberately worded to give maximum potential for mischief. There have been far too many egregious instances of its misuse by discredited governments and politicians for Sibal to claim that these are random incidents of misuse of the law. Just last month, Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s son Karti had a Puducherry businessmen and anti-corruption activist hauled up by the police for a Twitter post in which the businessman alleged that Karti had “amassed more wealth” than Sonia Gandhi‘s son-in-law.