Read Time: 10 minutes

People’s Union for Civil Liberties has moved a Rejoinder Affidavit before the Supreme Court in plea seeking directions for compliance with judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, scrapping Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

"No cognizance to be taken under a repealed provision and advisories be put in place by the Union of India for public information/display at Police stations," is further insisted upon by the petitioners.

The Affidavit has been filed on primarily three counts;

• Whether steps already taken by the Union adequate?
• What are the directions required for an effective implementation of verdict in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India?
• How effective implementation of the judgments of the Top Court can be ensured?

It says that the steps taken by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology is “far from adequate”

Petitioners inform the Top Court that in the Counter Affidavit, Union of India has submitted that since “Public Order” and “Police” falls under the State List, the primary responsibility of ensuring implementation rests with the State. It is added that the applicant had moved a MA No. 3220 of 2018 seeking implementation of Shreya Singhal Judgment, which was disposed by order dated Feb 15, 2019 directing the Union to make available the judgment copy to all Chief Secretaries as well as sensitize Police Departments – That this order by the Top Court, was not complied with by the Union, compelling the petitioners to move against the Union, the Rejoinder states.

With respect to the second issue mentioned hereinabove, the petitioners submit that the expression “authorities” occurring in Article 144 should be read to include “all members of the executive and judiciary, in view of the settled position of law and the need to uphold the dignity of courts, the majesty of the law, and to prevent any interference in the administration of justice.” Reliance in this regard was inter-alia placed on Kantaru Rajeevaru v. Indian Young Lawyers Association, (2020) 2 SCC 1, ML Sachdev v. Union of India, (1991) 1 SCC 605, Daroga Singh v. BK Pandey, (2004) 5 SCC 26.  

The petitioners propose the following steps, amongst others, which may be undertaken by the Union for an effective implementation of the judgment in Shreya Singhal:

• Respondents to collect the details of cases registered by Police or Law Enforcement Agencies under the repealed Section 66A, IT Act, 2000, since the pronouncement of Judgment in Shreya Singhal by co-ordinating with the Chief Secretaries and DGPs of the States and UTs.
• In cases where the case is at the stage of investigation, Direct the DGP in the States and Administrators/Lieutenant Governors in Union Territories to forthwith drop further investigation.
• In cases where charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC has been filed and the cases are pending before the District Courts for framing of charge or trial, request the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to issue advisories to all the subordinate courts (both Sessions Courts and Magistrate Courts) to drop all charges/trial under Section 66A and discharge the accused.
• All High Courts (through Registrar Generals) to communicate to all the District Courts and Magistrates that forthwith there should be no cognizance taken under the repealed Section 66A of the IT Act.
• All High Courts (through Registrar Generals) to put in place a complaint mechanism by which any person in the state against whom a case under Section 66A of the IT Act is pending may directly approach the trial Court where the case is pending or the concerned High Court for speedy Redressal.

On the third aspect, the Rejoinder placing reliance on DK Basu v. State of WB, (1997) 1 SCC 416, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635, Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, Laxmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 427 and the most recent case where the Top Court set aside MP High Court judgment imposing Bail Condition of Tying Rakhi in Aparna Bhat v. State of MP, Criminal Appeal 329 of 2021, the applicant says,

“That in all important cases where this Hon’ble Court is of the view that the directions given in the Judgments ought to be implemented strictly, it can direct the Registry to send a copy to the concerned authorities (viz: Chief Secretaries, DGPs of all the States, Administrators of all UTs, all High Courts and District Courts, Jail Authorities etc.) asking them to file a compliance affidavit within reasonable time”

Additionally, accountability may be fixed upon implementing authorities and disciplinary action may be resorted to, in case of non-compliance.

Also Read: Ministry of Home Affairs asks States to not file cases under repealed Section 66A of IT Act

Also Read: “What is going on is terrible”: Supreme Court Issues Notice In Plea Seeking Compliance Of Shreya Singhal Judgment

Case Title: PUCL v. Union of India