THE Supreme Court recently struck down Section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act which had earlier been used to book many who posted comments on social media against certain autocratic acts of state actors and of governments. Ironically, in Meghalaya attempts are on to curb media freedom on the plea that militants use media as their propaganda machinery. The Supreme Court judges were guided by the logic that law in a civilised society curbs the state, not the individual. The state is all powerful when juxtaposed to the citizen. Hence Section 66(A) attempts to empower an already powerful state. Both state and non-state actors can and do have recourse to social media to spread their respective messages. It is a different matter that non-state actors are more active social media users.
It is said that in a democracy citizens have to engage with the system and make their voices heard. Traditional media has its limitations which social media doesn’t. Every citizen no matter what his social standing can voice his/her views and grievances on social media. This is journalism of the 21st century. It is raw, unedited but it hits the bull’s eye. The Prime Minister of this country is a social media aficionado and it was because of twitter that his party the BJP won the Lok Sabha elections and could form a government on its own strength. Other factors might have helped but the social media blitz was one great factor. Unfortunately the majority of politicians in Meghalaya don’t have twitter handles and do not communicate to the social media savvy youth. These days most ministers in the Modi Government tweet about their activities on a daily basis. Journalists check their tweets for anything newsworthy. If militants use social media and traditional media the Government should also be using the same media platforms to counter their statements. Not doing so and finding fault with the media persons suggests the weakness on the part of the Government’s publicity wing which still functions in an anachronistic manner.
Those who wish to restrict media freedom should ask themselves whether they are doing the correct thing. Dictators of totalitarian regimes believe that the state is never wrong, only people are. The recent Supreme Court judgment puts this argument on its head. If power is to be curbed it must be that of the state. For this to happen, it is essential that the law be stated in as unambiguous a way as possible. Section 66A is amorphous. It seeks to punish anyone who sends information that is “grossly offensive or has a menacing character”. Then there is a sub-clause which uses undefined terms such as “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction” and so on. This law as is being publicly discussed was meant to protect those in power and to punish whistle-blowers. It is meant to kill democracy and freedom of speech. Thankfully it is now quashed.
