The Supreme Court today directedthe Maharashtra government to explain the circumstances underwhich its police arrested two girls from Palghar in Thanedistrict for posting comments on Facebook on the November 18shutdown for Bal Thackeray's funeral.
"The Maharashtra government is directed to explain thecircumstances under which the two girls - Shaheen Dhada andRinu Shrinivasan - were arrested for posting comments made bythem on Facebook," a bench comprising Chief Justice AltamasKabir and Justice J Chelameswar said.
The bench asked the state government to file its responsewithin four weeks on the public interest litigation filed by aDelhi student, Shreya Singhal.
The bench also made as parties the governments of WestBengal and Puducherry where similar incidents had happened inthe recent past.
It also issued notice to the Delhi government along withthem and sought their response within four weeks and postedthe matter for hearing after six weeks.
Attorney General G E Vahanvati, whose assistance wassought by the court, said,"Please examine section 66A of theInformation Technology Act, 2000 and I will assist the courton this issue."
The AG also referred to the guidelines which say thatcases to be registered under the provision of the IT Act hasto be decided by senior police officials of the ranks of DGPfor cases pertaining to rural areas and IGP for metros.
"This can't be done by the head of the police stations,"the AG said, adding that this was a matter which required thecourt's consideration.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing forShreya, sought a direction from the court that no cases beregistered across the country unless such complaints are seenand approved by the DGP of the state concerned.
During the hearing, the Attorney General said that the arrest of the two Mumbai-based girls was unjustified but itdoes not mean that section 66A should be done away with as theprovision was well intended.
Rohatgi said that the provision of the IT Act, whichgives power to arrest, is "wholly unconstitutional" and neededto be done away with.
"The provision is unconstitutional. Of course, it wouldbe decided by the Supreme Court," he said, adding that adirection to all the states was required that no case beregistered under this provision unless the complaint is seenand approved by the DGP concerned of the state as "the law andorder is a state subject and unless there is some kind oforder from this court, this (abuse of the provision) may notstop."
There are thousands of police stations in the countryand, hence an order from this court is needed, Rohatgi said,to which the bench said that all police stations are notalike.
Meanwhile, some other civil rights group and NGOssubmitted to the court that they be also allowed to interveneas parties to the ongoing hearing on this issue.
"Not only one section, there are other provisions of theAct and the rules which are unconstitutional," PrashantBhushan said, while seeking to intervene as a party.
Rohatgi said, "I have no objection if a person is allowedto intervene..."
Yesterday, while agreeing to hear the PIL seekingamendments to the IT Act, the bench had said, "The way thelittle children were arrested, it outraged the sentiments ofthe people of the country. The way these things had beentaking place needs consideration."
The petitioner, Shreya, in her plea, has contended that"the phraseology of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is so wideand vague and incapable of being judged on objectivestandards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, hencefalls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of theConstitution."