Chennai: Seven arrests, 55 cases filed so far and counting. Is the Tamil Nadu Police going too far in booking and putting behind bars those “spreading rumours” about the health of Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa, who is hospitalised since September 22?
Rights activists, netizens and the common man call it a “regressive” step that aims at muzzling the voice of the people in a thriving democracy like India and question the “high-handedness” of the police across the state in arresting people, including a duo were merely talking about the Chief Minister’s health at a public place like bank.
Majority of the people in the police net have been booked for comments on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and phone messaging app WhatsApp, but they have been booked under the regular IPC sections like 505 which deals with rumour mongers and not the IT Act. The police could not invoke the Section 66A of IT Act since it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
But the police justify its action by saying only after it started booking people, rumours about the health of the Chief Minister has come down. “So many people are attacking the police for the arrest. Certain political party leaders said that we are harassing their cadres. But lot of rumours was getting posted in social media, particularly in Facebook and WhatsApp groups earlier. Such rumours were causing unnecessary panic among the public. When people act irresponsibly and create panic, we are forced to take action,” K. Shankar, additional commissioner of police, South, told Deccan Chronicle.
Differing with the police, former Judge of Madras High Court Justice D. Hariparanthaman said the government should have made public the details of Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa’s ailments and treatment given to her.
“Under this RTI era, people have the right to know about the health of the CM. The transparent and regular update on her health would put to an end to rumor and gossips. And, any arrest is unwarranted and uncalled for,” he told Deccan Chronicle.
Echoing Justice Paranthaman’s views, rights activist and senior advocate C. Vijayakumar suggested that the Government and police were indirectly responsible for spread of rumours since they did not keep the public informed about the health condition of the Chief Minister.
“If information is given to the people periodically, why will they not gossip? Under this condition, people tend to speak about the health of the CM while they chat on social networking sites. Arresting them violates their basic rights,” he said.
On police’s claim that rumours cause panic, social activist and lawyer Sudha Ramalingam said there were no panic situation that arose out of gossips and rumours. “Rumours does not cause panic and if it does in some cases, it is not a criminal offence and people cannot be arrested for such things. Arrests are unwanted,” she said.
Giving a counter to the suggestions that the arrests were uncalled for, AIADMK IT wing, which had filed majority of complaints against net users for their “unwanted” posts, says spreading rumours against Chief Minister cannot go unpunished. “Majority of the people wish well for her and in that scenario, if someone spreads rumours, it could lead to unwanted law and order situation,” a senior member of the team said.
Sec 66 (A) before it was struck down
Sec 66A, which provided punishment upto 3 years in jail for sending offensive messages through communication services, was one of the most misunderstood and misused clause of a legislation in the recent past both by the police and politicians across the country. And thankfully the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015.
From West Bengal to Maharashtra to Uttar Pradesh to Puducherry – the police invoked the Section in the Information Technology Act to crackdown on those who criticised or merely voiced their opinion on an issue, at times critical of those in power, and even took some of them into custody.
The section gave police the powers to arrest anyone for sending offensive messages from mobiles and computers with up to 3 years in jail. Once the Supreme Court struck down the Section, police started booking people under other section of the IPC like 505.
The arrest of Aseem Trivedi, a cartoonist, by the then Congress Government in Maharashtra for a cartoon of Parliament and Constitution to depict their ineffectiveness on charges of sedition and under Section 66A brought to the fore how a clause of an act can be “misused or misjudged” by those implementing law and order.
His arrest created ripples in the country that boasts of right to express one’s opinion and freedom speech and even the then Opposition at the national BJP lent support to the activist and demanded his release. As the debate on whether Section 66A can be invoked to arrest those who raise questions on social media or express dissent raged, the then UPA Government rushed to defend itself and the Act, saying it was not being misused.
Stepping into giving its opinion, the Supreme Court on March 24, 2015 quashed the controversial section calling it unconstitutional and untenable. One of the major arrests that led to an uproar across the country was that of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for forwarding caricatures on Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee on Facebook and the detention of Air India employee Mayank Sharma and KV Rao from Mumbai for allegedly posting offensive comments against politicians. Puducherry Police also charged businessman Ravi Srinivasan in 2012 for allegedly tweeting against Karti Chidambaram.
