Why arrest a boy for Facebook comment, supreme court asks UP govt

The student of a Bareilly college was booked by the Rampur police below section 66A of the knowledge Technology Act for sharing on a Facebook post crucial of Samajwadi Party minister Azam Khan.
The Supreme Court force up the Akhilesh Yadav government in Uttar Pradesh over the arrest of a school-going boy for sharing on a social networking website a post crucial of Samajwadi Party senior minister Azam Khan.

The Supreme Court asked the Uttar Pradesh government why was the boy arrested for posting comments on Facebook.

An apex court bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman sought-after the response to the plea difficult the boy's arrest.

Senior counsel Soli Sorabjee raised the matter, questioning the state government's action involving Section 66A of data Technology Act.

The court sought-after an evidence from the UP government and issued a notice, directive it to file a response among four weeks.

The apex court conjointly asked UP police to clarify circumstances during which the coed was arrested.

The student, Vicky Khan, 19, hails from Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh.

He was set-aside by the Rampur police below Section 66A of the knowledge Technology Act and for breach of peace.

Meanwhile, the coed has been discharged on bail against 2 sureties of Rs twenty,000 once a neighborhood court sent him to fourteen day judicial custody.

On Thursday, as counsel Manali Singhal mentioned the applying before the apex court bench of Justice Anil R. Dave, Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Kurian Joseph before long once the court assembled once lunch, Justice Chelameswar allowable the filing of the applying oral communication it'd be concerned on Fri.

Soon once Manali Singhal mentioned the applying, counsel for Uttar Pradesh government aforesaid Vicky Khan, who was remanded to 14-day judicial custody, has been excuse on bail.

As the court was told that boy has been granted bail, Justice Chelameswar Who along side Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman had detected and reserved finding of fact on a batch of petitions difficult Section 66A of I.T. Act, 2000, aforesaid they will pronounce judgment either on March twenty three or March twenty four.

"If we tend to uphold the challenge to Section 66A of I.T.Act, 2000 then you'll be able to request relief consequently or if the challenge to Section 66A isn't accepted then you'll be able to take recourse to remedies below legal code," Justice Chelameswar told Manali Singhal.

Manali Singhal told the court that within the course of the hearing of petition by Shreya Singhal difficult Section 66A of I.T. Act, 2000 as unconstitutional, further lawman Tushar Mehta showing for the Centre had contended that the supply of the I.T. Act wouldn't be invoked against those creating political criticism.

Urging the court to listen to the applying rapt by her seeking relief for Vicky Khan, Manali Singhal told the court to let Uttar Pradesh government make a case for the circumstance below that Vicky Khan was in remission invoking Section 66A.

Shreya Singhal had moved the Supreme Court November 2012 seeking the placing down of Section 66A that was resorted to by the authorities to arrest 2 young women -- Shaheen Dhanda, 21, who had questioned the urban center closure once the death of knife Sena leader Bal author Nov seventeen and her friend Renu Srinivasan who had 'liked' the discuss Facebook.

Section 66A of the IT Act reads: "Any one that sends by any suggests that of a laptop resource any info that's grossly offensive or includes a ugly character; or any info that he is aware of to be false, except for the aim of inflicting annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which can touch 3 years and with fine."


More Links

Learn How to Factory Reset Samsung Galaxy S5
How To Back Up Your Apple/Android Smartphone
Sumsung Galaxy A5 Review : full phone Specification