Following the 2015 Supreme Court verdict striking down Section 66A, a Maharashtra government committee has recommended amending the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to criminalize defamatory social media posts.
- A Maharashtra committee recommends amending the BNS to specifically address online defamation.
- The proposal includes safeguards to prevent the misuse of the law, similar to the failed Section 66A.
- The amendment route was chosen over the IT Act because the latter is a central law.
- The final implementation requires state legislative approval and Presidential assent.
Mumbai: Eleven years after the landmark Supreme Court judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, the Maharashtra government is moving to bring social media defamation back into the ambit of criminal law. A state-appointed committee has recommended a strategic amendment to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to specifically target defamatory content posted on digital platforms.
The committee, which was tasked in May to find legal solutions for rising online character assassination, has submitted its findings to the state's Law and Judiciary Department. According to sources, the committee opted for a BNS amendment because it sits on the 'Concurrent List,' allowing for a more robust legal footing that can withstand judicial scrutiny more effectively than state-level police acts.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that this legislative move attempts to fill a significant legal vacuum. While the BNS currently defines defamation through spoken words or visible representations, it lacks explicit provisions for the nuances of digital communication, leaving a loophole that is increasingly exploited in the age of viral misinformation.
The goal is to balance the right to reputation with the fundamental right to free speech, ensuring that digital tools aren't used as weapons for character assassination.
The historical context is crucial. In the 2015 Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A, citing it as unconstitutionally vague. The court noted that terms like 'annoying' or 'inconvenient' were too broad and could stifle legitimate political dissent and free expression under Article 19(1)(a).
To avoid a repeat of past failures—such as Kerala's attempted amendment to its Police Act which was eventually withdrawn—the Maharashtra committee has emphasized the inclusion of strict safeguards. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had previously highlighted the alarming trend of individuals using social media to malign others without any evidentiary basis.
| Feature | Section 66A (Old) | Proposed BNS Amendment |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | Struck Down (Unconstitutional) | Proposed Amendment |
| Focus | Vague 'offensive' content | Specific 'defamatory' content |
| Primary Concern | Free Speech Violation | Online Reputation Protection |
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why can't the state just amend the IT Act?
The IT Act is a Central Law. Only the Parliament of India has the authority to amend it; states can only act on subjects in the Concurrent List like the BNS.
2. What is the next step in this proposal?
The Law and Judiciary Department will provide its opinion, followed by a move in the state legislature. Finally, it requires Central examination and Presidential assent.
