From the Jadavpur University Professor Ambikesh Mohapatra who was arrested for posting a cartoon of Mamata Banerjee to the Palghar girls, who were arrested for criticising total shutdown following Bal Thackeray’s death — the victims of the Section 66A of the Information & Technology Act have all welcomed the scrapping of the draconian law.
“This is a victory of the common man’s freedom of speech. This verdict will surely remove the fear psychosis that has been developing among a large section of internet users that they may get arrested for even innocuous of acts,” said Professor Mohapatra, who was arrested under the provisions of this law for posting Mamata’s cartoon on Facebook in 2012.
Mohammed Farooq Dhada, father of Shaheen Dhada, whose Facebook post criticising Maharashtra’s total shutdown following Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s death in 2012, said the credit for the Supreme Court verdict “must go to my daughter”. A pleased Dhada said: “I never scolded her for (the post) and supported her always as she had done nothing wrong. We are happy by the verdict and all credit must go to my daughter.”
Her friend Rinu Srinivasan, who had “liked” it, said she is happy that the apex court has scrapped the law, but cautioned that people should be careful while using cyber space. “I shall continue to speak out my mind through social media networks,” she added. Her father said: “I was shocked by their arrest then. They had done nothing wrong.”
Cartoonist and free speech activist Aseem Trivedi, who was also booked under the law in 2012, said, “This is a landmark judgement against a very evil law that has been widely misused by political parties and the administration to curb freedom of speech.” There have been countless people who have fallen victim to this draconian law, perhaps this is a victory for all those, added Trivedi who was recently absolved of sedition charges by a Mumbai court.
Trivedi was arrested allegedly for belittling Parliament and the National Emblem by drawing cartoons which were circulated at Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption rally in Mumbai in 2011. One of the architects the SC verdict, 24 old Shreya Singhal, who had filed the petition in 2012 against the law in support of the Palghar women, said she is excited that the case named after her — Shreya Singhal vs Union of India — would become a case study for law students and a precedent for future verdicts. Interestingly, she might be studying the judgment herself in the third year of her llB course.