New Delhi: A teenage student arrested by the Uttar Pradesh police for a social media post must be immediately released, Amnesty International India said today.
On 16 March, the Uttar Pradesh police arrested 19-year old Gulrez Khan after he posted a statement on Facebook about Hindus and Muslims and attributed it to a minister in the Uttar Pradesh government. He was arrested under section 66-A of the Information Technology Act for “sending offensive messages through communication service” and sections 153A, 504 and 505 of the Indian Penal Code for “promoting enmity between different groups”, “intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace” and “statements conducing to public mischief”.
Teen arrested over Facebook post
“Gulrez Khan’s comments do not amount to advocacy of hatred, and should not be a reason to put him in detention,” said Shemeer Babu, Programmes Director at Amnesty International India. “If his comments affect anyone’s reputation, they can take recourse to civil remedies for defamation.”
“Legal reform is crucial to put an end to arrests on the basis of vague and overbroad laws like Section 66A.”
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act criminalizes acts including sending information that is “grossly offensive” or causes “annoyance” and “inconvenience”. It has been used on several occasions to violate legitimate exercise of the right to free speech. The Supreme Court is expected to soon deliver a verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of section 66A. Amnesty International India continues to call for the repeal or substantial revision of the law.
Background
Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India makes public order a ground, among others, for restricting freedom of expression. However India’s Supreme Court has ruled that such restrictions must be authorized by law and must not be excessive or disproportionate. The Court has also ruled that restrictions relying on the ground of public order are valid only when there is a close connection between the speech and public disorder, and there is an imminent threat of lawlessness.
Under international law and standards, protecting the rights of others from advocacy of hatred that constitutes incitement to hostility, discrimination or violence justifies some restrictions on the right to freedom of expression. However, advocacy of hatred requires a clear showing of intent to urge others to discriminate, be hostile toward, or commit violence against the group in question. There must be a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the resulting risk of discrimination, hostility or violence.