Thread by @barandbench

CJI UU Lalit led bench to hear a plea by PUCL seeking to issue directions to implement Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which declared Section #66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional..The application seeks to prevent unconstitutional arrests

#SupremeCourt

Sr Adv Sanjay Parikh: the shreya singhal judgment struck down 66A. But then we came across cases being registered under it. We had approached SC and directions were passed but even then cases are being passed. AG Venugopal had appeared.notice had gone to union and states

Parikh: The results which have come out from the states is really shocking. Please see reply from states which shows the gravity of the situation. If SC judgment is not implemented then what happens to rule of law

CJI: The same thing happened by DK Basu case and Justice Anand had laid down that if its not followed then there will be contempt and thus such contempt cases can be dealt by the High court itself

Parikh: there are gross violations of DK Basu as well

CJI: Then there has to be a mechanism which can look into this and so that course correction can be done #supremecourt

Parikh: Jharkhand says 40 case sunder 66A pending before courts, Madhya Pradesh took cognizance of 145 cases, case pending is 113

Justice Ravindra Bhat: what about convictions? is it the sole section or others also

Parikh: It was sole in some but cannot say for sure

CJI: Who appears for some of the states?

UP, Sikkim, Haryana, Himachal. Meghalaya: There are no cases or any conviction

Adv Zoheb Hossain for Centre: we have communicated the judgment to all the Chief Secretaries of states

CJI: The grievance of the petitioner is non implementation of Shreya Singhal judgment.

CJI: It is submitted that offences for alleged violation of 66A is still being projected. This court therefore issued notices to all states. all states are represented before us. most have unequivocally submitted that judgment is being followed.

CJI: There still appears to be situations where offences invoked and the cases are pending consideration. It is a matter of serious concern that despite authoritative pronouncement, the offences are still being registered and continued.

CJI: In this backdrop we have Mr Hossain for Centre to get in touch with concerned Chief Secretaries of repsective states where offences are being registered or pending so that the CS takes remedial measures.

CJI: Mr Hossain shall be rendered due assistance by the concerned learned advocates appearing for the states. Mr Hossain can write to Chief Secretaries to communicate and the concerned advocates to submit detailed affidavit on steps taken. List after three weeks. #66AITAct

CJI: Notice to states and High Courts. #supremecourt