Recently, while hearing an applica-tion fi�led by the People’s Union for Ci-vil Liberties (PUCL), the SupremeCourt expressed shock that despiteits declaration of Section 66A of theInformation Technology (IT) Act,2000 as being unconstitutional sixyears ago (Shreya Singhal vs. Unionof India), criminal cases are still be-ing registered by the police underthis Section. The PUCL said that 1,307cases had been registered since 2015across States and therefore the Courtmust issue guidelines against the re-gistering of FIRs by the police underthis head.

In 2015, the Supreme Court haddeclared Section 66A of the IT Act,which made online posting of infor-mation considered as “grossly off�en-sive” a crime punishable by jail, asbeing violative of Article 19(1)(a) ofthe Constitution and not saved underthe ambit of reasonable restrictionsdefi�ned in Article 19(2). It had alsosaid that the expressions used in Sec-tion 66A were open-ended, unde-fi�ned and therefore arbitrary.

In 1983, the Court had struckdown Section 303 of the Indian PenalCode (IPC), which provided capitalpunishment for murder by a personserving a life term in another case, asbeing unconstitutional. In Mithu v.State of Punjab, it held that the pun-ishment was not based on rationalprinciple as no judicial discretionwas available to a life convict. In 2018(Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of In-dia), the Court read down Section377 of the IPC criminalising “unnatu-ral sex” as being unconstitutional. Si-milarly, in Joseph Shine v. Union ofIndia (2018), the Court held adulteryas defi�ned under Section 497 of theIPC as being manifestly arbitrary, dis-criminatory and violative of the dig-nity of a woman and therefore,unconstitutional.

Negligence by the police Undoubtedly, the registration of FIRsby the police under these sections isillegal and violative of the Court’s di-rections. Though such cases may notalways be registered intentionally,negligence by Station House Offi�cers(SHOs) must be nipped in the bud.

The supervisory police offi�cers at thesub-divisional level must ensure thatsuch sections, if invoked due to lackof knowledge at the police station le-vel, are removed at the earliest. TheSuperintendents of Police must fi�xresponsibility on the erring offi�cerand take corrective action. Everyoneresponsible for the negligence shouldnot only be answerable to the courtsfor contempt but also be liable for de-partmental action. If the SHOs andothers don’t mend their ways despitereprimands, their annual confi�den-tial reports could be dented with ad-verse entries. Action can also be in-itiated under the new Section 166A ofthe IPC which provides punishmentfor up to two years for disobeying di-rections under the law.

Avoiding registration The best way to avoid registration ofoff�ences under sections held uncon-stitutional is to educate police offi�c-ers of all ranks about such provisionsin basic training institutes. Second,as the Attorney General of India, K.K.Venugopal, had suggested, therecould be a mention in brackets nearthe provision that the provision hasbeen struck down, so that FIRs arenot registered under those sections.Third, unconstitutional sections ofthe IPC can be disabled in the Crimeand Criminal Tracking Network andSystems (CCTNS). Most States regis-ter FIRs in the CCTNS either on a real-time basis or in offl�ine mode and syn-chronise this data with the State DataCentre as soon as connectivity is res-tored. In case police stations don’thave connectivity, the data (i.e., FIRin electronic format) are taken to thenearest police station that has con-nectivity and uploaded. The CCTNScame in handy when the SupremeCourt directed the States in 2016 toupload FIRs on offi�cial websites with-in 24 to 72 hours of registration. InChhattisgarh, we have disabled theseSections in the system. Other Statescould follow suit.

The police must ensure that no FIRis registered under unconstitutionalsections and no one is harassed forthe negligent actions of SHOs.

R.K. Vij is a senior IPS offi�cer in Chhattisgarh.Views are personal

Disable unconstitutional sectionsSeveral steps can be taken to ensure that peopleare not booked under laws held unconstitutional

R.K. Vij