66A gone, now let's kill John Doe orders

On Tuesday the Supreme Court did not mince any words while describing the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act. It called the section what it actually is: vague. And it called the section unconstitutional.

This is significant on many counts and as we go through the text of the order, we will know more about how and why the apex court reached the verdict it did. But one of the more significant takeaways from today's order is that laws and rules can be rubbish.

In fact, when it comes to online world, which is not all that well understood even by the experts let alone people who still make laws on the basis of what the British laid down decades ago - the Section 66A was almost a copy of the UK's Post Office Act from 1935 - there are a number of laws and rules that make no sense.

In many countries across the world, law-making is a careful exercise and so is setting precedents with court rulings. But in India we have seen a fairly carefree approach on both counts when it comes to dealing with the online world.

Almost every day, there are orders and directives that seem arbitrary, vague and senseless. Take for example John Doe orders that courts routinely issue in India on the basis of petitions filed by Bollywood producers. These John Doe orders direct unnamed and unknown entities to not allow piracy even when there is no piracy going on. Then these orders are misinterpreted and misused. There are hundreds of websites in India that have been blocked under such orders.

Then there are government directives like the blocking of websites such as Pastebin. For blocking these sites, the directives come from various government bodies, in some cases bodies such as the office of a senior city level cop. But there is no due diligence and no thought is given to the kind of harm these directives and rules can do to the freedom of expression. Once while talking to an official of an internet service provider, I asked why don't they challenge the John Doe orders or arbitrary directives they receive to block websites. After all, blocking these websites is a disservice to the consumers. The service too suffers because users can't access them which people in other countries take for granted.

The reply was that "challenge where". The John Doe orders came from lower courts and while they could be challenged no private company has been interested in fighting a prolonged legal battle when the atmosphere was such where every government directive on the online was supposed to be correct.

The SC verdict on 66A should give some hope to anyone looking to challenge the absurdities that India's various government wrap around the online activities. Yes, the verdict does a great service to the web users of the country but at the same time it also shows that people and tech companies no longer have to bear with the arbitrary and groundless directives from various government departments. All of these can be challenged now. There is hope that if something is groundless, it will be struck down, irrespective of from where it has come.