Legal battle against Sec 66A began at dining table: Shreya

NEW DELHI: On the day Bal Thackeray was cremated, two girls in November 2012 posted on Facebook - “Respect is earned, not given and definitely not forced. Today Mumbai shuts down due to fear and not due to respect”.
Police arrested the girls from Palghar in the dead of the night resulting in a country-wide uproar. It egged a law student to move the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Section 66A of I-T Act.
It was a inspired dining table discussion at the house of law student, Shreya Singhal, that began the process for filing the petition and digging the grave for the obnoxious provision. It was but natural that the third-general aspiring lawyer Shreya got the valuable inputs from her family.
Her mother Manali Singhal is a practicing lawyer in the Supreme Court. Her grandfather Murli Bhandare is a senior advocate, who had also been the Governor of Odisha. Her grandmother late Sunanda Bhandare was a Delhi High Court judge
Within a week of expressing outrage over the arrest of the girls and legal discussions, the Delhi University law student decided to file the PIL in the Supreme Court. The court had immediately censured the Maharashtra police for ordering the arrest of the two girls and passed strictures for such action in the interim.
Shreya was first off the block. Many other followed her footstep to join hands in seeking removal of the offending provision alleging that it not only stifled free speech but also instilled a fear among citizens for any and every comment they posted on web sites.
Coming out of the court room after the judgment declared her fight against section 66A successful, a beaming Shreya said it was an amazing feeling to succeed against the might of the state. But, she also described her nearly three year fight in the Supreme Court as an educational and enlightening experience.
Shreya’s mother, Manali Singhal said she had not expected Shreya would pursue the dining table discussion. “I did not expect that she would do anything on this issue. I was surprised when I came to know after she had filed the case. But thereafter I supported her cause. I am happy that she chose to fight. It has been a great victory for freedom of speech and expression,” Manali said.
Common Cause, a registered society fighting for civil rights, had also challenged the penal provision along with another NGO Peoples Union for Civil Liberty. Controversial writer Taslima Nasrin, who was booked by Uttar Pradesh police under section 66A, had also approached the Supreme Court.
Internet and Mobile Association of India and Internet Portal mouthshut.com also intervened in the case challenging other provisions of IT Act which gives power to government to block sites. Member of Parliament Rajeev Chandrasekhar also filed petition. There were three others who had also joined the fight against Section 66A.