ETHICS AND

VALUES
ASSIGNMENT 2

MADE BY:VISHAL DHAPA

14BCH065

 THE CASE OF FACEBOOK FRACAS

On a Sunday in November 2012, Shaheen Dhada, a
21 year old student from the small Maharashtra
town of Palghar, near Mumbai, posted this message
on Facebook: With all respect, every day, thousands
of people die , but still the world moves onToday,
Mumbai shuts down out of fear, not out of respect.
The previous day, Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray
had passed away, aged 86- and the city and
surroundings had come to a standstill. All Shaheen
did was express her thoughts.
Soon Shaheen learnt from someone that there
were mobs forming. Taken aback, she deleted the
post. Meanwhile, the local hospital run by her uncle,
an orthopedic surgeon, was vandalized. Shaheen was
arrested along with a friend of hers, Rinu Srinivasan,
whose only fault was liking, commenting on and
sharing Shaheens post. The girls were made to
apologize. Rinu was even slapped twice by a woman
in the mob. The two were then booked under Section
66A of the Information Technology Act. Also invoked

were Sections 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code

(deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage
religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion
or religious beliefs). Later, charges under 295(A)
were dropped and replaced with charges under
505(2) (statements creating or promoting enmity,
hatred or ill will between classes). The two girls were
produced before a magistrate who remanded them to
judicial custody, but later granted them bail.

THE VERDICT
A week after the arrests, the Bombay high court
transferred the magistrate. The Maharashtra
government , following criticism in the press
and on TV, suspended the two senior policemen
who initiated action against the girls and gave a
strict warning to other officers involved in the
case. A month later, in December 2012, all
charges against the girls were dropped. And in
July last year (2014), the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) directed the Maharashtra
government to pay Rs 50000 each to Shaheen
and Rinu as compensation for violation of their
constitutional rights.

Disturbed by all this, a first year law student

at the time of the 2012 arrests, Shreya Singhal
of Delhi, filed a Public Interest Litigation against
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act
[which stated, in brief]: Any person who by
means of a computer or communication device
sends any information that is:
a) Grossly offensive
b) False and meant for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience , danger,
obstruction, insult, injury, criminal
intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will
c) Meant to deceive or mislead the recipient
about the origin of such messages, etc, shall
be punishable with imprisonment up to 3
years and with fine.
Thus, on 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court
in a landmark judgement struck down Section
66A in its entirely, calling it unconstitutional
and observing that the definition of offences
under the provision was open ended,
undefined and vague.

It is clear that section 66A arbitrarily,

excessively and disproportionately invades
the right of free speech and upsets the
balance between such right and the
reasonable restrictions that may be
imposed, the court decreed. It was a clear
victory for freedom of expression.
My views regarding above case and the ethical
questions it raises
The question which comes in our mind after
studying above case is
Didnt Shaheen and Rinu have their right to
free speech???
According to me, we all are free citizens of
India. India is a democratic country. We all have
basic rights like right to speech, right to vote,
etc. If our rights are violated by anybody, we
can approach court and seek remedy to our
problem.

In this case, we can clearly see that the rights

of two girls are clearly violated. Neither they
had written against any religious issue then also
they were punished. It is clearly against our
constitution. Shaheen just wanted to say that
respect should be earned and not to be forced.
Here people of Shiv Sena were forcing others to
show respect to Bal Thackeray by closing
Mumbai for one day. It is clearly not justified. So
this raises ethical questions.
Ethical issues raised by destroying Shaheens
uncle hospital
Was it ethical to destroy Shaheens uncle
hospital? It was clearly not. The followers of
Shiv Sena were against Shaheen and not
against her uncle. There was no fault of her
uncle but still his hospital was vandalized.
Whatever media did was absolutely correct.
They were the one who took the side of two
girls and helped them to raise their voice in the
court. Finally what Supreme Court did by
putting down Section 66A was totally justified.

Being a citizen, right to speech is very

important. But at the same time, one should
understand that this right doesnt allow anyone
to speak anything against any religion which
might hurt the supporters of the religion.

CONCLUSION
From the above case, we can conclude that what
Shaheen
did was totally justified. What the
supporters of Shiv Sena did by destroying hospital
of Shaheens uncle and forcing others to show
respect to Bal Thackeray was clearly wrong.
Respect is something which should come internally
and not forced.

REFERENCES
READERS DIGEST , (26-27), MAY 2015