Fourth Remembrance Anniversary

SMT. ANURADHA K. SATYAMURTY

You Will Be Remembered Forever!Homage to the Angel of our Family, you haveThe Fragrance of the

Rose, pure as Lotus and Ever Smiling In OurHearts. Fondly Remembered by her loving HusbandK.V. Satyamurty, Son Gautam, DaughtersSurekha & Rohini with Family and Grandchildren, Friends & Wellwishers Forever ! Forever !

4th Death Anniversary

INDRA DOULATRAM SAKHRANI

25.03.2015

We miss you & remember you everyday, every moment. Allwe have are memories &a picture in frame.

God has you in his arms & we have you inour hearts. Fondly remembered by Sons,Daughters, Daughters-in-law, Sons-in-law,Grandchildren & Great Grandchildren.

REMEMBRANCE BIRTH CENTENARY

DR. GOVINDDAS SAMPAT

March 25, 1915-2015

You filled the world with special joy and happiness untold,

You always had a sunny way and a lovely heart of gold.

Fondly remembered by Sampat family, Friends & Patients.

6th Death Anniversary

PONNAMMA S. NAIR

03.06.1946 - 25.03.2009

NL-6/11/8, Sector-15,Nerul Fondly remembered byHusband : K. S. Nair, Son: Viju,

Daughter: Jaya, Bindu, Son-in-Law: Viswanathan, Suresh,Daughter-in-Law: Sudha, Grand Children :Vineet, Jinesh, Shishir, Shruthi

SAD DEMISE

T S Narayanan(12.10.1932 -

16.3.2015) Formerly of Shrinagar

Society, ChemburPassed away at

Chennai. Deeply mourned &

missed by Wife:

Vijaylakshmi Narayanan

Sons/ DILs': Subramanian

(Subhash)/ Bindu,Shekhar/ RadhaDaughter/ SIL:

Shobha/ Balakrishnan (Balaji)And Grandchildren:

Anirudh, Aniketh,Aditi, Aishwarya,

Aashray, Aria,Relatives & Friends.

Phone: 044-24717423

16th Death Anniversary

MR. PADMAKAR E. GAMBHIR

Fondly remembered andmissed by Mrs. SumatiGambhir (Wife) Mr. Sumitraj Gambhir(Son). Mrs. Aloka

Gambhir (Daughter in law) Mr. Ashit Shetty (Son in law) Mrs. Samita Gambhir Shetty (Daughter)Master Nirvan Gambhir (Grand son)

In Loving Memory of

TIKAMDAS MOTIRAM PAHUJA

You may not be presentamidst us, but yourmemories are alwayswith us, The Principlesthat you instilled in us

remain the moral & inspiration of our lives.Fondly remembered by: Family Members & Tikamdas Motiram Jewellers (TMJ) Cuffe Parade. Raia Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (ORO) Kalachowki.

14th Death Anniversary

VEENA GIWATMAL LALWANI

25.03.2001

Your laughter, Yourpositive approach towards life, your ability to spread happi-ness and to reach out to

the needy will be a guiding light for all ofus. You have been our inspiration & will remain so in our hearts forever. Lovinglycherished and remembered by : Manoj Lalwani & Anil Lalwani (Sons) VJ Honda , Lalwani Consultants & Ritu Automobiles.

DEATH ANNOUNCEMENTS

DEATH

SAD DEMISEMARKA

VAIKUNTASAMARADHANA

New Delhi:The home minis-try feels scrapping of Section66A of the IT Act will have lit-tle effect on the capability oflaw enforcement agencies indealing with social mediaposts in support of terroristorganizations or those aim-ed at spreading communalhatred. According to a minis-try official, while terrorposts qualify as “invitingsupport for a terrorist orga-nization” covered by Section39(1)(a) of Unlawful Activ-ities Prevention Act (UAPA),those spreading communalhatred online will continueto face action under Section153A of the IPC.

Interestingly, a personposting material in supportof an organization bannedunder UAPA will now invite amaximum 10-year term un-der UAPA.

Even though in the case ofMehdi Masroor Biswas, ar-rested last year for operatinga pro-ISIS Twitter account,both Section 66A and UAPA

were slapped, it might takesome judicious discretion onpart of the law enforcementagencies while dealing withthose posting content in fa-vour of a terror outfit.

“Since the person has tobe booked under UAPA, thelaw enforcement agenciesmust examine the gravity ofhis posts before proceedingagainst him,” an MHA offi-cial pointed out.

However, there is no suchdilemma in dealing withcommunal posts and mess-ages. “These will invite ac-tion under Section 153A of

the IPC, which provides for amaximum three-year im-prisonment, just like Section66A,” said an officer.

Cyber terror too wouldcontinue to invite action un-der Section 66F of the IT Act.The section makes acts ofunauthorized access to acomputer access with the in-tent of threatening securityand sovereignty of India andstriking terror in the people,punishable with imprison-ment that may extend to life.

The government also re-tains its capability to blockany terror or communal con-tent, with the court uphold-ing Section 69A of the IT Act .As per this section, the Cen-tre can issue directions toblock public access of any in-formation through any com-puter resource in the inter-est of sovereignty andintegrity of India, defence ofIndia, friendly relationswith foreign states or publicorder. “Communal posts willbe covered under the head“public order”, said a homeministry officer.

Agencies can still use other laws Bharti.Jain@timesgroup.com

12 THE TIMES OF INDIA, MUMBAIWEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2015TIMES NATION | Cyber Verdict

New Delhi: The SC refused tobuy the NDA government’s as-surance that it would exerciserestraint in invoking Section66A of the IT Act. The benchsaid when the provision wasunconstitutional, it could notbe allowed to stay on the statutebook. “If Section 66A is other-wise invalid, it cannot be savedby an assurance from the addi-tional solicitor general that itwill be administered in a rea-sonable manner. Governmentsmay come and governmentsmay go but Section 66A goes onforever. An assurance from thepresent government even ifcarried out faithfully wouldnot bind any successor govern-ment,” the court said.

“It cannot be overempha-sized that when it comes to de-mocracy, liberty of thoughtand expression is a cardinalvalue that is of paramount sig-nificance under our constitu-

tional scheme,” said JusticeNariman. Law student ShreyaSinghal had moved the SC chal-lenging the constitutionality ofSection 66A after the two Palgh-ar girls were arrested for postson a social network site criticiz-ing a bandh on the day BalThackeray was cremated.

However, the SC upheld theconstitutional validity of Sec-tion 69A which empowered au-thorities to issue directions forblocking any informationthrough any computer if au-thorities felt it was necessary todo so in the interest of “sover-

eignty and integrity of India,defence of India, security of thestate, friendly relation withother countries and disturbpublic order or incite an of-fence”. The court said it was up-holding the provision as therewas an elaborate procedure un-der the law to decide on block-ing of websites and it demand-ed authorities to record inwriting the reasons behind themove. The bench also watereddown ISPs power under Sec-tion 79 to take down posts onmere request of others whofind it offensive. It said postscould be taken down only oncourt orders.

“Otherwise it would be verydifficult for intermediarieslike Google, Facebook etc. to actwhen millions of requests aremade and the intermediary isthen to judge as to which ofsuch requests are legitimateand which are not,” said Justic-es Chelameswar and Nariman.

For the full report, log onto www.timesofindia.com

Govt can block sites, courtorder must to scrap posts

Chennai: Former Union fi-nance minister P Chidama-bram once again threwbarbs at the UPA in which hewas a minister for 10 years.After taking a pot-shot atPresident Pranab Mukher-jee for the party’s de-feat in the 2014 elec-tions, Chidambaram,while welcoming theSC judgment on Sec-tion 66A, said it waspoorly drafted andcould be misused.

Faulting his own party’sgovernment, which amend-ed the IT Act 2000 in 2008, Chi-dambaram said, “The sec-tion was capable of beingmisused and, in fact, it wasmisused.” In a press releaseon Tuesday, soon after the SCorder, Chidambaram said, “Iwelcome the judgment of the

Supreme Court holding thatSection 66A of the IT Act isunconstitutional.”

Incidentally, this was thesection that his son Karti hadinvoked to file a case againstan AAP functionary in Pudu-cherry for tweets againsthim and his father. Chidam-

baram further added,“There could be a caseof misuse of freedomof speech. In suchcases, ordinary lawsshould apply and theoffender should bedealt with under those

laws. If some provisions ofthe law have to be strength-ened, that could be consid-ered. But Section 66A was notthe answer.” Chidambaramdid not, however, name H RBharadwaj, who was Unionlaw minister then and re-sponsible for drafting thesection in 2008.

Chidambaram throwsbarbs at UPA again

NOT DEBUGGED YET

TIMES NEWS NETWORK

NO ‘ALL CLEAR’

Amit Choudhury & Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN