Facebook post against Azam Khan: Supreme Court directs UP govt to respond in 4 weeks

| Friday, March 20, 2015 - 14:38
First Published |

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday sought an explanation from the Uttar Pradesh police over the arrest of class XI student for sharing a post against senior Samajwadi Party leader and the state minister Azam Khan.

The court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to respond in 4 weeks for arresting a class 11 student under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and asked the state police to file a response.

Soli Sorabjee, the senior advocate, drew the attention of the bench to the apex court's May 16, 2013, advisory which made it clear that no case would be lodged under the controversial provision of the law unless and until there is an approval from high ranking officers like IG or DCP.

The boy has been released on bail after a local court sent him to 14 days judicial custody on Wednesday. 

The boy, a student of Woodrow School in Bareilly, was arrested by police for allegedly posting remarks on social networking site against Azam Khan following a complaint filed by the latter’s media in-charge Fasahat Ali on March 15.

Download English News App and stay updated with all Latest News.
For News in English, follow us on Google+, Twitter and on Facebook.


Why then Facebook?

It is very silly of aresting a student gor posting comments on facebook. The ultimate purpose of the exisistance of facebook is to share views, opinions and comments what the reader think about the matter. But this should never be taken serious as almost everybody do with facebook just for killing time or relaxing. If opinions on facebook are seriously considered why should facebook exust? Just ban facebook which is killing valuable time of billionss of pepple specially young Indian students. It is also the weekness of the apex court to ask the opinoon of the government about the case which shows the court has no knowledge of uses and abuses of facebook. And also the comment is not modulated or edited by the facebook publisher before publishing. The court should have also held responsible the facebook publisher.like Why does the court keep quite about antireligrous comments of religeous or political people

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.