The case of the Palghar girls arrested for an innocuous facebook comment made the scope for misuse of Section 66A of the IT Act clear. However, even before this case, a similar, albeit more complex, story was already playing out in Mumbai. This time the victims were Mayank Sharma and his colleague KV Jagannath Rao. Both were employees of Air India and were arrested in May 2012 for their posts on a closed facebook group meant for Air India cabin crew where they allegedly distorted the Congress party’s election flag and joked about politicians in an attempt to express their angst against the state of politics in the country.

At 1:30 am on May 11, 2012, police from the cyber security police station in Bandra Kurla Complex showed up at the homes of both men and took them into police custody. When asked what charges they were being held under, no response was given by the arresting officers. At the police station, they were informed that they were being charged under the IT Act for the facebook updates they’d posted, Section 506(2) of the IPC (Criminal Intimidation) and for disrespecting the National flag.

Despite being taken to the police station at 1:30 am, they were formally arrested only at 7:30 am. The arrest was made after they were asked whether they had insulted politicians, threatened to bomb and kill politicians and insulted the national flag. They denied all three allegations.

Following this they were booked under Section 506(2) of the IPC and Section 66A & 67 of the IT Act. The charge of disrespecting the national flag was dropped on review as it was made clear that the flag concerned was not the Tricolour.

Unlike the Palghar case however, the two men were not granted bail immediately and instead spent the following 12 days in police custody.  While the charges under which they were booked do fall under the ambit of the IT ACT 2000, the facts of the case are not as black and white as the chargesheet against them.

Both men were active trade union leaders who had challenged the authority of Kiran Pawaskar, the original complainant, a National Congress Party minister who also happened to be a rival trade union leader. According to news reports, the two men claim that Pawaskar filed the charges against them to settle a personal score.

While Pawaskar was the original complainant, having filed a complaint against Rao and Sharma in 2011, the case was only forwarded to the cyber security police in March 2012. This was after a First Information Report was filed by Air India Cabin Crew Association (AICCA) Assistant Treasurer Sagar Karnik, an associate of Pawaskar. Karnik also alleged that the Rao and Sharma had issued death threats to him. It was on the basis of this allegation that Rao and Sharma were charged under Section 506(2). News reports had emerged claiming that both complainants seem to have vested interests in arresting Rao and Sharma.

On being taken into custody, Rao and Sharma alleged that the policemen taunted them asking them whether they were now scared of politicians. Following their arrest, Rao and Sharma, both active Air India cabin crew members, had their passports impounded for six months and were subsequently suspended by Air India for the same duration. The charges against them still stand. They have reportedly written over 30 letters to top policemen and authorities to protest against the unfair actions undertaken against them. They have received no aid from the powers that be.

Despite them filing a counter-complaint against Karnik in July 2012, the police only filed an FIR against Karnik in November of the same year. Even after filing the FIR, no follow-up action has been taken against Karnik. This is in stark contrast to the over-zealousness of the police where Rao and Sharma were concerned.

We tried to contact Rao and Sharma, but were unable to do so.  Their case once again drives home the point that armed with Sec 66A of the IT Act, the political classes can effectively quiet dissent without breaking a sweat. And also, in the eyes of Section 66A some people are more equal than others. While it works at a speed that puts Usain Bolt to shame when the common man is the accused it seems to develop square wheels and screech to a halt where a person with political clout is concerned.