3/25/2015

FreespeechVer.2.0TheHindu

OpinionComment
Published:March25,201501:57IST|Updated:March25,201502:02IST

FreespeechVer.2.0
LawrenceLiang

MARKEDLYDIFFERENT:ThejudgmentistheoutcomeofanewkindofpoliticalactivismaroundfreespeechPictureshowsa Photo:TheHindu
protestinBengaluruagainstSec.66A.
Withitsjudgmenttostrikedownalegalprovisionforviolatingfreedomofspeech,theSupremeCourthaspavedthewayforthoughtful
jurisprudenceintheageoftheInternet

WhiledescribingSec.124AoftheIPC(sedition)astheprinceamongthepoliticalsectionsdesignedtosuppressthe
libertyofthecitizen,MahatmaGandhiofferedusanironicwayofthinkingaboutlibertycurbinglawsthroughthe
metaphorofillegaltyrants.Onthatcount,theSupremeCourtsjudgmentintheShreyaSinghalversusUnionofIndia
case,strikingdownSec.66AoftheInformationTechnologyActcanbeseenasawelcomeendtoashortlivedbut
terriblytyrannicalreignofapettydespot.
Overthepastfewyears,Sec.66Ahasbeenusedinarangeofinfamousinstances,rangingfromtheShaheenDhadacase
(ayoungwomanwasarrestedforaninnocuousFacebookpost)tothemostrecentincidentofthearrestofaClassXI
studentforpostingcommentsonhisFacebookpagethatheattributedtoAzamKhan,aSamajwadiPartyMinisterin
UttarPradesh.AsisperhapsappropriateforalawthatstruckattheveryheartofWeb2.0andsocialmedia,the
challengetoitsconstitutionalvaliditywasbroughtbya21yearoldlawstudent,withotherindividualsand
organisationssubsequentlyjoiningthecase.TheproceedingsbeforeJusticesRohintonNarimanandG.Chelameswar
werekeenlyfollowedandreportedbymanypeopleonsocialmedia,anditissafetosaythatthejudgmentwasoneof
themostkeenlyanticipateddecisionsinrecenttimes.TheSupremeCourthasnotfailedusinitsroleasthe
constitutionalguardianagainstcapriciouslawsthatthreatenourfundamentalrights.
Threeformsofspeech
Inacarefullyreasoneddecision,thecourthasstruckdownSec.66Ainitsentiretyongroundsofvagueness,overreach,
andthechillingeffectsithasononlinespeech.ItalsoreadsdownSec.79(intermediaryliability),holdingthat
intermediariesareliabletotakedowncontentonlyuponreceiptofactualknowledgefromacourtorderoronbeing
notifiedbytheappropriategovernment.It,however,upholdsSec.69AandtherulesundertheITAct(blockingof
websites)onthegroundsthatthereareinternalsafeguardsandreasonableproceduresavailablewithinSec.69A.
Thecourtbeginsbydistinguishingbetweenthreeformsofspeech:discussion,advocacyandincitement,andholdsthat
merediscussionorevenadvocacyofaparticularcause,howsoeverunpopular,isattheheartofArticle19(1)(a).Itis
onlywhensuchdiscussionoradvocacyreachesthelevelofincitementthatArticle19(2)kicksin.Thecourtfindsthat
notonlydoesSec.66Ainterferewiththerightofthepublictoreceiveanddisseminateinformation,theprovisionfails
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/oped/freespeechver20/article7028787.ece?homepage=true&css=print

1/3

3/25/2015

FreespeechVer.2.0TheHindu

todistinguishbetweendiscussion,advocacyandincitement.Itthengoesontodiscusswhatstandardsconstitute
reasonablerestriction.Inthecurrentcase,thegovernmenthadarguedthatweneedtoapplyamorerelaxedstandard
ofreasonablenessofrestriction,withregardbeingkeptforthefactthatthemediumofspeechbeingtheInternet,it
differsfromothermediaonseveralgrounds.WhilethecourtsagreethattheInternetmaybetreatedseparatelyfrom
othercommunicationmediaandthattherecouldbeseparatelawsthatonlydealwithonlinespeech,theselawsstill
havetopassthetestofreasonablenessinArt.19(2).
Citinganimportantandoftenignoredfreespeechjudgment,theRamManoharLohiacase(1960),thecourtholdsthat
anyrestrictionthathastobemadeintheinterestsofpublicordermusthaveareasonablerelationtotheobjecttobe
achieved,thatis,publicorder.Therelationshouldbeonewhichhasaproximateconnectionornexuswithpublic
order,andnotafarfetched,hypotheticalorremoterelation.ItthenexamineseachofthegroundsunderArt.19(2)to
findthat66Afailedtoestablishaproximateconnectiontopublicorder,incitement,defamation,andsoon.
Finally,thecourtstrikesdown66Aonthegroundsofvaguenessandoverbreadth.Accordingtothecourt,itisavague
lawthatimpermissiblydelegatesbasicpolicymatterstopolicemen,judges,andjuriesforresolutiononanadhocand
subjectivebasis,withtheattendantdangersofarbitraryanddiscriminatoryapplication.Thiseffectivelysummarises
howSec.66Ahasbeenmisusedinrecentyears.Italsofindsthat66Ahasachillingeffectononlinespeechbecauseit
overreachesandiscastsowidelythatvirtuallyanyopiniononanysubjectwouldbecoveredbyit,asanyserious
opiniondissentingwiththemoresofthedaywouldbecaughtwithinitsnet.SuchisthereachoftheSectionandifitis
towithstandthetestofconstitutionality,thechillingeffectonfreespeechwouldbetotal.[Read:Thereasonableman
vsthehypersensitiveman]
Thereasonthatthecourtfindsittobevagueandoverreachingistheabsenceofanydistinctionbetweendifferent
formsofspeech,andinseekingtopreventspeechthatitthinkswouldcauseannoyance,orisgrosslyoffensive,italso
takeswithinitssweepprotectedspeech.Thecourtimplicitlyacknowledgesthattherighttocritiqueandtherightto
dissentareasubstantivepartofthefreedomofspeechandexpression,andmerelyanindividualsorevenagroups
annoyancewiththespeechofanothercannotbethebasisforcurbinglegitimatespeech.Thecourtiscognisantofa
creepingintolerancewithinthepoliticalclimate,andillustratesthisinthefollowingmannerAcertainsectionofa
particularcommunitymaybegrosslyoffendedorannoyedbycommunicationsovertheInternetbyliberalviews
suchastheemancipationofwomenortheabolitionofthecastesystemorwhethercertainmembersofanon
proselytisingreligionshouldbeallowedtobringpersonswithintheirfoldwhoareotherwiseoutsidethefold.
Freespeechinthe21stcentury
ItisimportanttonotethatthisisthefirstjudgmentindecadesinwhichtheSupremeCourthasstruckdownalegal
provisionforviolatingfreedomofspeech,andindoingso,itsimultaneouslybuildsuponarichbodyoffreespeech
casesinIndiaandpavesthewayforajurisprudenceoffreespeechinthe21stcentury,theeraoftheInternetandsocial
media.ItexplicitlyacknowledgesthattheInternethasradicallydemocratisedcommunicationthatallowsforpeopleto
participateinthemarketplaceofideasandthisecologyofcommunicationhastobesafeguardedfromanyinhibition
byarbitrarylaws.Onewishesthecourthadpaidcloserattentiontothearbitrarymannerthattheblockingruleswork,
butthatisagentledisagreementinlightofitssignificantachievementonthesubstantivequestions.Itshouldalsobe
notedthatthejudgmentistheoutcomeofanewkindofpoliticalactivismaroundfreespeech,whichsawactivists,
lawyers,bloggersandsocialmediacomingtogetherinamarkedlydifferentwayfromthesegmentedmodesinwhich
freespeechbattleshavetakenplaceinthepast.
IfthisjudgmentheraldsthecomingintobeingofFreeSpeechVer.2.0,wecantwaitforfutureupdates.Whilewe
celebratethejudgment,itisimportanttorememberthatcasesunderSec.66Ahaverarelyeverbeenfiledinisolation,
andtheyareoftenaccompaniedbychargesunderseditionandhatespeechlaws(Sec.153Aand295AoftheIPC).
Further,evenwhentheSupremeCourtlaysdowngoodprinciplesinitsinterpretationofsubstantivelaws,these
constitutionalprotectionsareundonebytheflimsycriminaljusticesystems,whichallowformalafidecomplaintstobe
filedandacteduponinamannerthatmakestheprocedureandtheprocesstherealpunishment.Ifwearetotruly
createanecologyinwhichpeoplecanexercisespeechfearlessly,itiscrucialthatweacknowledgethatweareliving
underwhatGopalkrishnaGandhidescribesasanunpromulgatedstateoffear,andthisjudgmentisasignificantif
onlyfirststeptowardsabraver,freerandmoretolerantdemocracy.
Allyouneedto
knowaboutSec
66A

Anunreasonable
restriction

Savingfreespeech
fromthepolice

Section66Aprovides
punishmentfor
sendingoffensive
messagesthrough
communication

Section66Acertainly
doesnotengagein
thebalancing
requiredtopursue
theobjectiveof
preventingcriminal

Whattheoutcryover
Section66AoftheIT
Actmissesistheneed
foramechanismto
preventarrestson
flimsyinterpretations

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/oped/freespeechver20/article7028787.ece?homepage=true&css=print

2/3

3/25/2015

FreespeechVer.2.0TheHindu

services.Readmore

intimidationand
dangeronsocial
media.Readmore

ofcriminallaw
provisions.Read
more

Likeitornot,
commentisnotfree

Ifyouwantapicture
ofthefuture,imaginea
bootstampingona
humanface,forever.
Readmore

DoesSection66A
curborsafeguard
socialmedia?

Herearesomeofthe
viewspostedby
Facebookusers,most
ofwhomseemedtofeel
(LawrenceLiangisalawyerandresearcherwiththeAlternativeLawForum.)
66Acurbsfreespeech
Keywords:SupremeCourt,Section66A,ITAct,ShreyaSinghalversusUnionofIndia
ratherthangenuinely
fightcybercrime.Read
Printableversion|Mar25,20159:53:25AM|http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/oped/free
more
speechver20/article7028787.ece

Viewcomment(1)

TheHindu

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/oped/freespeechver20/article7028787.ece?homepage=true&css=print

3/3