TITLE: Online speech cannot be unrestricted and the provisions

guaranteeing such unrestricted freedom would be lible to struck down as

being violative of the Constitution.

the State cannot make a law which directly restricts one freedom even for
securing the better enjoyment of another freedom, therefore sec66A
unconstitutional and void

SHREYA SINGHAL

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA

(CASE BRIEF)

CASE NAME: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India & Ors. (With Similar Cases)

CITATION: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF 2012

COURT: The Supreme Court of India

BENCH: J. Chelameswar, J. Rohinton Fali Nariman

DECIDED ON: 24 March, 2015

RELEVANT SECTIONS AND STATUTES:

- Section 66-A, 69-A, 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000

- Article 19, 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950
- Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960
- Section 95 and 96 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

 1. The Present set of petitions was filed with regard to the constitutionality
of Section 66-A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
2. Section 66-A of the Information Technology, 2000 came into force by
virtue of an Amendment Act of 2009. The petitioner had claimed in this
petition that Section 66-A has given rise to new forms of crimes which
was held to be incorrect. The constitutional validity of Section 66-A was
challenged on following grounds:
- That it infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression and is not saved by the eight subjects covered under Article
19(2).
- That this Section in creating an offence suffers from the vice of
vagueness because of which the innocent people are roped in as
offenders.
- That the enforcement of the said section would really be an insidious
form of censorship which impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)
(a).
- That the said Section infringes the rights of the individual under Articles
14 and 21 in as much there is on intelligible differentia between those
who use the internet and those who by words spoken or written use their
mediums of communication.

ISSUES:

- Whether Section 66-A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000

constitutionally valid?
- Whether Section 66-A is voilative of Article 19 of the Constitution of
India, 1950?
(both the issues are same)

RATIO OF THE COURT: After hearing the contentions of the counsels of

the petitioner against the constitutionality of Section 66-A and the learned
Additional Solicitor General in the favour of constitutionality of the said
Section court while dealing with the various grounds of the petition dealt and
observed separately in respect of each ground and stated as followed:

1. India is a sovereign, democratic and republic country as has been

stated in the preamble of the Constitution. It cannot be
 overemphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought
and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance
under our constitutional scheme. Under the Constitution of India it is
not open to the state to curtail freedom of speech to promote the
general public interest. If a public order under Section 19(2) is
violated by a law then that law is unconstitutional and void for public
order is synonymous with public public safety and tranquillity. A
prospective offender of Section 66-A and the authorities who are to
enforce Section 66-A have absolutely no manageable standard by
which to book a person for an offence under Section 66-A. Thus
Section 66-A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades
the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and
the reasonable restrictions that maybe imposed on such right. The
Section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its
sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is
liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on
free speech and would therefore was struck down.
2. Section 69-A was observed to be a narrowly drawn provision with
several safeguards. Also, the rules are not constitutionally infirm in
any manner. The rules although fo not mention certain additional
safeguards which are found in Section 96 and 96 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 but they cannot be simply said to be invalid for
this same reason.
3. Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 was held to
be valid subject to the Section 79(3)(b) as being read down to mean
that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court
order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency
that unlawful acts relating to Article19(2) are being committed or will
be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to
such material.
4. Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 1960 was liable to be struck
down as being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not protected by
Section 19(2).

DECISION HELD: Keeping in view the contentions of the learned counsels

and other references made it was HELD by the Hon’ble Court that Section 66-A
that Section 66-A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 was struck
down as being entirely violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not being saved or
exempted under the provisions of Article 19(2). The Information and
Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access to information by
Public) Rules 2009 and Section 69-A were held to be constitutionally valid.
Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 and Section 118(d) of
the Kerala Police Act, 1960 was struck down as being violative of Article 19(1)
(a) and not protected under Article 19(2).

AUTHOR OF THE BRIEF: Bhagyashri