SHREYA SINGHAL vs.

UNION OF INDIA

(AIR 2015 SC 1523)

Court:- Supreme Court of India

Bench:- J. Chelameswar, Rohinton Fali Nariman

Petitioner:-Shreya Singhal

Respondent:-Union of India

 INTRODUCTION

Supreme Court in one of the landmark judgments struck down section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 which provides provisions for the arrest of those who allegedly posted
offensive content on the internet, therefore, upholding freedom of expression. Section 66A of IT
Act defines punishment for sending any offensive messages through a computer or any
communication device such a mobile phone or tablet and a conviction for it can be for maximum
three years of jail and a fine.

From over the last couple years, there have been many cases in which police arrested the
broadcasting of any information through a computer source or a communication device, which
was menacing or grossly offensive in character, or which, among other things may cause
annoyance, inconvenience, or obstruction. In a previous judgment by Justice R.F.Nariman, on
behalf of a bench comprising himself and Justice J. Chelameswar, the Court declared that
Section 66A is not only vague and arbitrary, but also “disproportionately invades the right of
free speech.”

In quashing Section 66A, in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court not only gave a new and fresh
lease of life to free speech in India, but also performed its role as a constitutional court for
Indians. The Court provided the jurisprudence of free speech with an enhanced and rare clarity.
Various provisions of IPC and IT Act are good enough to deal with all these related crimes and is
thus incorrect to say that Section 66A has given rise to new forms of crimes.

1
The landmark case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) is a landmark case that plays a
very important role in the Indian legal system. The case revolves around the fundamental right of
freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which
challenged the constitutional validity of section 66A and thus striking down of section 66A of
the Information Technology Act 2000 which is the punishment for sending offensive messages
through communication services, etc.

 FACTS OF THE CASE

Two girls named, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, were arrested by Mumbai police in 2012
for expressing their displeasure at a bandh which was called in the wake of Shiv Sena chief Bal
Thackery’s death. Both these women posted some comments on Facebook. The arrested women
were released later on and it was decided to close the criminal cases which were against them,
but the arrests attracted widespread public protest. It was felt that the police has misused its
power by invoking Section 66A contending that it violates the freedom of speech and expression.
A writ petition was filed in public interest under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by
petitioner, seeking to declares Section 66A,69A and section 79 as unconstitutional on the fact
that the phrases used in Section 66A,69A and section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 are so broad and
vague and at the same time incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is
susceptible to abuse and hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the
Constitution.

 CONTENTIONS/ ISSUES
1) Whether Sections 66-A, 69-A and 79 of the IT Act are constitutionally valid or not ?
2) Whether Section 66A of IT Act is violative of fundamental right of freedom of speech
and expression or not?
 ARGUMENTS
 Petitioner's arguments
a) The first contention being that Section 66A takes away the Freedom of Speech and
Expression which is guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) and is not at all saved by the
reasonable restriction mentioned under clause (2) of Art. 19

2
 b) Secondly, causing of annoyance, inconvenience etc. being outside the scope of Article
19(2)
c) Section 66A seeks to create an offence but has an infirmity and vagueness as it does not
clearly defines the terminology being used in it. The terminology in use is subjective in
nature and is left open at the desire and will of the law enforcement agencies to interpret
it. Any limitation is not present.
d) Article 14 is being violated as there is no intelligible differentia as to why only one means
of communication is targeted by this section. Thus, declaring it self-discriminatory.
 Respondent's arguments
a) Legislature has the best position to address the requirements of people and the court shall
only step in when a law is clearly violative of Fundamental Rights and there is
presumption in favour of Constitutionality of the law in question.
b) Court would so interpret a law to making it functional and in doing so can read into or
down the provisions of law.
c) Only the probability of abuse cannot be a justified in declaring a provision invalid.
d) Loose Language is being used to safeguard the rights of the people from those who do
violate them by using this medium.
e) Vagueness is not a sole ground in declaring a statute unconstitutional if otherwise it is
qualified and non arbitrary.

 JUDGMENT

The court said held, “Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may be offensive to
one may not be offensive to another”. Therefore, the interpretation was held to be subjective in
nature. Hence the court ordered 66A as violative of right to freedom of speech and expression
and is not covered under the grounds of reasonable restrictions given under Article 19(2). The
court also held that blocking of information for public access given under Section 69A of IT Act
is constitutionally valid in nature.

The court observed that the expressions used in 66A are completely open-ended and undefined
and it is not covered under Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution. Section 66A actually had no
proximate connection or link with causing disturbance to public order or with incitement to

3
commit an offence and hence it was struck down by the court. The approach adopted by the court
was to protect the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression and in no way the
legislation can take away this right by hiding under the shield of Article-19(2) of the
Constitution.

Also, the court by applying the rule of severability has struck down only those sections which
were vague and arbitrary in nature. The whole legislation need not be held as invalid.

REFERENCES

1) Lawlex
2) Indian Kanoon
3) Ip leaders
4) Legal Services India

Jashanpreet Kaur

Campus Ambassador

Ink and Gavel