Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Shreya Singhal V

    Uploaded by

    Tamanna Parveen
    8 views9 pages
    The document summarizes the case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In 2009, Section 66A was added to the Information Technology Act of 2000, which criminalized sending offensive electronic communications. However, key terms like "offensive" and "annoyance" were not clearly defined. In 2012, two women were arrested under Section 66A for criticizing a political leader on Facebook. This led to several petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A and other sections of the IT Act for restricting freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of India heard the case, with the petitioner arguing Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 violated constitutional rights to freedom of expression and due process due to vague language.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The document summarizes the case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In 2009, Section 66A was added to the Information Technology Act of 2000, which criminalized sending offensive electronic communications. However, key terms like "offensive" and "annoyance" were not clearly defined. In 2012, two women were arrested under Section 66A for criticizing a political leader on Facebook. This led to several petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A and other sections of the IT Act for restricting freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of India heard the case, with the petitioner arguing Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 violated constitutional rights to freedom of expression and due process due to vague language.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    8 views9 pages

    Shreya Singhal V

    Uploaded by

    Tamanna Parveen
    The document summarizes the case Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In 2009, Section 66A was added to the Information Technology Act of 2000, which criminalized sending offensive electronic communications. However, key terms like "offensive" and "annoyance" were not clearly defined. In 2012, two women were arrested under Section 66A for criticizing a political leader on Facebook. This led to several petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A and other sections of the IT Act for restricting freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of India heard the case, with the petitioner arguing Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 violated constitutional rights to freedom of expression and due process due to vague language.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    Shreya Singhal v.

    Union of India
    IN 2009 PARLIAMENT INTRODUCED AN AMENDMENT AND SEC 66A WAS ADDED TO THE
    INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, OF 2000
    THE SECTION PUNISHES OFFENCE OR ANNOYANCE CAUSED THROUGH ELECTRONIC
    COMMUNICATION MEDIA
    THERE IS NO CLEAR-CUT DEFINITION OF
    THESE TERMS
    Something which is not liked by me or
    something which is inconvenient for me
    but could be someone’s freedom of
    speech
    Background of the Case

    Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan were arrested by the Mumbai Police in 2012 for posting an inappropriate
    comment on Facebook criticizing the bandh declared after the death of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray.
    The girls were eventually released by the police, but their arrest received harsh criticism all around the nation.
    Many activists claimed that the police had abused their authority by using Section 66A of the Information
    Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "IT Act"), which puts out punishments for sending offensive
    texts or messages through communication services and restricts freedom of speech as guaranteed by Article
    19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.
    The crime listed in Section 66A of the IT Act falls under the category of cognizable offenses, which enables
    police officers to make an arrest and begin an investigation without a search warrant. As a result, police around
    the nation made a large number of strange arrests of people for posting what the government considered to be
    "obnoxious information," which was typically defying political opinions.
     henceforth, there were numerous petitions filed by
    the people across the country to strike down the
    unconstitutional provisions of the IT Act. The
    Apex Court of India clubbed those petitions into a
    single PIL and the case came to be known as
    Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
    Facts in Issue

     The petitioner filed a writ petition in the public interest under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, seeking
    the Supreme Court of India to declare Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 of the IT Act ultra-vires to the Constitution
    of India.
     The petitioner also stated that these laws' intent is to exploit it irresponsibly and that they are therefore in
    infringement of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
     There are terminologies like menacing, offensive, annoyance, inconvenience, obstruction, danger, and insult
    which are not explained in any act.

    You might also like