Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act
Keywords: Case Analysis, IT Act, 2000, Freedom of Speech, Indian Constitution, legality, technology, Section 66A
WRITTEN BY: SONALI SINGH
BENCH:
Hon’ble Judges:
Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
March 24, 2015
CITATION:
AIR 2015 SC 1523
PETITIONER:
Shreya Singhal
RESPONDENT:
Union of India
INTRODUCTION
One of the most cherished fundamental rights granted by our Constitution is freedom of speech. The Indian Supreme Court has reaffirmed the significance of freedom of speech as well as expression. The change to Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 took effect in 2009. Sending “offensive” texts through a computer or any other communication device, such as a mobile phone or tablet, is punishable under Section 66A. Which carries a maximum sentence of three years in prison and a fine.
In the Indian legal system, the landmark judgment SHREYA SINGHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA is extremely important. The basic right to freedom of speech and expression protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is at issue in this case. The constitutional legality of section 66A was challenged, and the IT Act of 2000 was repealed as a result.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Mumbai police detained two females named Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan in 2012. For expressing their discontent with a bandh called in the aftermath of Shiv Sena president Bal Thackery’s death. The women expressed their dissatisfaction on Facebook. Also, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 was used to arrest them. Although the arrested women were ultimately released and the criminal case against them was dropped, the arrest sparked great public interest. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, alleging that section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 infringes on an individual’s right to freedom of speech as well as expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
ISSUES
1. Constitutional validity of Sections 66-A, 69-A, as well as 79 were challenged.
2. Whether Section 66A is curtailing Freedom of speech and expression?
3. Whether Section 66A is saved under Section 19(2)?
ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER
1. The right to freedom of expression granted by Article 19(1)(a) is curtailed by Section 66A of the IT Act of 2000, which is not preserved by the reasonable restrictions specified in Article 19(1)(a).
2. Section 66A is ambiguous and causes inconsistency since it does not explicitly define terms used under this section and is left subject to interpretation at the discretion of law enforcement agencies.
3. Articles 14 and 21 have been breached because there is no “intelligible differentia” as to why this provision has only been addressed through one mode of communication, resulting in self-discrimination.
ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT
1. It was argued that the possibility of section abuse could not be a basis for declaring the section unlawful.
2. The vagueness of a statute is not a reason to declare it unconstitutional
JUDGEMENT
This Judgment has increased the importance of the right available to us to express ourselves freely. Justice Nariman highlighted the point, that “the liberty of thought and expression is not merely an aspirational ideal. It is also a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.”
The Court agreed with the petitioner that none of the grounds contained in Article 19(2) was capable of being invoked as legitimate defences to the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. The court further stated that what might be offensive for someone may not be for someone else. Therefore, it is very subjective.
There are two things to keep in mind. The first is that it is an all-inclusive definition. Second, the term makes no mention of the content of the information. In reality, it only refers to how such information is transmitted.
Information of all kinds is enticed in—it could be scientific, literary, or artistically valuable, it could be relevant to current events, or it could be profane or seditious. The fact that the information sent must be irritating, inconvenient, grossly offensive, and so on, demonstrates that no distinction is made between simple discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view, which may be irritating, inconvenient, or grossly offensive to some, and incitement, in which such words lead to an imminent causal connection with public policy. The court agreed with the Petitioners that Section 66A very clearly affects the freedom of speech and expression of the citizenry of India at large.
Maneka Gandhi v. UOI
The Court referred to various landmark judgments on freedom of speech as well as expression. The right to freedom in Article 19 guarantees the freedom of speech and expression recognized in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression has no geographical limitation and moves with a citizen’s right to collect information and exchange ideas with others, not only in India but also abroad.
In Romesh Thapper v. the State of Madras, the court stated that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations. In Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr., this court stated the right requires a free flow of opinion and ideas.
Bennett Coleman & Co. vs. UOI
In Bennett Coleman & Co. V. Union of India & Ors, the court held that Freedom of Speech and the press is the Ark of the Covenant of Democracy because public criticism is essential to the working of its institutions. This Court has laid down further what “reasonable restrictions” means in several cases.
Chintaman Rao vs. State of MP
Also in Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court said: The phrase “reasonable restriction” connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in the enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public.
The word “reasonable” implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course that reason dictates. Legislation that arbitrarily or excessively invades the right cannot be said to contain the quality of reasonableness unless it strikes a proper balance between the freedom guaranteed in Article 19(1)(g) and the social control permitted by Clause (6) of Article 19, it must be held to be wanting in that quality.
The Hon’ble Court also discussed the concept of balancing the strike between “Hate Speech” and “Free Speech”. The Court stated that Hate Speech is basically when people pass hate comments on religion, race, caste, sex, place, birth, etc. By Arbitrary decision, any innocent comment can just not be put in the ambit of Hate Speech and any hate speech cannot be given the shield of right to Speech and Expression under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
Intelligible Differentia
The court stated that discrimination under Article 14, it is unable to agree with Petitioners that there is no intelligible differentia between the medium of print, broadcast, and real-live speech as opposed to speech on the internet. The intelligible differentia is clear – the internet gives any individual a platform that requires very little or no payment through which to air his views. Further Rule of Severability was applied. With this application, only Section 66A was held to be unconstitutional and not the whole act.
Finally, the Court also upheld the secret blocking process under Section 69A of the Act, by which the Government can choose to take down content from the Internet. Holding that it did not suffer from the infirmities in Section 66A or Section 79, and also it is a narrowly drawn provision with adequate safeguards.
RULE OF LAW
Thus, Section 66A was declared unlawful in this ruling, and it was determined that citizens’ rights to free expression and the ability to conduct business over the internet are constitutionally protected.
CONCLUSION
The preamble of our Indian Constitution guarantees citizens’ fundamental right to free speech as well as expression, which is one of the most essential democratic foundations. Also in today’s world, social media has become the most popular way for people to express themselves. Defamation and sedition, however, are exceptions to the right to free speech and expression. In this case, the girl had just questioned the reason for Mumbai’s closure via a Facebook message. Arresting people for this crime is illegal because it violates citizens’ rights. Innocent people suffer emotional anguish as a result of their wrongful detention. It is the nation’s responsibility to defend fundamental rights, hence the law must be scrupulously followed as interpreted by the courts.
STATUS OF JUDGMENT
The present status of judgment is still applicable and has not been overruled in any other case.
REFERENCES
- Shreya Singhal v Union of India, [W.P. (Crl). No.167 of 2012]
- Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000- Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. -Any person who sends, using a computer resource or a communication device.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, {(1978) 2 S.C.R. 621}.
- Romesh Thapper v. The State of Madras,{ (1950) AIR 124}.
- Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr, {AIR 2010 SC 3196}
- Bennett Coleman & Co. V. Union of India & Ors, {[1962] 3 S.C.R. 842}.
- Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, {1951 AIR 118, 1950 SCR 759}.
Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com
