Tag: legality

Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act

August 5, 2022
/ Leave a Comment on Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act

8 min
1 year
1,501 word

Tagged 2000, Case Analysis, Freedom of Speech, Indian Constitution, IT Act

Case Analysis on Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India | IT Act

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 The constitutional legality of section 66A was challenged, and the IT Act of 2000 was repealed as a result.

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 The constitutional legality of section 66A was challenged, and the IT Act of 2000 was repealed as a result.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}.

For any Query

Mail us at edumoundofficial@gmail.com

Bitcoin Trading in India – Is Cryptocurrency Legal in India?

Article

March 9, 2021
/ Leave a Comment on Bitcoin Trading in India – Is Cryptocurrency Legal in India?

8 min
3 years
1,540 word

Tagged bitcoin, cryptocurrency, deep web, legality

Bitcoin Trading in India – Is Cryptocurrency Legal in India?

Introduction

Bitcoin is known as cryptocurrency. It is a digital asset map out to work as a means of exchange that uses cryptography to check its design and governance, in lieu of relying on a central administration. The transfer of this type of currency is like sending a text message or electronic mail to any person. To send on a bitcoin, an app is used that is bitcoin wallet app, the amount to be sent is sorted in the app and sort the details for the recipient such as account number or any other required details and have to send the bitcoin that can later be turned into crypto-currency.

Cryptocurrency applies a network of cryptography to manage the design of those coins and to verify those transactions. In layperson’s language, cryptography means the art of writing and coding to decode. So, each word or any element of the language can be depicted to tyrannical letters, characters, numbers, and pixels so that it is not legible without the appropriate key. When X sent a text message or mail to the bitcoin network, the bitcoin account has two keys, one is a private key and another is the public key. So, the text message sent applies to both the private key and the public key. The ledger comprehends both the private and the public key and the encoded information from the X’s part. Every single transaction applies a different encoded code. Thus, it is well-known as a cryptocurrency.

Attributes of bitcoin:

Bitcoin is a currency that is not tied to a government or bank and allows the clients to spend the money anonymously. No single organization controls the bitcoin network. It is analogous to an online version of cash. Many products and services can be bought by it. The Bitcoin network controls the bitcoin. The Bitcoin network comprises the common man who uses bitcoin, and anybody can become a part of it. To understand this network, we must understand the bitcoin, Public record. All confirmed transactions from the start of Bitcoin’s creation are stored in the public register. The complete record of the transaction in order of records known as blocks.

Bitcoin Mining

The maintenance of the record takes up a lot of deep pockets. It solves many essential issues. The incentive to maintain this record and to perform such an important function would pay in the expression of bitcoins. They will have the entitlement to mine the bitcoins. Miners locate software for bitcoin, this software, by taking the advantage of the resources and power, assess numerous mathematical algorithmic programs. After assessing these algorithms, the software furnishes a well-founded algorithm to the record. The record will use these algorithms to resolve the difficulty of maintaining it.

Why are bitcoins valuable?

There are many things other than money that we contemplate as valuable such as gold. Bitcoins are precious because people are inclined to exchange them for real goods and services and even in terms of money. Countries such as Japan and Russia proceed to legitimize cryptocurrency. But they can do so since most of their economy has ‘white’ money and the Indian economy runs on a significant amount of black money, so it will not be suitable for our economy as individuals will use them to transform them from black to white money. Japan has enacted the legislation to bitcoin as a lawful payment means. Russia is purportedly looking into a course of action to regulate bitcoin.

Is it unspecified?

Yes, it’s pertinent. Transactions and affairs can be tracked down, but the owner of the accounts is not necessarily known. Although, investigators may be able to discover the owners when bitcoins are transformed into regular currency. However, the people may be able to pay out that money online and maybe not able to trace.

The legality of Bitcoins in India

As a whole, bitcoin trading, buying, selling or mining is not illegal by any legislation in India. Cogently, the publication’s source also adds that any judgment that governed the cryptocurrency to be illegal in India will mean that India’s budding but fatten bitcoin industry will have to close down. Bitcoin has been the actual currency of the Dark Web, the ‘hidden’ Internet attainable only by hogback; Because of the developed marketplace Silk Road, the ‘resale of drugs,’ came to the scene in 2011. Here’s what accessible data can tell us regarding bitcoin on the Dark Web. As stated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Silk Road made a total of $1.2 billion between 2011 and 2013. The marketplace is vitally considered to be the first ‘killer app’ for bitcoin, and drugs still make up a large part of transactions made using the digital currency today.[1]

Important roles of bitcoin and Tor in the Deep Web

Both of these the best available privacy and obscurity protecting instruments. Tor is practiced for browsing and Bitcoin for the transaction. It becomes nearly impossible to trace either of those instruments. Let’s assume that you browsed a deep web version of amazon to buy anything illegal. You most definitely don’t want to get hold in any way. one uses Tor to access that site so that the browser won’t leave any chain or history. So, bitcoin, which uses an extensively encrypted and mathematically complex method of payment, helps you in keeping safe payment, sound, and untraceable. Many hackings that take place in India ask for payments by the means of bitcoins as obscurity is maintained. Mostly these hackings go unreported as companies do not want to harm their Goodwill.

But the enormous ransomware, “ wanna cry” opened the eyes to the truth of the bitcoins to the world. The Legal status in India, the IMAI vs RBI stipulated the most recent status of legislation in India concerning the bearing of cryptocurrencies. Reserve Bank of India first provided its ban on banks trading with cryptocurrency businesses back in April 2018, (which took effect in July of the year 2018).[2] The Reserve Bank of India information was then challenged before the Apex Court of India by the Internet & Mobile Association of India, The Court, while deciding the case, looking at the draft bill which has been proposed by the parliament, that is to say, Banning of Cryptocurrency & Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019. The Court observed that the stand of the parliament cannot be ascertained from this bill as the bill, on the one hand, inflicted criminal liabilities on the users of cryptocurrencies and criminalized specific activities like holding, mining, selling, trading, disposal, issuance, or use of cryptocurrency in the country. But then, the bill covered the way for the government to establish its digital currency, that is ‘Digital Rupee,’ by the Central. Bank.

The Court also highlighted that The Crypto-token Regulation Bill, 2018 originally recommended by the Inter-Ministerial Committee comprised proposals-

to restrain persons dealing with activities concerned with crypto tokens from falsely creating these products as not being securities or investment schemes and
to modulate VC exchanges and brokers where sale and purchase may be allowed.

For registration on the cryptocurrency platforms, you will be asked to put forward your KYC documents. For investing in bitcoin, you need the following documents-

PAN card
Aadhar Card
Bank account details
Email address
Contact details

Government Apprehensions

In the 2018 budget speech, the then finance minister Arun Jaitley said that the government will do everything to cease the use of bitcoin and other digital currencies in India, but will focus on the blockchain technology or distributed recording system that permits organizations to record and authenticate transactions without the necessity of brokers.

All over the same time Facebook, in a policy decision, set forth that it will not promote any advertisements regarding “financial products and services that are frequently associated with ambiguous or deceptive promotional execution, like binary options, cryptocurrency, and initial coin offerings,” to prevent scams.

After a thread of fraud was discovered after the 2016 demonetization process, the Reserve Bank India, by way of a notification, restrained any entity from issuing banking services to any person dealing with digital or cryptocurrencies in April 2018.

In the face of plunge transaction volumes, In March 2020 cryptocurrency trading filed a case in the Apex Court and won the case. A three-judge bench of the Apex Court takes back the central bank ban, taking note that the Reserve Bank of India had not presented any factual evidence that digital or cryptocurrencies have adversely impacted the banking sector or other regulated organizations. The ruling stated, “RBI needs to show at least some semblance of any damage suffered by its regulated entities. But there is none.”

Conclusion

There is no denying that a vigorous interest in India for cryptocurrency. Notwithstanding government efforts to govern it, the demand and popularity for cryptocurrencies have grown firmly. In India. Soon after the Reserve Bank of India thrust the ban, numerous domestic cryptocurrency trade markets and exchange platforms came up. Apart, many international crypto-exchanges also set up the Business unit in India.

ENDNOTES-

https://thewire.in/tech/will-2021-be-the-year-when-india-finally-clarifies-laws-around-cryptocurrencies
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5cc1e39e-2bd5-45cf-a555-63b4e80ed52b

Did you find this Article helpful? Tell us in the comments section below.

For more information Visit Our Site

Who are We?

EduMound is a start-up platform established for young minds aspiring to contribute their skills and knowledge for the growth of the educational fraternity. We are an educational platform that focuses on the co-curricular portfolio development of students.

Stay Connected

Events

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEBSITE!