This Case Commentary is written by Sayan Chowdhury, a Second-Year Law Student of South Calcutta Law College

CASE DETAILS:

COURT - SUPREME COURT

CASE NAME - SHREYA SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGE BENCH - JUSTICE J. CERAMICWARE AND JUSTICE ROBINSON FALI NARIMAN.

PARTIES -

PETITIONER - SHREYA SINGHAL & OTHERS

RESPONDENT - UNION OF INDIA

CITATION - AIR 2015 SC 1523

Abstract

The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is one of the Landmark cases where the Supreme Court quashed Section 66A of the IT Act by calling it unconstitutional, the Supreme Court’s judgment demonstrates to us that with the correct sort of conviction, it is possible to uncover the importance of free speech as a value unto itself within our larger constitutional scheme; it must allow us to believe that we can now challenge the noxious culture of censorship that pervades the Indian state. This case is one of the best examples of political pressure in India on censorship as an arrest made by the police was motivated by political pressure so thereafter Supreme Court while quashing Section 66A mentioned Section 66A is capable of limiting all forms of internet communications as it makes no distinction "between mere discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view, which may be annoying or inconvenient or grossly offensive to some.

Facts Of This Case

In the year 2012, two 21-year-old girls were arrested by Mumbai police for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity.

The real chirped words where This short down in Mumbai is a result of fear, there is no such respect for the late chief Bal Thackeray.

This was the main reason why Mumbai Police arrested those two women and took them into custody.

Although the police later released the women and dismissed their prosecution, the incident invoked substantial media attention and criticism, and huge public protests were underway. The women then filed a petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it violates the right to freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of India initially issued an interim measure in Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, prohibiting any arrest under Section 66A unless such arrest is approved by senior police officers. In the case at hand, the Court addressed the constitutionality of the provision.

Issues Raised on This Case

This Case raised several legal and constitutional issues relating to Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act. The key issues are the following –

I) Whether Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 of the information and technology act, 2000 is Unconstitutional?

II) Whether the above-mentioned sections violative of Article 19(1) which is guaranteed under the constitution of India?

II) Whether this section is violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India?

Contention on Behalf of Appellate

The major contentions on behalf of the appellate were,

1.) The first one was that Section 66A is unconstitutional as it excludes the right of freedom of speech and expression which is guaranteed under Article 19(1). Similarly, all reasonable limitations are not safeguarded under Article 19(2) of the Indian constitution.

2.) The applicant argued that as per Article 14, no intelligible differences were found in this article. Only one mode of communication has been defined in this section (66A) which is Internet sources. So, this section is violative of section 14 of the Indian constitution.

3.) The applicant argued that the words which had been used in this section have no legal clarity. These words can be interpreted by any legal enforcement agencies at any time on their will without any restriction. It is outside the reach of Article 19 (2) to cause annoyance and discomfort act.

Contention on Behalf of Respondent

The major contentions were,

1. The respondents argued that This is the legal duty of the legislature to make appropriate laws to meet the needs of its citizens.

2. As the judiciary is the independent body, the court must judge the validation of any law following the fundamental rights, which are mentioned in part 3 of the Indian constitution.

3. They argued that here the legislature believes that this dispute is legal. Based on probability and cannot make a law null and void.

4. The respondents refused that the language which is used in this section is not void.

5. The respondents argued that such language is used to protect the rights of individuals against whom the social platforms are used to threaten them. As this law is arbitrary and eligible, So, this is constitutional.

Rule of Law

Below we discuss the Rule of Law, prevalent in this case, those are -

I) Section 66A of the Information Technology Act- Punishment up to 3 years

for providing offensive messages through any communication medium or device.

II) Section 69A- Blocking of the website after for public access of any information through any computer resource.

III) Article 19(1) of the Indian constitution- Right of freedom of speech and expression.

IV) Article 14 of the Indian constitution- Equality before the law and equal protection of law.

Key elements of the Judgement

In the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India delivered on 24TH of March 2015. The Supreme Court perused the arguments from both sides, i.e., the Petitioners as well as the Respondents, and delivered a unanimous judgment declaring section 66A of the I.T. Act, 2000 unconstitutional. The key elements of the judgment were

I) Section 66A is struck down in its entirety as being violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and not protected under Article 19(2).

II) Section 69A and IT (procedure & safeguard for blocking for access of info by the public) rules are Constitutionality valid.

III) Section 79 is valid subject to reading down of Section 79(3) (b).

IV) Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down (public order).

Conclusion and Opinion

Living in a democratic country will be vague if the right to freedom of speech and expression does not have a meaning. This judgment is one of the landmark judgments with the fortification of the right to freedom of speech and expression. Stocking down of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is an innovative step by the judiciary. Otherwise, this section had the potential which could have increase police brutality and convert a democratic state to a police state.

Reference

i.) Shreya Singhal vs U.O.I ( https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/ )

ii.) https://www.tscld.com/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india-a-critical-analysis