Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India

The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a landmark case that plays a very vital role in the Indian legal system. The case revolves around the Fundamental Right of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which challenges the Constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000. The Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in its entirety, which provided provisions for the arrest of those who posted allegedly offensive content on social media or on the Internet by upholding Freedom of Expression.

Background

Section 66A had sparked debate since the day it was introduced as an Amendment in 2008 to the Original IT ACT, 2000 owing to its unconstitutionality. The 2008 Amendment allowed the Government, the authority to detain and imprison someone for allegedly making "Offensive and Intimidating" Internet Posts. An IPS Officer, and his wife, a social activist, filed a suit in November 2012 with the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, alleging that Section 66A Infringed the Right to Freedom of Speech protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. They claimed the clause was ambiguous and regularly misapplied. In November 2012, Shreya Singhal, a law student from Delhi, also filed a Public Interest Litigation viz. Shreya Singhal vs Union of India with Apex Court claiming Section 66A violated Articles 14, 19 (1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Brief Facts Of Shreya Singhal Case

• Two women were arrested for allegedly making offensive Facebook comments about closing Mumbai following a political leader's death.

• The Police used Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of  2000, which Criminalizes sending offensive or false information via computers or communication devices with the intent to annoy, inconvenience, or harm.

• The arrests attracted significant media attention and criticism.

• The Police released the women and dropped the charges.

• The women filed a petition claiming Section 66A violated the Right to Freedom of Expression and should be deemed Unconstitutional.

• The Court Temporarily prohibited Arrests under Section 66A unless Authorized by Senior Police Officers.

• The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 66A.

Issued Raised In Shreya Singhal Case

1. Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is Constitutionally valid or not?

2. Whether Section 69A and the Rules are Unconstitutional?

Arguments In the Shreya Singhal Case

Petitioner's View:

1. Section 66A takes away the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) and is not saved by the reasonable restriction mentioned under Art. 19(2).

2. That causing annoyance, inconvenience etc., are outside the scope of Article 19(2).

3. Section 66A seeks to Create An Offence but has infirmity and vice of vagueness as it does not clearly define its terminology. The terminology used is subjective and is left open to the desire and will of the Law Enforcement Agencies to Interpret it. The limitation is not present.

4. Article 14 is violated as there is no Intelligible Differentia as to why only one means of Communication is targeted by this Section.

Respondent's View:

1. The Legislature is in the best position to address the requirements of the people. The Courts will only step in when a law is violative of Part III. There is a presumption in favour of the Constitutionality of the law in question.

2. The Court would so construe a law to make it functional and in doing so can read into or read down the provisions of the law.

3. A provision cannot be deemed invalid based solely on the possibility of abuse.

4. Vague language in a statute can serve to protect individuals' Rights from those who misuse the medium. However, vagueness alone is not sufficient to deem a law unconstitutional if the statute is otherwise clear, reasonable, and Non-Arbitrary.

Judgment In Shreya Singhal Case

• Section 66A Struck Down: The Court held that Section 66A is unconstitutional as it violates Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved by the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

• Sections 69A and 79: While Section 69A (relating to the blocking of online content) and the rules for its application were upheld, Section 79 was deemed valid only with specific limitations on intermediaries’ liability.

• Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act: This provision, similar to Section 66A, was also struck down for being violative of freedom of speech.

Analysis

The case set a precedent that vague and overbroad laws that impinge on fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and are likely to be struck down. In this case, the Court:

• Decided that each term used had an unclear meaning. Something that irritates one person might not irritate another. As such, the interpretation was Considered Subjective.

• Determined that the Justifications for reasonable limitations provided by Article 19(2) do not apply to 66A because it infringes upon the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression.

• Determined that Section 69A of the IT Act, which forbids the general public from accessing certain materials, is Constitutionally Permissible.

Conclusion

The Case highlighted the conflict between State Regulation of online content and the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. The Court emphasized the need for laws to be clear and precise, preventing Arbitrary enforcement and protecting Constitutional Freedoms. By striking down Section 66A of the I.T. Act 2000, the Court has reaffirmed the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, setting a precedent against vague and overbroad restrictions. Moreover, the Judgment emphasizes the need for a balance between protecting Public Order and safeguarding individual freedoms. While it sets a precedent for protecting Online Speech, the lack of clear guidelines for future legislation on reasonable restrictions poses challenges for consistent application.