Author : Tems Das, National Law University Tripura
To the point
The present writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for challenging the validity of Sections 66A and 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). This Section was not in the Act as originally enacted, but came into force by virtue of an Amendment Act of 2009 with effect from 27.10.2009. Along with that the Petitioners has challenged Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act also.
Use of legal jargon
The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India stands as a constitutional milestone where the Supreme Court of India firmly defended freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) in the digital age. The case challenged Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a provision that criminalized the sending of “offensive” or “menacing” messages through electronic communication. The trigger for this litigation was the arrest of two young women in Maharashtra for a Facebook post criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai following a political leader’s death. This incident exposed how vague statutory language could be weaponized to curb dissent and silence unpopular opinions. Shreya Singhal, a law student, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, invoking its writ jurisdiction to protect fundamental rights. The core legal issue before the Court was whether Section 66A imposed reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) or whether it suffered from constitutional infirmities such as vagueness, overbreadth, and arbitrariness. The Court observed that expressions like “grossly offensive” and “annoying” lacked any objective legal standard, granting unfettered discretion to lawenforcement authorities. In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety, holding it ultra vires the Constitution. The Court clarified that mere annoyance, inconvenience, or hurt feelings do not amount to a threat to public order. It drew a crucial distinction between advocacy, discussion, and incitement, ruling that only speech that incites imminent violence can be legitimately restricted. By applying the doctrine of proportionality, the Court emphasized that a law restricting fundamental rights must be narrowly tailored and must not have a chilling effect on free speech. The judgment reaffirmed that the internet is a democratic space where constitutional protections remain fully applicable. In essence, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India transformed abstract constitutional principles into lived realities.
The proof
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the legal standards for regulating online speech. It emphasizes the need for clear and precise laws that prevent misuse and ensure that restrictions on speech are narrowly defined and proportionate to the interest sought to be protected. The judgment acts as a deterrent against the misuse of vague and overbroad legal provisions to stifle dissent and criticism in the digital age. It sends a strong message that the judiciary will not tolerate arbitrary enforcement of laws that infringe upon fundamental rights.
The decision has inspired discussions on free speech and internet regulations worldwide. It serves as a precedent for other countries grappling with similar issues of balancing public order and individual rights in the digital sphere.
Abstract
The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in its entirety. The Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutionally vague and its intended protection against annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or ill-will were beyond the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The Court agreed that the prohibition against the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult did not fall within any reasonable exceptions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It further found that because the provision failed to define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed and hence its sweep was overly broad and vague.
1. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020)
This case arose after the internet and mobile services were shut down in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370. The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech and expression includes the right to access the internet. Just like Shreya Singhal, the Court emphasized that restrictions on speech must be reasonable, proportionate, and temporary. The judgment reinforced that the government cannot silence citizens indefinitely in the name of public order.
2.Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
This landmark case dealt with the offence of sedition under Section 124A of the IPC. The Supreme Court clarified that strong criticism of the government is not sedition unless it incites violence or public disorder. Similar to Shreya Singhal, the Court protected citizens from being punished for expressing unpopular or harsh opinions, stressing that democracy survives only when people can freely criticize those in power.
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989)
This case involved the banning of a film on the ground that it could disturb public order. The Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression cannot be suppressed merely because it causes discomfort or disagreement. The Court famously observed that the answer to offensive speech is more speech, not enforced silence, echoing the spirit of Shreya Singhal, where vague fears were held insufficient to curb free expression.
Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986)
In this case, school children were expelled for refusing to sing the national anthem due to their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech also includes the right to remain silent. Like Shreya Singhal, this judgment recognized that the State cannot force uniformity of thought or expression and must respect individual conscience in a constitutional democracy.
Conclusion
(a) Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved Under Article 19(2).(b) Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid.(c) Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology “Intermediary Guidelines” Rules, 2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 Sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner as indicated in the judgment.(d) Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down being violative of Article 19(1) and not saved by Article 19(2).All the writ petitions are disposed in the above terms.
FAQS
Why was Section 66A of the IT Act challenged in this case?
Section 66A was challenged because it punished people for sending “offensive” or “annoying” messages online, but it never clearly explained what those words meant. This allowed police to arrest people just for expressing opinions on social media. The law created fear and discouraged free speech, which is why it was questioned before the Supreme Court.
How did this case protect freedom of speech on the internet?
The Supreme Court held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) applies equally to the internet. The Court said that online expression cannot be restricted just because it is unpopular or critical. By striking down Section 66A, the Court ensured that citizens can freely express opinions online without fear of arbitrary punishment.
What did the Supreme Court say about vague laws?
The Court strongly criticized vague laws, stating that unclear terms like “annoying” or “grossly offensive” give too much power to authorities. Such laws violate Article 14 because they are arbitrary and can be misused. A law affecting fundamental rights must be clear, precise, and predictable.
Why is Shreya Singhal v. Union of India considered a landmark judgment?
This case is landmark because it strengthened digital rights in India and set limits on government control over online speech. It clarified that criticism, satire, and dissent are protected forms of expression. The judgment remains a key reference for protecting free speech in the age of social media.
