Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
The well-known Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[1] case had a significant impact on how the Indian legal system evolved. Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution protects the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, which is in question in this instance.
In this case, which is being handled in accordance with Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, ten criminal and civil writ petitions were submitted to the Hon. Supreme Court of India. The main complaints against the provisions of Sections 66 A, 69 A, and 79 of the Information Technology Act of 2000[2] and Section 118 (d) of the Kerala Police Act were based on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
Facts:
Two women, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan, were arrested by the Mumbai police in 2012 after they expressed their displeasure on Facebook over the Shiv Sena-called bandh that followed the death of leader Bal Thackrey in Mumbai. One of the females criticised the bandh on social media, while the other thought the post was great. Following this, the Mumbai police, in compliance with the Information and Technology Act of 2000, immediately opened a section 66 A inquiry against them.
They were arrested by the Mumbai police for no other reason than that they expressed approbation, made remarks, and believed that their acts stirred up resentment and hostility among the population. But a few days later, the girls were set free.
But a few days later, the girls were set free. The arrest and case, however, caused a great deal of public outrage. As a result, media outlets used the occasion to draw attention to the ways in which Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 infringed against the Indian Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) right to freedom of speech and expression.
Basically, under Section 66 A of the IT Act, 2000, sending offensive SMS or messages using communication services is illegal. Police officers can make an arrest and start an investigation without a warrant since the offence specified in Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 (penalty for distributing offensive communications using communication services, etc.) is regarded as a cognizable offence.
Thus, under section 66 A of the IT Act, 2000, a large number of innocent people were imprisoned across the country for expressing any political position that the government considered to be “obnoxious content” or “hatred.” The Indian Union Government issued a regulation in 2013 in response to this incident and the demonstrations that followed, stating that no one may be arrested without first receiving approval from a senior authority, which is defined as any anyone holding a post higher than Inspector General of Police.
In light of Article 32, persons from all over the nation filed writ proceedings with the Indian Supreme Court challenging the legality of section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Indian Supreme Court combined every petition that was filed into a single Public Interest Litigation. As a result, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[3] got the case name. In this case, the Indian Supreme Court issued a temporary decision that forbade any Section 66A arrests unless authorised by top police authorities. The Supreme Court deliberated on the questioned features’ constitutional legality.
ISSUES :
• Is the Information Technology Act of 2000’s Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 constitutional?
• Is the freedom of speech and expression violated by Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000?
• Are the Information Technology “Intermediary Guidelines” Rules, 2011 and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009 constitutionally valid?
• Is the Kerala Police Act’s Section 118(d) constitutional?
Arguments:
Arguments raised by Petitioner:
The petitioner’s main argument was that Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act infringes upon the right to freedom of speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
Certain utterances are prohibited under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, including hostility, enmity, criminal intimidation, discomfort, danger, obstruction, harm, and ill-will.
None of the words covered in this section have definitions. Moreover, they argued that the ambiguous and imprecise interpretations of this language are being used to try innocent people.Putting this Section into practice would be a subtle kind of discrimination.
Second, the petitioners’ knowledgeable solicitors argued that the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 and Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are unconstitutional because they deny the original information creator a pre-decisional hearing. In this instance, the procedural protections delineated in Sections 95 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable. Because it violates the petitioners’ basic rights, the confidentiality provision is objectionable.Third, the counsel for the petitioners contended that Article 19(2) of the Constitution is violated by the vagueness, overbreadth, and disrespect for reasonable restrictions found in Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011. Throughout the hearings, attorneys raised objections to various phrases included in Section 79(3)(b), Rules 3(2) and 3(4).Expert legal counsel said that the Kerala Police Act’s Section 118(d) violates Article 19(1)(a) rights and does not adhere to Article 19(2) limitations. They also questioned the ability of the Keralan administration to enact legislation of this kind.
Arguments raised by Respondent:
In this instance, the expert extra solicitor general for the respondent successfully disputed the petitioners’ claims. The main argument put up by respondent counsel was that Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 should be supported by the legislature because they are more qualified to determine and comprehend what the public needs. Courts cannot arbitrarily declare legislation unconstitutional that the legislature has passed. A court cannot become engaged in a particular case unless there has been a breach of Part III of the Indian Constitution. Declaring a provision unlawful only because there’s a possibility it may be abused isn’t always sufficient.The ambiguous wording of Section 66A most likely served to protect the public from criminals who would take a similar path.If a piece of law is competent and non-arbitrary overall yet contains ambiguous wording in some parts, it cannot be declared unconstitutional as a whole.Given the unique characteristics of the internet in comparison to traditional communication methods, remarks given online have to be fair and unrestricted in every way. The government pledges to protect free expression by promising not to impose any legislative restrictions on it or take any other action until it is being misused. In case a court is not pleased with any provision, it might utilise the Doctrine of Severability to maintain a portion of a certain section, as per Article 13 of the Indian Constitution. The Additional Solicitor General further argued that the widespread use of user agreements akin to Rule 3(2), which give intermediaries the power to remove certain information based only on their own judgement, supported the legitimacy of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology Rules, 2011.
Judgment:
After hearing arguments from the petitioners and respondent, the court first addressed debate, advocacy, and incitement—the three key ideas in defining the right to free speech. “Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart” of Article 19(1)(a), according to the Honourable Supreme Court. The Court also emphasised that Article 19(2) only comes into play after the debate or advocacy hits an inflammatory level. [7] The Information Technology Act of 2000’s Section 66A was ruled to be completely unlawful by the two-judge bench of J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman because it violated Article 19 (1) (a) and was not covered by Article 19 (2). The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 as well as the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access to Information by Public) Rules 2009. The Honourable Supreme Court further ruled that Section 79 is constitutionally permissible, provided that an intermediary, either by court order or notification from the relevant government or its agency, removes or disables access to such material as soon as it becomes aware that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are about to be committed.The Information Technology “Intermediary Guidelines” Rules, 2011 have also been adopted in accordance with Rule 3 sub-rule (4). Furthermore, the court ruled that the Kerala Police Act’s Section 118(d) was unconstitutional because it disregarded the reasonable constraints outlined in Article 19(2) and violated Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, as criminal law is covered by Entry 1 List III, which this Act falls under, the State Legislature will have the final word in matters pertaining to it.
Author:- ANSUMAN PATNAIK, a Student of SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW
