Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Anshu Sharma

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

• In 2012, two girls of Mumbai, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, were arrested because of the message of these girls expressing their displeasure on a bandh called in the mourning of ShivSena’s leader Bal Thackery. The girls posted their remarks on the facebook. The arrested girls were released sometime later and it was agreed to dismiss the criminal charges against the girls. 
• However, the arrests of them pulled in across the nation was a protest. This was considered to have been an abuse of authority where the police have used section 66(A) of the IT Act to arrest and thereafter intimidate the group. This is violating ones right of speech and Expression which is a basic human right. Since the offence under section 66A of the IT act is cognisable, the police or any other law enforcing Machinery needs no warrant arrest or intake action based on the charges levelled under the Information Technology Act. 
• The result of this was many highly famous arrests of people throughout the country for posting their views and opinions, whereas the Government termed it objectionable content but most often this content was dissenting political opinions. 
• In January 2013, the central government came out with an advisory according to which no person can be arrested without the police having prior permission of the inspector general of police or any other officers superior to him.
• This is an instant case, involving a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India where it has been stated that section 66A of the I. T. Act 2000 violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It was brought following the arrest of the two women in Mumbai over their Facebook posts which led to the unleashing of the section 66A’s mischief. 
• The instant matter relates to the constitutional petition consisting of writs where its petitioners contest the constitutional and legal viability or life of section 66A and other sections of the I. T. Act, 2000.

ISSUE RAISED:

Thus, the main point of argument challenged by the Petitioners in the present case to the Hon’ble Apex Court of India are: –

1. Whether Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is unconstitutional?
2. Whether Section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is unconstitutional?
3. Whether the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 are valid?
4. Whether Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is unconstitutional?

CONTENTIONS:

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY PETITIONER 

The petitioner i.e. Shreya Singhal side argued that: –

1. Section 66A is an unconstitutional provision for taking away the Freedom of Speech and Expression as guaranteed in Art. 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and that the same cannot be explained to be save by the reasonable restrict provision mentioned in Art. 19(2). And which causes annoyance, inconvenience etc. Indicating that these are beyond the purview of Article 19 (2). 
2. Section 66A attempted to launch an offence but the section has inherent and relative vice of vagueness due to failure to define its terms. The terms used are in a way considerate and are left to be as flexible as the desire and want of the law enforcement agencies. Therefore, limitation is not existent in the context of the specified subject. 
3. Article 14 violated because there is no rationality with regards to the means of communication to why just one channel is affected by this section. 

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT

The respondent side argued that: –

1. why it is logical to claim that the legislature is most suitable to address the requirements of the people. Thus, the courts only intervene when a law is unconstitutional in the sense of being violative of Part III.
2. Court would so construe a law to make it functional and in doing so can read into or read down the provision of law. 
3. Probability of abuse cannot be the only reason that one may use to issue a provision as invalid. 
4. Preliminary qualifications and non-arbitrary categorisation of activities or people can prevail despite vagueness if a statute is otherwise unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

• The Supreme Court after hearing both the sides, came to a un-divided decision by declaring constitutional illegality of section 66A of the I. T. Act, 2000. 
• Therefore, Section 66A is declared as unconstitutional and has been repealed as a whole because it violates Article 19 (1) (a) and is not covered under Article 19(2). 
• This implies that under consideration Section 69A and IT (procedure & safeguard for blocking for access of info by the public) rules are Constitutionally valid. Also, Kerala Police Act, Section 118(d) is declared unconstitutional (public order).

LAWS APPLICABLE: 

• In the opinion of law, the Supreme Court of India mainly analysed Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). This section prohibited the transmission of what was regarded as ‘offensive’ messages via a computer or communication device, and anyone found guilty was subjected to up to three years’ imprisonment and/ or fines. Many legal terms used in the sections of the law were rather abstract and undefined such as ‘offensive’, ‘menacing,’ and ‘annoyance’ giving law enforcement authorities the possibility to act rather subjectively. 

• The petitioners contended that Section 66A infringed with the petitioner’s right to freedom of speech and expressions enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) Indian Constitution. They argued that the said section did not conform to reasonable restrictions of free speech as provided in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution under, sovereignty, integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, scandalizing the court, defamation, commitment for an offense.
• The Court examined Section 66A against these permissible grounds and said that it did not pass the test. The legal terms used in the section as already mentioned were rather vague and over-generalized, which means that they could not serve as clear guidelines that define the expected actions, which thus resulted in non-legalistic enforcement. This vagueness did make a deterrent effect on free speech because people would refrain from exercising their right to free speech due to possibility of being prosecuted. The Court also used other common law systems’ previous judgments like the American overbreadth doctrine to state that laws which impact free speech must be precise and not vague. 
• Finally, the Supreme Court nullified Section 66A as it was unconstitutional as per Article 19 (1)(a) and failed to fulfill the test of reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2). This judgement upheld the right to free speech to the recognition that the laws governing the content of the internet shall not be ambiguous and should not encroach on the constitutional provisions. The verdict was a progressive move in safeguarding freedom of speech in the virtual networks in India, and underscored the need to apprise cyber laws with the Constitution provisions.

ANALYSIS: 

The Hon’ble court’s judgment is per curiam with the precedents for granting the rights requested under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Court has referred to the supreme court judgments as well as American Jurisprudence to find the difference between the rights of liberty confined to India and the United States of America. There was never any doubt that before the Hon’ble Court on the question of whether the ‘use of social media and other such sites and expressing oneself on internet would attract the provision of freedom of speech and expression. The reply to this question is in affirmative. However, the question in issue which was the one to be decided was whether section 66A is constituting an exception to Article 19 (2).