INRODUCTION

The case of Shreya Singhal V. Union of India is a landmark judgement and plays a great role in our legal system. The case revolves around the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) which challenged the constitutionality of Section 66 A of
Information Technology Act 2000.
Section 66 A of IT Act 2000 deals with punishment of sending offensive messages through communication services etc. According to the Section any person who sends by means of computer resource or any device –

• Any information that is offensive
• By information which he knows is wrong but for the purpose of annoyance, insult of any individual.
• Any email or any e-message causing distress, inconvenience or to mislead people

Such shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years with a
fine.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• In this case two girls named Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srivastava were arrested by Mumbai Police for expressing their displeasure towards a “bandh” called in wake of Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray’s death.
• They posted their comments and views on Facebook.
• They were arrested by the police under Section 66 A of the IT Act 2000 on grounds of
  sending e-message and causing inconvenience and mislead people.
• However both were released later on when lot of people started questioning the validity of arrest.
• It was believed that the police have misused their powers by invoking Section 66 A of IT Act contending that it violates the right of freedom of speech and expression granted to individual under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
• So after this writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the constitution challenging the validity of the Section.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether Section 66 A of IT Act 2000 is violative of right to freedom of speech and expression provided to an individual under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution?
Whether it can be imposed as a reasonable restrictions to right if speech and expression under Article 19 (2) by the government?
Whether it breaches the right to citizens to express its opinion freely on internet or not?
Whether it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by punishing only those who express their views on internet?

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PETITIONER

That the said provision of Section 66 A of IT Act 2000 is curtailing the citizens fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression that are the two important pillars of democracy.
That the offence under Section 66 A of IT Act 2000 being cognizable is widely misused by the police authority to arrest innocent persons.
That the Section curtails the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1) (a)) and is not saved by any of the eight subjects covered as reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2) of the constitution.
The petitioners also contend that their rights under Articles 14 and 21 are breached inasmuch there is no intelligible differentia between those who use the internet and those who by words spoken or written use other mediums of communication. To punish somebody because he uses a particular medium of communication is itself a discriminatory object and would fall foul of Article 14 in any case.

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY RESPONDENTS

They argued that mere possibility of the provision to be vague is not a valid ground to declare any statue unconstitutional.
They contended that this government respects the right of citizens and their right to freedom of speech and said that the government never uses these provisions to curb free speeches they just use it when speeches are given beyond the limit and causing inconvenience, misleading to other people.

JUDGEMENT

Bench- Justice R. Fali Nariman and Justice Chelameswar
On 24th March 2015 the Hon’ble Court held that the provisions of Section 66 A of IT Act 2000 is violative and contemptuous to Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and thus is arbitrary in nature which breaches the right of citizens to express their opinion properly or freely on internet or any communication channel.
It was held by the Hon’ble Bench that because the provision fails to define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that Section 66 A is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution against discrimination. The Court also held that there is an intelligible differentia between speech on electronic medium and other medium of communication for which certain offences can be created by legislation. They said that the internet gives an individual a platform which can spread in a large amount just like lightning and can reach millions. Thus the challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14 was rejected.
However the Court clearly analyzed the fact that the said provision is curtailing the citizens fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression that are one the essential pillars of democracy.

Thus the Hon’ble Court struck down the Section 66 A of IT Act 2000 on the grounds that it is
violating Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution.

WAY AHEAD

The judgement given in this case was very important as it have widened the scope of freedom of speech and expression provided to the citizens under Article 19 (1) (a) in a way of right available to express oneself freely.
It has also widened the scope of freedom of posting pictures and comments against any person without any fear and restriction of punishment. However if that comment or post is wrongly defaming any person such person can file a complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. And if that post or comment is misleading large amount of people, or leading to incitement to violence then a complaint of sedition can be registered under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

SUBMITTED BY –
ANIKET DIMRI
(AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA)