SHREYA SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India AIR (2015) SC 1523   declared 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 invalid on the ground that it is in violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Section 66A of the Information Technology was introduced vide 2009 amendment to the Constitution.  Section 66A provides for punishment of imprisonment upto three years and with fine to such persons who sends by computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false but for purpose to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, ill will by making use of computer resource or communication device; or any electronic mail or electronic mail message for purposes of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or mislead the addressee or recipient about origin of such messages.

Several Writ Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 on the ground that it violates freedom of speech and expression granted under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

The Supreme Court noted that in Romesh Thapar Vs. State of Madras (1950) SCR 594  it was held that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations. In S. Khusboo Vs Kannimal & Anr (2010) 5 SCC 600  the Supreme Court observed that right to freedom of speech and expression , although not absolute, is necessary as we need to tolerate unpopular views. In Abrams Vs United States (250) US 616 (1919) and Whitney Vs California (71L.Ed 1095) the Supreme Court of USA has emphasized free trade or ideas.

The Supreme Court observed that there are three concepts have to be understood to understand right to freedom of speech and expression- discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussion and advocacy, however it may be unpopular, is covered under Article 19 (1) (a). Only at the stage of incitement reasonable restrictions can be imposed under Article 19 (2) in interest of pubic order, sovereignty and integrity of India, security of state, decency, morality etc.

The Supreme Court observed that expressions in Section 66A are completely open ended and undefined. The Supreme Court compared Section 66A with several sections of IPC and held that in comparison to other offences under IPC, Section 66A uses completely open ended, undefined and vague language. None of expression used in Section 66A is defined. Every expression used is nebulous in meaning. What may cause inconvenience or annoyance to one may not cause inconvenience or annoyance to another.

Information which are grossly offensive or which causes annoyance or inconvenience covers large amount of protected and innocent speech. A certain point of view expressed over internet pertaining to governmental, scientific, or literary matters may not be palatable to certain sections of society. Section 66A can be made applicable to such view. Thus, Section 66A suffers from overbreadth and has a chilling effect

The Supreme Court held that expressions used in 66A not only suffers from inexactitude but are also overboard and in violation of repeated injunctions of the Supreme Court that restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression must be in narrowest terms.

The Supreme Court noted that in  the Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh Vs. Ram Manohar Lohia Case (1960) 2 SCR 821 Section 3 of UP Special Powers Act, was struck down on the ground that under the said section a wide net was cast to catch a variety of acts of instigation ranging from friendly advice to systematic propaganda.  In Kameshwar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar (1962) Supp. 3 SCR 369 Rule 4A of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 was invalidated on the ground that it imposed blanket ban on all demonstration of whatever type- innocent as well as otherwise.

The Supreme Court relied on  Ram Manohar Lohia (Supra) and Kameshwar Singh (Supra) and declared 66A unconstitutional on the ground of being in violation of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

____________________________________________