Author: Muskan
Edited By: Aneel Meghani
ABSTRACT
This case was filed as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court regarding section 66A where appellant Shreya Singhal had challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A on the ground that it is violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of India by the Constitution, on particular, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). She had contended that vague and overbroad definitions of “offensive” and “menacing” speech pose a substantial threat to free expression. It held that the section was infringing upon article 19(1)(a) and it lacks clear standards and enough safeguards against misuse. The judgment came to be a strong assertion of constitutional freedoms in the digital age, the requirement of a precise and accountable legal framework for regulating online content. Shreya Singhal’s contention rested on the very fact that Section 66A was a wide and vague law with no clear definition of key terms. According to her, this vagueness leaves room for arbitrary and excessive use by authorities. That ambiguity, she argued, permitted law-enforcement officials to apply the rules in capricious ways and silence free expression The Supreme Court accepted these arguments while giving its Judgment on March 24, 2015. The Court found that imprecise language made the law prone to misuse and thus violated constitutional standards. This judgment has had far-reaching consequences for Indian cyber law, further fortifying the protection of free speech and safeguarding against the misuse of provisions in Indian laws about online communication.
Keywords: Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Section 66A, Constitutionality, Fundamental rights, right to freedom of speech and expression, Vague definitions Offensive speech, Menacing speech
CASE DETAILS
|
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India |
|
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012 |
|
24 MARCH, 2015 |
|
Supreme Court of India |
|
2 judges’ bench |
|
Justice J. S. Khehar Justice R. F. Nariman |
|
AIR 2015 SC 1523 (2015) 5 SCC 1 |
|
Constitution of India, information technology act, The Kerala Police act |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was decided by the Supreme Court of India in the year 2015, on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The said section envisaged punishment for messages sent by any communication service, etc., which was vaguely and sweepingly laid down, resulting in its misuse and infringement of the right of a citizen to freedom of speech.
Fundamental Rights
It represents specific legal guarantees granted by a constitution to protect liberties and establish a fair state. These rights are the foundation of every democratic country and consist of several liberties and safeguards for individuals, as well as groups.
Freedom of Speech and Expression, is one among such rights under which an individual has the right to express his or her ideas and opinions without much hindrance. This characteristic is essential for democratic societies since it fosters those opinions expression and sharing.
The Information Technology Act of 2000
It formulated under the Indian law deals with matters arising from electronic communication in section 66. Precisely, it makes it unlawful to send any messages with a vowed intention of causing annoyance or which amounts to communicating obscene material via electronic medium for instance an email or text. This provides an attempt to reconcile freedom of speech with extremism, particularly, in eradicating oneself or handling cyber bullying and aggressive actions on the Internet.
Background:
Petitioner: Shreya Singhal is a student of law who filed the petition following the arrest of two girls in Mumbai for posting comments on Facebook over a shut-down in Mumbai. The petitioners had contended that the provision in question is in violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) relating to freedom of speech and expression and Article 21 relating to right to life and liberty of the Constitution.
Judgement
It struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional and violative of freedom of speech. The bench laid special emphasis on the fact that such a provision is too vague and could be used in an arbitrary manner to suppress legitimate speech.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Procedural Background of the Case
Prior to the historic verdict delivered by the Supreme Court of India on March 24, 2015, a few hearings and proceedings have taken place. The major hearings and key proceedings which took place before the said judgment are given below :-
Filing of Petition:
Date: October 2012
Event: A petition by Shreya Singhal, a law student, was made against the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India.
Initial Hearings:
Date: 2012-2013
Event: The Supreme Court began the hearing for arguments in support of petitioner Shreya Singhal. The matter was listed for preliminary consideration of the issue of the maintainability of the petition and also the extent of challenge.
Interim Orders:
Date: In 2013
Event: In the course of the proceedings, the Supreme Court issued interim orders that included directions to the Union of India asking them to respond to the challenge and afford detailed explanations regarding the implementation and impact of Section 66A.
Detailed Hearings:
Date: 2014
Event: Detailed hearings were conducted in 2014, wherein detailed arguments on behalf of the parties were advanced:
Legal Arguments – The petitioner placed before this Court that Section 66A was unconstitutional and would not stand judicial scrutiny because of its vagueness and thus the potential for misuse. This had no clear definitions, and thus led to suppression of the freedom to speech. Then The Union of India defended Section 66A on the basis that it was for reasons of maintenance of public order and prevention of online harassment. It is the contention of the central government that the law is a reasonable restriction to freedom of speech in the interest of public safety.
Expert Opinions and Amicus Curiae:
Date: 2014
Event: The Supreme Court issued a call for amicus curiae, inviting all interested persons to present expert opinions on the implications of Section 66A.
Legal Arguments and Submissions:
Date: Early 2015
Event: The final rounds of legal argumentations were heard out in the early part of 2015. Both parties presented their closing submissions, addressing the concerns the Court raised and answering the questions that cropped up during the hearings.
Summing Up of Arguments:
Date: March 2015
Event: The Supreme Court did a final summing up of the arguments prior to the delivery of its judgment. This included going through what both parties had presented, amicus curiae opinions, and legal precedents cited.
Delivery of Judgment:
Date: March 24, 2015
Judgment : The judgment was pronounced by the Supreme Court of India whereby Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was declared unconstitutional on the grounds of vagueness, misusage, and infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
Factual Background of the Case
After the demise of Bal Thackeray, founder of Shiv Sena party, in November 2012, two young women, one named Shahen Dhada and the other Renu Srinivasan, posted comments regarding the shutting down of the city at Mumbai due to his death on Facebook. The cops booked the two women under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, saying their posts were offending and could lead to communal unrest. This incident raised alerts about the possible misuse of the law.
The arrests caused a public uproar that included protests for free speech and against excessive state power. The incident thus became an interesting debate on the delicate balance between the retention of public order and protecting individual rights.
Subsequently, following the outcry, a PIL challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was filed in the Supreme Court by Shreya Singhal, a student of law. Her contention is that the section is vague and infringes the right to freedom of speech.
Supreme Court Proceedings:
The Supreme Court took it up for arguments by all parties about the implications of Section 66A on free expression and how the authorities could misuse it. This factual background explains what happened before the litigation and what it means for freedom of speech in India.
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether section 66A was adequately covered in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution that lists allowable limitations to the freedom of speech and expression
- Whether section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which made it criminal to send through electronic communication, any information that was grossly offensive, menacing or annoying is constitutionally valid
- Whether potential misuse of Section 66A by law enforcement agencies to suppress dissent and curb free expression, especially in a democratic society.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELANT SIDE
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 66A violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India , which are given under part 3 and are available to both the girls here
- It was submitted by the petitioner that the language used in Section 66A was vague and ambiguous on account of which persons would not be able to understand what constitutes an “offensive” message leading to arbitrary enforcement. This arrest highlighted the law’s broad application and lack of clarity, which led to concerns about its arbitrary enforcement.
- While bringing out the impact of the existence of Section 66A, the appellant said that the provision was found to have a chilling effect in terms of free speech and everybody was actually being sapped of the nerve to express opinions freely for fear of prosecution.
- Learned counsel for the appellant argued that it was further posted that this provision was susceptible to misuse by law enforcement agencies for targeting dissenting voices and criticism against the central government and political leaders.
- Shreya Singhal argued that Section 66A violated international standards on freedom of expression recognized by various human rights treaties and could not survive the criteria for reasonable restrictions.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
- The Respondent, The Union of India, defended the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- The Union contented that the provision was a necessity for maintaining public order and safety in cyber-space. They instanced various cases of online harassment and threats whereby individuals were targeted with abusive messages or threats of violence and submitted that Section 66A provided a mechanism to deal with such conduct.
- The counsel pleaded that Section 66A was a reasonable restriction in the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. It was a law that struck a balance between individual freedom and prevention of grave harm to others or maintenance of public order
- While claiming that the restrictions under the law were within the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), he said that it was meant to prevent incitement to violence or hate speech.
- The respondent then claimed that there were inherent safeguards in Section 66A and that it is always subject to judicial review, on account of which the possibility of arbitrary enforcement and misuse is ruled out.
- It was urged by the respondent that Section 66A was not as wide or vague as it was made out to be by the appellant. Expressions such as “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, and “annoying” were resorted to, covering clear instances of offending online behavior, and it was susceptible to being construed consistent with constitutional principles.
- The Union submitted that the provision was applied only in exceptional cases against those who indulged in the most injurious or offensive online behavior. It was contented that the law never intended to suppress any form of legitimate expression but tried to tackle specific online conducts which caused actual harm.
- The Union argued that Section 66A was an imperative provision to deal with the new problems that were coming before the court due to digital communication and to aid or facilitate the adaptation of the legal framework in order to keep pace with technology. Hence it must be decided by the Supreme court based on the facts adduced if Section 66A is constitutional or not.
Related Provisions
- Information Technology Act, 2000:
Section 66A: This section prohibited sending of any information via electronic means that was considered “grossly offensive,” “menacing” or “annoying,” and made offenders liable to prosecution that included imprisonment and fines. The section was supposed to regulate conduct on the web but due to its overreaching and ambiguous provisions, there were worries on the right to freedom of speech.
- Constitution of India:
Article 19(1)(a): This article shall uphold right to freedom of speech and expression to the citizens. It preserves freedom of speech and individuals and groups’ freedom to air their opinions as desired.
Article 19(2): This article permits lawful limitations to the freedom of speech and expression. Any restriction must be provided by law and may concern, for example, public policy, morality, public order, or the state’s security. However, restrictions which might be placed should accustoming be clear, precise and should not be of general applicability.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure ,1973:
Section 41: This section covers the authority of a police officer to effect arrest without warrant. It was relevant in the context of, how Section 66A was upheld in operation, specifically concerning the arrested procedures.
Judgement
The Hon’ble Court in the leading case of SHREYA SINHAL v UNION OF INDIA, 2015 resulted in deletion of section 66 A of Information Technology act 2000 as it infringes the Article 19(1)(a) of Indian Constitution that offers the freedom of speech and expression. The Court opined that some of the provisions in the law are too general for instance, ‘grossly offensive,’ menacing,’ and ‘annoy. ’These terms did not give specific definition. The provision was null and void as it violated the constitution by being vague, too broad and at the same time capable of being selectively applied.
The court stated that due to the absence of clear definitions the section was open for interpretation by authorities at large This vagueness made the law contradictory with the section that demands that any limitation on fundamental rights should not be vague. The Court said that such vagueness can stifle free speech and other freedom of assembly. The Court made it clear that ought for any law that seek to curtail any facet of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech the limitation must be clearly spelt out. The vagueness in Section 66A was held to violate the constitution with principles that hold that restrictions should be precise to serve concrete legitimate interests. That is, the Supreme Court judgment delivered in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India clarified Section 66A’s unconstitutionality on the basis of being grossly and manifestly arbitrary, and violating the right to freedom of speech and expression. The judgment of this case had a variety of obiter dicta. Obiter dictum refers to what judges say, which is not relevant to the decision, yet provides insight and guidance upon issues related to the subject matter under consideration.
- Free speech in a democracy assumes a very significant place as it is sine qua non for the working of a democratic institution and for the growth and progress of individuals. The judgment brought out that the Court treated free speech as one of the basic foundations of democratic polity and emphatically reiterated that this right must not be throttled by undue restrictions.
- The judgment expressly stated that it was the role of courts to safeguard the fundamental rights of people against arbitrary or excessive actions on the part of the legislature and the executive. The Court further emphasized that it was established to ensure that laws are not offensive to the constitutional norms and do not infringe upon the fundamental freedom.
- The Court has observed that laws concerning fundamental rights must be formulated with precision and clarity so as to prevent misuse and to ensure that they do not overshoot or stifle a permissible form of expression.
- The judgment observed that, though the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right under Article 19, it can be legitimately regulated in the interest of public order only if those restrictions are clearly defined and proportionate.
- The Court accepted that the way online expression is fast evolving poses a challenge for regulation itself and emphasized the need for legislation to ‘keep pace with technology’ while ensuring that fundamental rights are not compromised.
Conclusion
This judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India has finally laid down an important precedent: this means that freedom of speech cannot be lightly interfered with and new standards will have to be set on how content on the internet can be regulated. Of course, the judgment voiding Section 66A of the Information Technology Act on the grounds that the provision was formulated in ambiguous terms and was confiscatory has driven in the point that laws affecting and involving rights in limine have to be well articulated.
The judgment also advanced legislative changes and juridical trends influencing in the legal regulation of electronic communication, which forms the basis of the principles of democracy and the liberty of the person
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
- https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/
- https://www.tscld.com/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india-a-critical-analysis
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10124-shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india-air-2015-sc-1523.html
- https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Honorable-Supreme-Court-order-dated-24th-March%202015.pdf
- THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 SECTION. 13
- THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ,1973 SECTION 41
- THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 SECTION 19(1)a
- THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 SECTION 19(2)
- THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
- M.P JAIN, THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
- J.N PANDEY, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
