Case Summary: Shreya Singhal & Ors. v. Union of India (2015)

• Case Title: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 
• Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523; (2015) 5 SCC 1 
• Court :Supreme Court of India 
• Bench:Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman, JJ. 
• Date of Judgment:24 March 2015 
• Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions: 

1. Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2), Constitution of India 
2. Section 66A, Section 69A, and Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000 ∙ Section 118(d), Kerala Police Act 

Brief Facts 

The Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, criminalized distribution of “grossly  offensive” or “menacing” messages through electronic means. Several arrests has been done under this section for online posts raised concerns regarding its misuse. The law was challenged  by Shreya Singhal and others through writ petitions under Article 32, arguing that Section 66A  was vague, overly broad, and violated the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). These petitions were combined and brought before a bench of the Supreme  Court of India. 

Issues Involved 

Does Section 66A of the IT Act violate the right to freedom of speech and expression  guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India? 

1. Is Section 66A a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)? 
2. Are Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act constitutional? 
3. Is Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act constitutional? 

Arguments 

Petitioner’s Arguments: 

• Section 66A is vague and undefined, giving excessive discretion to authorities and  resulting in arbitrary application. 
• The terms like “annoyance” and “inconvenience” are overly broad and subject to misuse. ∙ The law has a chilling effect on free speech and is not protected by Article 19(2). 

Respondent’s Arguments: 

The provision is required to protect public order and prevent misuse of online platforms. ∙ Procedural safeguards exist and abuse by authorities can be addressed on a case-to-case  basis. 

Judgment 

The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, holding it to be  vague, overbroad, and not a reasonable restriction as per Article 19(2). The court found that  Section 66A did not require a proximate connection between the speech and actual harm or  public disorder and criminalized even protected speech. The Court further clarified the  application of Section 69A and Section 79, reading down the latter to require court or  government orders for takedown of content.

Ratio Decidendi 

Any law that restricts speech must be clear, precise, and barely tailored to serve a legitimate state  interest. As section 66A failed this constitutional test, due to ambiguity and over extensiveness.  A restriction on speech must be- proximate to public disorder or other stated interests under  Article 19(2). 

Obiter Dicta

The judgment highlighted, the foundational role of free speech in a democracy and the status of  the internet as a medium for exercising this right. The judiciary repeated the need for carefully  analyzing any law that restricts free expression, especially when it has a frightening effect. 

Final Decision 

In Section 66A of the IT Act, it was struck down as unconstitutional. In Section 69A of the Act  and its rules were supported, but Section 79 was read down, to ensure that intermediaries are  only obligated to act on unlawful content upon receipt of a court or government order. The case  suggestively advanced protection for online speech in India.