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

1. Case Title: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
2. ​Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523, (2015) 5 SCC 1
3. Court: ​Supreme Court of India
4. Bench: ​Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice R.F. Nariman
5. Date of Judgement: 24 March 2015
6. Relevant Statutes: ​Section 66(A) was added to the Information Technology Act, 2000, by a 2009 amendment.

​Brief Facts

​The case was prompted by the arrest of two girls in Mumbai for a Facebook post criticising a shutdown following a political leader’s death, highlighting the misuse of Section 66A.

​The core issue arose whether Section 66A violated India’s constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

​Issue

​i)Whether section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

ii)Whether the section 66A was vague, overbroad, arbitrary, and created a chilling effect on free speech.

iii) Whether Section 66(A) of the IT Act, 2000, which made it criminal to send through electronic communication, any information that was grossly offensive or annoying, is constitutionally valid.

​Argument

​Petitioner’s Argument

​The Petitioner argued that section 66(A) infringes on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and is not protected by the reasonable restriction outlined in Article 19(2).They contended that causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc., falls outside the scope of Article 19(2).The section was criticised for being vague and clearly defined its terminology, leaving it open to subjective interpretation by law enforcement agencies.

Respondent’s Arguments

​The government argued that the legislature is best positioned to address public needs, and courts should only intervene when a law is clearly violative of Part III of the Constitution. The government suggested that courts functionally interpret the law by reading into its provisions. The government said Section 66A was seen as essential for preventing online hate speech, defamation, and the spread of false information. The government proposed that courts interpret the law functionally to prevent arbitrary application.

​Judgement

​The Hon’ble Court in this case resulted in the deletion (striking down) of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, as it infringes Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which offers the freedom of speech and expression. The Court said that the words “annoy”, “menacing”, and “offensive”—these terms do not give a specific definition. The provisions were null and void as they violated the Constitution.  The Court said that such vagueness can stifle free speech and other freedoms of assembly. The vagueness in Section 66(A) was held to violate the Constitution with principles that hold that restrictions should be precise to serve concrete legitimate interests. The SC said that Section 66(A) is unconstitutional on the basis of being grossly and manifestly arbitrary and violating the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Ratio Decidendi

​The Court said that the language in Section 66(A) using terms such as “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, and “inconvenience” was undefined and subjective; these terms are vague and overbroad laws and are constitutionally invalid. For a restriction on speech to be considered “reasonable” under Article 19(2), it must have a clear, direct, and proximate connection or nexus to legitimate state interest: order, security of the state, defamation, or incitement to an offence. Restrictions must have a proximate nexus to Public Order.

Obiter Dicta

The court emphasised that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a “cardinal value” and a fundamental pillar of a democratic society. It highlighted the importance of free speech in a democracy. The Court drew a difference between the “Discussion, Advocacy and Incitement” test. The Judges commented that it is the court’s responsibility to protect citizens’ Fundamental Rights from arbitrary or excessive actions by the executive and legislative.

References

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2015/03/24/section-66a-of-the-information-technology-act-2000-declared-unconstitutional-2/
• J.N. Pandey’s constitution of India 
• M.P. Jain Constitution of India 
• https://lawfoyer.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/