TITLE - case revolves around the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

CASE NAME- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015

CITATION- AIR 2015 SC 1523

COURT-Supreme Court Of India

BENCH- Justice J. RohintonFaliNariman, Justice J. Chelameswar.

Decided on- 24th March 2015

CASE LAWS-

·        RomeshThappar v. State of Madras

·        Bennet Coleman v. Union of India

·        Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. &Ors. v. Union of India

BRIEF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY-

In the year 2012, Mumbai police arrested two girls named ShaheenDhada and RinuShrinivasan for expressing their displeasure on Facebook against the Bandh which was declared by Shiv Sena due to the death of the leader named Bal Thackrey in Mumbai. One of the girls posted a statement criticizing the bandh and the other one liked the post on social media. Due to this Mumbai police immediately took action against them under section 66 A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.

They were arrested by the Mumbai police merely to comment, like and believe that their action created hatred and annoyance in the minds of the public at large. But after a few days, the girls were released but the arrest and the case attracted public protest at large further, media agencies bought into the limelight that the provision of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 has violated the right to freedom of speech and expression which was guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Section 66 A of the IT Act,2000 prescribes the punishment for sending obnoxious texts or messages through communication services. The offence that is prescribed under Section 66A of the IT Act,2000 comes under the nature of cognizable offences, therefore police officers can arrest the person and start an investigation without any warrant.

Because of this, throughout the country, many innocent people who were publishing any objecting political view or opinion which was termed as 'obnoxious content' or 'hatred' according to the government were arrested under section 66 A of the IT Act, 2000. After this incident and protests, in the year 2013, the Union Government of India issued a notice stating that no individual should be arrested without the prior knowledge of the superior officer, who is not below the rank of Inspector General of police.

Therefore, around ten writ petitions were filed by people from across the country challenging the validity of section 66 A of the IT Act, 2000 under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution before the supreme court of India. The filed petitions were clubbed by the Supreme Court of India into a single Public Interest Litigation. Supreme Court of India issued an interim measure prohibiting any arrest under Section 66A unless such arrest is authorized by senior police officers. Further, the Honorablesupreme court in the case addressed the constitutional validity of the provisions which were challenged.

Arguments raised by petitioner

Following are the contention raised

·        Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act was Unconstitutional because It is violative of the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution of India.

·        Words like 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', 'danger', 'obstruction', 'insult', 'injury', 'criminal intimidation', 'enmity', 'hatred' or 'ill-will' are all outside the purview of reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.[4]

·        Enforcement of this Section would be an insidious form of censorship.

·        It has a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, it affects the rights of the viewer to access various points of view.

·        It discriminates against the users of the internet therefore; it is violative of Articles 14 and 21.

·        It suffers from procedural unreasonableness.

·        There is no intelligible differentia between the internet and other mediums of communication (Spoken or written).

·        Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are unconstitutional because, in the rules, no pre-decisional hearing has been provided to the originator of the information.

·        Procedural safeguards which are available in Sections 95 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not available here.

·        The confidentiality provision affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners; therefore it is problematic.

·        Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 are unconstitutional because it is vague, overbroad, and violative of reasonable restrictions under Article 19 (2).

·        Section 118 (d) of the Kerala Police Act is unconstitutional because it is violative of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the provisions are outside the purview of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.

Arguments raised by the respondent

Following are the contention raised

·        Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was defended by the respondent counsel through the following arguments:

·        The legislature is competent and is in the best position to understand the needs of the people. The court cannot simply strike down any law that was enacted by the legislation. The court will only interfere when a particular statute is violative of the provisions of Part III of the constitution of India

·        The mere possibility of abuse of the particular provision may not be a ground to declare a provision invalid.

·        Loose language may have been used in Section 66A to protect the people from those violating through the same medium.

·        The Vagueness of the provision in itself cannot be a valid ground to declare a whole statute unconstitutional if it is legislatively competent and non-arbitrary.

·        Relaxed standards of reasonable restrictions should apply to a speech made using the medium of the internet, as the medium is different from other mediums of communication.

·        The government is committed to the ensure the idea of free speech and it is assured that the government will not use statutes or provisions to curb free speech unless and until there was any misuse.

·        As enshrined in Article 13 of the constitution of India if the court is not satisfied with any provision, it may apply the Doctrine of Severability, to save a part of the particular Section.

·        Intermediaries will have the discretion to bring down some information based on their judgment.

ISSUE

1.        Whether Sections 66A, 69A, and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are constitutionally valid?

2.        Whether 66A of the IT Act, 2000, violate the Right to freedom of speech and expression?

3.        Whether the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 and Information Technology "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules, 2011are constitutionally valid?

RATIO

• The word's broad connotation allowed for a wide range of interpretations. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the petitioners argued that Section 66A came with extremely wide parameters, which allowed whimsical interpretations by law enforcement agencies.

• The term ‘offensive’ was viewed as subjective. What would have been trivial for one individual could lead to a complaint from another and as a result, lead to an arbitrary arrest.

HELD-

The Judgement given by Honourable Judges J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman not only upheld the fundamental right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression but certainly expanded the limits for freedom of speech and expression. In a way, we can say that this judgement is a turning point for Article 19(1)(a) because everyone has a right to express their political opinions without any fear of having any arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.