TITLE- This case is for Safeguarding Freedom of Expression Online.

CASE NAME-SHREYA SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA

CITATION- AIR 2015 SC 1523

COURT - IN THE SUPREME COURT 0F INDIA

BENCH- JUSTICE J.ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR.

DECIDED ON- 24th March,2015

BRIEF FACTS –

In 2012, two girls in Mumbai, ShaheenDhada and RinuShrinivasan, were arrested by the police for expressing their displeasure on Facebook about a bandh declared by Shiv Sena. One girl criticized the bandh, and the other girl liked the post. They were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which deals with offensive messages on communication services.

The arrests caused public protest and media attention, as it was seen as a violation of their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. Section 66A allowed police to arrest people without a warrant for sending offensive messages.

Many innocent people across the country were arrested under this provision for expressing their political views or opinions. In response to the protests, the government issued a notice stating that no one should be arrested under Section 66A without the approval of a senior police officer.

Several writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of Section 66A before the Supreme Court of India. The court combined these petitions into a single Public Interest Litigation named ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India. The Supreme Court issued an interim order, prohibiting arrests under Section 66A without authorization from senior police officers.

Later, the court addressed the constitutional validity of the challenged provisions in the case. The ShreyaSinghal case became a landmark in protecting freedom of speech and expression on the internet and led to the striking down of Section 66A, ensuring that people can express their opinions without fear of arbitrary arrests.

ISSUE –

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

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

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?

Whether Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is constitutionally valid?

RATIO –

In the judgment, the Court first discussed three fundamental concepts related to freedom of expression: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. The Court emphasized that discussing or advocating for a cause, even if it's unpopular, is a core part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Only when such discussions or advocacy lead to incitement, which is restricted under Article 19(2), does it become a concern.

The two-judge bench of J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 entirely unconstitutional because it violated Article 19(1)(a) and was not saved under Article 19(2).

However, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009.

Regarding Section 79, the Court deemed it constitutionally valid, but with a condition. It clarified that if an intermediary receives knowledge from a court order or appropriate government about unlawful acts under Article 19(2), they must promptly remove or disable access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules, 2011 were held valid with a condition under Rule 3 sub-rule (4).

Additionally, the Court struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, stating that it violated Article 19(1)(a) and did not adhere to the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. The Court clarified that this Act falls under the domain of criminal law and thus falls within the competence of the State Legislature.

HELD -

Invalidating Section 66A in the case of ShreyaSinghalvs Union of India, the Supreme Court not only gave a fresh lease on life to ‘Freedom of Speech & Expression’ in India, but while deciding this landmark case of ‘ShreyaSinghalvs Union of India’ the Hon’ble Apex Court has also successfully discharged its responsibility of being a constitutional court for Indian citizens.

In ShreyaSinghalvs Union of India, the Court has offered exceptional and enhanced clarity to free speech jurisprudence in India. Till today, the ruling in ShreyaSinghal v. Union of India is regarded as a significant judicial rebuke of state intrusions on the right to free speech and expression.