Shreya Singhal vs Union of India 

Introduction

The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) is a landmark judgment in the realm of digital rights and freedom of expression in India. This case arose from the challenge against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which penalized the sending of offensive messages through communication service, etc. The provision was criticized for being overly broad and vague, leading to its misuse by authorities to curb dissent and silence criticism.

Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a petition after her friend was arrested under this section for posting a comment on social media that criticized a political party. The case brought to light the pressing issue of censorship in the digital age, prompting the Supreme Court to scrutinize the balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining public order. The judgment not only declared Section 66A unconstitutional but also reaffirmed the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. This case marked a significant turning point in the legal landscape, shaping the discourse on digital rights and the limits of state power in regulating online speech.

Literature Review

The literature surrounding this case addresses several important themes:
1. Freedom of Speech: Scholars such as R. Rajagopal highlight the fundamental role of free expression in democracy and argue that restrictions should be minimal and well defined.

2. Impact of Technology on Law: Authors like R. S. Sharma examine how technological advancements challenge existing legal frameworks, necessitating updated laws that protect free expression without stifling it.

3. Censorship and Regulation: Research by authors such as Arvind Narrain discusses the implications of censorship laws on digital platforms, emphasizing the need for legal clarity and protection of individual rights.

4. Judicial Interpretation: Various legal scholars have analysed the Supreme Court’s interpretation of constitutional rights in this case, emphasizing its role in safeguarding civil liberties in the digital age.

Research Question

How did the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India1case redefine the boundaries of free speech in the context of digital communication in India?

Research Objectives
1. Analysed the Supreme Court’s ruling and its implications for freedom of speech in India.
2. Evaluated the effects of Section 66A on online expression and its impact on digital rights.
3. Explored the relationship between technology and legal frameworks concerning free speech.

Data Collection
• Primary Data:
• Court Documents: Reviewed the Supreme Court judgment, petitions, and related legal documents to understand the judicial reasoning and legal framework.
• Interviews: Saw interviews with:
• Legal experts specializing in constitutional law and digital rights.
• Activists from organizations advocating for freedom of speech.
• Journalists and media professionals to gather insights on the practical implications of the ruling.
• Secondary Data:
• Literature Review: Analysed existing academic papers, journal articles, and books on topics such as:

• Freedom of speech in India.
• The impact of technology on law.
• Censorship and digital rights.
• Media Analysis: Reviewed news articles, opinion pieces, and editorials that discuss the case and its aftermath to understand public perception and media narratives.
• Statistical Data: Gathered data from surveys or reports that reflect public opinion on freedom of speech, digital rights, and censorship in India.

Hypothesis

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India significantly strengthened the protection of freedom of speech in the digital realm, establishing a precedent for limiting governmental power over online expression and setting a benchmark for future legal interpretations.

Facts of the case

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

They were arrested by the Mumbai police merely on the purpose of commenting, liking and by believing that their action created hatred and annoyance in the minds of the public at large. But after few days the girls were released but the arrest and the case attracted public protest at large further, media agencies bought into 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.

Basically, Section 66 A of IT Act,2000 prescribes the punishment for sending obnoxious texts or messages through communication services. The offence that is prescribed under Section 66A [Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc] of the IT Act,2000 comes under the nature of cognizable offences, therefore police officers can arrest the person and start 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 this section 66 A of IT Act, 2000. After this incident and protests, in the year 2013 the Union Government of India issued an notice by 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 the people from across the country by challenging the validity of section 66 A of the Information Technology 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. Hence, the case was named as the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. In this case firstly Supreme Court of India issued an interim measure by prohibiting any arrest pursuant to Section 66A unless such arrest is authorized by senior police officers. Further, Honourable supreme court in the case addressed the constitutional validity of the provisions which were challenged.

Issues involved
1. Are Sections 66-A, 69-A and 79 of the IT Act constitutionally valid?
2. Does Section 66A of the IT Act violate the fundamental 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?
4. Whether Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is constitutionally valid?

Arguments of the Petitioner
1. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 walves off the right to free speech and expression prescribed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution and doesn’t come under the purview of reasonable classification prescribed in Article 19(2).
2. It was also affirmed by the petitioner that the acts of causing displeasure, exasperations and vexation are out of the ambit of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
3. Section 66A was also contended to be ambiguous as it doesn’t describe various terms in it. The terms can be interpreted in a very broad manner and are subjected to be abused by the executive authorities.
4. There is no intelligible differentia in the classification of charging only netizens under Section 66A of the IT Act. Hence, the entire provision is arbitrary, vague, and discriminatory in nature.
Arguments of the Respondent
1. The Respondent contended that it is the obligation of the legislature to address the needs of the people and the judiciary will only intervene when a law is inconsistent with Part III of the Indian Constitution. In addition to it, it was submitted by the respondent that there is a presumption of the law in question being intra-vires to it.
2. The Court of law can interpret the law in a manner which makes it justly enforceable and while doing so the intricacies of the provisions can also be read down by it. A
3. The abuse of legislation by the executive authorities cannot be a sole reason to pronounce the law ultra-vires to the Constitution of India.
4. Broad terminologies are used in the law to protect the rights of citizens from those who Infringe them by the means of this medium.
5. The ambiguity of law is not a ground to pronounce a legislation ultra-vires to the Constitution of India, especially when it is deemed to be qualified and just in nature on the other aspects.
Liberty to Speech And Expression
The liberty to speech and expression is assured by the Preamble of the Indian Constitution and is deemed to be of utmost importance in a democratic country. The fundamental right of free speech and expression is also embedded under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution which gives liberty to every citizen of this country to hold opinions and views. This was further affirmed in the landmark case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India2. In this case, the Apex Court of India held that there are no territorial restrictions on the liberty to express & hold opinions and it is equally applicable in foreign territories as well. After that, in the case of Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras3, the Apex Court of India further interpreted the scope of Article 19 and rightly pronounced that the fundamental right of speech and expression also encompasses freedom of media to express views and opinions as well. In fact, the liberty to hold opinions by the media houses is considered to be of supreme Importance among all the liberties provided by the Indian Constitution because it is necessary for the proper functioning of democratic institutions. The same was pronounced in the case of Bennett Coleman vs. Union of India4. However, the scope of Article 19 was still opined to have certain ambiguities in it, which hadn’t been dissipated. The rising issue of endless transmission of false and malicious one-sided information by the members of the society was a prime example of it. As a result, the Apex Court of India took cognizance of this escalating problem and put an end to it in the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Arir5. In this case, it was held that the prejudiced transmission of information, red herrings and non-information leads to a misinformed nation which is a threat to democracy. At last, in the case of S. Khushboo vs. Kanniamal and Anr6, the fate of Article 19 was decided as the Supreme Court of India asserted that the liberty to speech and expression is conditional but it is very vital in nature as we are required to bear unpopular views and opinions of the society. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the fundamental right of free speech and expression signifies a free flow of opinions and perceived as an indispensable right to sustain a collective life. In other words, one can say that tradition of social discourse, by and large, is of great communal significance.

Constitutionality of Section 66A of The Information Technology Act, 2000

In the context of information, there are three vital ingredients to comprehend the liberty of free speech and expression. The first is the discussion of the cause; the second is the advocacy of its factual existence and third is provocation among people. The heart of Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution can be determined over the discussion & advocacy of any specific fact and opinion. It is only when such expressions provoke a certain section of people; Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution gets initiated.

Any legislation enacted to restrict the freedom of speech and expression can cause public turmoil and affects the autonomy & integrity of the country. But there are certain situations in which it is necessary to curtail the freedom of speech and expression to prevail public harmony in the society. However, such an imposition of restriction on the fundamental right of speech and expression has to be rational and intra-vires. Hence, to determine this; article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution has been included to give eight essential conditions for the reasonable classification of any restriction imposed upon the ‘right to speech’, which has not been satisfied by the section 66A of the IT Act.

Judgement in brief

1. Section 66 of the IT Act was abrogated in its entirety for infringing Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and not protected under Article 19(2).
2. Section 69A and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 was held intra-vires to the Constitution of India.
3. Section 79 was affirmed to be legitimate subject to the reading down of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
4. Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act was also struck down by the Apex Court of India.
Overview of the Judicial Pronouncement

The judicial pronouncement by the division bench of the Supreme Court has secured liberty to speech and expression provided to the people under Article 19(1) (a) of the Indian Constitution and restricted irrational application of power by the executives of this country.
It has also provided crystal clear guidelines for the legislature to enact laws in relation to the freedom of speech and expression with certain reasonable restrictions binding on it. However, it should be noted that it is a democratic right of each viewer to be familiar with the reason for constraining his/her viewership of specific content in the digital realm, which had been missed to implore by the Apex Court in its judgement.

The Supreme Court of India has relied on the technical, convoluted, and dicey process of state to understand the potential and competence of parties involved. For example, the rules enacted in 2009 have been enforced with an inference that firstly, the laws pertaining to the website blocking provides a rational chance of being contacted and notified to the alleged offender and secondly, it gives a presumption that the intermediary will justify and defend the online content from being taken down by the executive body. These deductions are practically inept and extraneous.

The offences committed through the Internet are more critical in nature due to its geographic spread and anonymity. It provides a virtual shield to the content-originator making it highly unlikely for him/her to get caught. Apart from it, the intermediaries will also never spend their resources in safeguarding the content of third parties and are going refuse to mingle with any kind of dispute. Hence, the content available on the internet will be available to the larger audience throughout the world despite the proclamation from the executive authorities to ban it.

The rule of blocking has been prescribed to be executed in secrecy under Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009. It affirms that the confidentiality of blocking order should be maintained while pronouncing such an order. Although, this rule was argued in the Shreya Singhal case but it was left untouched by the Supreme Court in its judgment. Therefore, in order to uphold the doctrine of transparency, a notice should be published on the hosting page proclaiming blocking orders of the government for the specified content.

This will not only aware the content-creators and viewers about the content ordered to be put down by the executive authority but will also promote lucidity in the digital realm
Personal Analysis of the case:
Judgment given by Justice J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India’s is a landmark one in the Indian legal history, especially after independence, that too in this recent era where the voice of the common citizens is tried to be silenced! In this case we can definitely say that the Honourable Supreme Court of India took a remarkable step in quashing the section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 which is essentially a censorship law.

In this landmark case section 66A was declared as unconstitutional and this landmark judgment upheld the scope of one’s Right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) in the Constitution of India. In this case Apex court not only looked into the constitutional validity of certain sections but the court also focused on some of the other enlightening aspects like importance of the requirement of incitement and not just advocacy or discussion. Honestly speaking this is an enlightening judgment which explains about the various doctrines and relates those doctrine with the freedom of speech and expression. In this case Doctrine of Reasonable Restriction and Doctrine of vagueness are mainly used in order to analyse whether the provisions are constitutionally valid or not. With regards to the Doctrine of severability, this case is in an perfect and clear example.

Therefore, in this case of Shreya Singhal vs. UOI also apex court held that “no part of Section 66A is severable and the provision as a whole must be declared unconstitutional”. Whenever the landmark case regarding freedom of speech was decided by the Supreme Court its consequences go far beyond an mere individual judgment.

Conclusion

This case study aims to provide a thorough examination of the Shreya Singhal case, highlighting its significance in redefining the landscape of free speech in India, especially in the context of digital communication. By analysing legal, technological, and societal perspectives, the study seeks to contribute to ongoing discussions about civil liberties in the modern era.
The court noted that because of the statements in 66A’s total open-endedness and lack of definition, it is not protected by Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The court overturned Section 66A because it actually had no proximate relationship or link to upsetting the peace or inciting someone to commit a crime. The court took the stance that the law cannot in any way restrict the basic right to freedom of speech and expression by using Article 19(2) of the Constitution as protection.
Additionally, the court invalidated the unclear and arbitrary provisions using the severability test. It is not necessary to declare all the legislation invalid.
Because of numerous reasons, Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (U.O.I) is one of the landmark and significant judgment with regards to the freedom of speech and expression in the history of Indian Legal System. In this case, Honourable supreme court effectively protected the rights of people as well as safeguarded the interest of society.

But even though, Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 has been struck down by Supreme Court’s Order dated 24th March, 2015 numerous cases has been filed against the innocent people under Section 66A. Police officers and even subordinate court judges were not aware of this supreme court’s order.

Therefore, state must take effective actions without merely providing circulars to the Higher officials. Then only this landmark judgment can be practical and fruitful. Even thousand culprits can escape, but, one innocent person should not be punished! This is one of the enlightening cases. And the landmark judgment is appreciable and most importantly it upholds and increases the people’s trust on Judiciary!

References:
➢ https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-singhal-v-union-of india/
➢ https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-shreya-singhal-case-that struck-down-section-66a-of-it-act-7408366/
➢ https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/The-judgment-that-silenced-Section 66A/article59870557.ece
➢ https://www.mondaq.com/india/it-and-internet/451642/impact-of-shreya-singhal judgment-on-intermediaries
➢ https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/all-about-section-69a-of-it-act-under-which twitter-had-withheld-several-posts-accounts/597367/