University of Petroleum and Energy Studies 

School of Law 
 

PROJECT – 1 
SEMESTER - 3 

Constitutional Law I

Case: SHREYA SINGHAL V/S UNION OF INDIA 

Submitted to: MR ASHUTOSH TRIPATHI

Name: MANAS SHUKLA, HRITHIK SHARMA

SAP ID: 500070, 500070320

Roll No: R7602180, R760218024
 INDEX

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………. 3

FACTS ……………………………………………………………………………. 4

ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER AND RESPONDANTS………. 5 to 6

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………7 to 9
 INTRODUCTION

Supreme Court in a very landmark judgment struck down section 66A of the knowledge
Technology Act, 2000 that provided provisions for the arrest of these who announce
allegedly offensive content on the internet upholding freedom of expression. Section 66A
defines the penalisation for sending “offensive” messages through a laptop or any other
communication device sort of a mobile or pill and a conviction of it will fetch a most 3 years
of jail and a fine.
Over the last number of years there has been several cases during which police has inactive
the broadcasting of any info through a laptop resource or a communication device, which was
“grossly offensive” or “menacing” in character, or which, among alternative things the
maximum amount as cause “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” or “obstruction.” In a judgment
authored by Justice R.F.Nariman, on behalf of a bench comprising himself and Justice J.
Chelameswar, the Court has now declared that Section 66A is not only vague and arbitrary,
but that it also “disproportionately invades the right of free speech.”
In quashing Section 66A, in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court has not only given afresh
lease of life to free speech in India but has also performed its role as a constitutional court for
Indians. The Court has provided the jurisprudence of free speech with associate increased and
rare clarity. Various provisions of IPC and Sections 66B and 67C of the IT Act are good
enough to deal with all these crimes and it is incorrect to say that Section 66A has given rise
to new types of crimes.
The landmark case of Shreya Singhal v Union of Bharat (2015) could be a landmark case
that plays a really necessary role within the Indian system. The case revolves around the
fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution of India, which challenged the constitutional validity of section 66A and
semiconductor diode to the stricken down of section 66A of the knowledge Technology Act
2000 Section 66A is that the penalisation for causation offensive messages through
communication services, etc.
It says that- any individual WHO sends, by means of a computer resource or a
communication device,- (a) any info that's grossly offensive or has alarming character; or (b)
any info that he is aware of to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill
will, persistently by making use of such laptop resource or a communication device, (c) any
piece of email or piece of email message for the aim of inflicting annoyance or inconvenience
or to deceive or to mislead the recipient or recipient concerning the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which can touch 3 years and with fine.
For the aim of this section, terms “electronic mail” and “electronic mail message” means a
message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system,
computer resource or communication device as well as attachments in text, images, audio,
video and the other electronic record, which can be transmitted with the message.
FACTS OF THE CASE

 Police arrested two women for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable
comments on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai after
the death of a political leader.
 In the year 2012, Shiv Sena leader Bal Thakerey died. There was bandh declared by
the Shiv Sena People in Maharashtra
 These two girls Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan lived in Thane, involved in this
case. One of them posted something on Facebook and the other one liked it.
 They both expressed their displeasure at a bandh called in the wake of Shiva Sena
chief Bal Thackery’s death
 The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of
2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or
communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the
knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will.
 Although the police later released the women and dismissed their prosecution, the
incident invoked substantial media attention and criticism. The women filed petition,
challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on ground that it violates right
to freedom of expression.
 According to them, first and foremost Section 66A infringes the fundamental right to
freedom of speech and expression and is not saved by any of the eight subjects
covered in Article 19(2).
 Further, in creating an offence, section 66A suffers from the vice of vagueness
because unlike the offence created by section 66 of the same Act, none of the
aforesaid terms are even attempted to be defined and cannot be defined, the result
being that innocent persons are also roped in. Such persons are not told clearly on
which side of the line they fall; and it would be open to the authorities to be as
arbitrary and whimsical as they like in booking such persons under the said section. In
fact, a large number of innocent persons have been booked.
 The Supreme Court of India initially issued an interim measure in Singhal v. Union of
India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, prohibiting any arrest pursuant to Section 66A unless such
arrest is approved by senior police officers.  In the case in hand, the Court addressed
the constitutionality of the provision. 

Issues Raised

1. Constitutional validity of Section 66-A, 69-A and 79 was challenged.

2. Whether Section 66A is curtailing Freedom of speech and expression.

3. Whether Section 66A is saved under Section 19(2).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Arguments by the Petitioner

1. Section 66A takes away the Freedom of Speech and Expression guaranteed under
Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved by the reasonable restrictions mentioned under
Article 9(2).

The petitioners stated that Section 66A of the IT Act is not saved by the reasonable
restriction mentioned under Art. 19(2). The section is vague and doesn’t have any
definition in the General Clauses Act.

“Freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a

democratic constitution”1

“Freedom of speech and of the press lay at the foundation of all democratic
organisation……”2

2. That causing of annoyance, inconvenience etc. are outside the scope of Article 19(2).

3. Section 66A seeks to create an offence but have infirmity and vagueness as it does not
clearly define the terminology used are subjective in nature and are left open at the
desire and will of the law enforcement agencies to interpret it. The limitation is not
present.

It was stated that, the expressions used in section 66A such as “grossly offensive”,
“danger”, “obstruction”, etc does not admit of ant precise definition and no guidance
is provided for interpreting these terms, this renders Section 66A unconstitutional for
vagueness.

4.  Article 14 violates as there is no intelligible differentia as to why only means of

communication is targeted by this section. Thus, self- discrimination. Therefore, it is a
violation of Article 14, 21 of the constitution.

There was no way to intelligibly differentiate, as a word might be offensive to one but
not necessarily to others.

5.  Petitioner also contended that this section has left the room open for the
administrators to interpret this section in an arbitrary manner.

The petitioners mentioned that “the uncontrolled or unguided power, which is vested
in the enactment, makes discrimination evident. This factum buttressed by the
1
Sakal papers ltd. V. Union of India, (1962)
2
Romesh Thapar V. State of Madras, 1950 SCR 594 at 602
 multiple arrests made under the provision for political discussion, dissent, criticism of
administration”3

Arguments by the Respondent

1. Legislature is in the best position to address the requirements of the people and the courts
will only step in when a law is clearly violative of Part Ⅲ and there are presumptions in
favour of constitutionality of the law in question.

2. Court would so construe a law to make it functional and in doing so can read into or read
down the provisions of law.

3. Only probability of abuse cannot be a justification to declare of abuse cannot be a

justification or declare a provision invalid.

4. Vagueness is not a ground to declare a statue unconditional if it is otherwise qualified and

non-arbitrary.

CONCLUSION

Supreme Court in a landmark judgment struck down section 66A of the

Information Technology Act, 2000 that provided provisions for the arrest of
these WHO denote allegedly offensive content on
the internet upholding freedom of expression.
Section 66A defines the penalisation for causation “offensive” messages through
a pc or the other communication device sort of a movable or pill and a conviction of
it will fetch a most 3 years of jail and a fine.

Over the last few years there has been several cases within which police has inactive the

broadcasting of any info through a pc resource or a communication device, which

3
State of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar, (1952) 1 SCR 284, at para 75a and 75c
was “grossly offensive” or “menacing” in character, or which,
among alternative things the maximum amount as cause “annoyance,” “inconvenience,”
or “obstruction.”
the Court has now declared that Section 66A is not only vague and arbitrary, but that it
also “disproportionately invades the right of free speech.”
In quashing Section 66A, in Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court has not only given
afresh lease of life to free speech in India, but has also performed its role as
a constitutional court for Indians.
Various provisions of IPC and Sections 66B and 67C of the IT Act are good enough to
deal with all these crimes

Section 66A creates a penal offence without the ingredient of mens rea, thereby
breaching article 21. This provision also makes no distinction between those who
maliciously offend and those who innocently do so 4

For a better growth and development of our country, freedom of speech and expression is
important and not having this would take away the true meaning of democracy. It is a
fundamental right and directly impacts the opinion of 1.3 billion towards their country.

4
Mithu V. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277