SHREYA SINGHAL .Vs.

UOI
CASE STUDY
INTRODUCTION
This was the once of the important land mark judgment of supreme court of India which
struck down the information technology act section 66A which provided provisions for
the arrest of those who posted allegedly offensive content on the internet upholding
freedom of expression. “Section 66A defines the punishment for sending “offensive”
messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or
tablet and a conviction of it can fetch a maximum three years of jail and a fine.”

Over the last couple of years there has been many cases in which police has arrested the
broadcasting of any information through a computer resource or a communication device,
which was “grossly offensive” or “menacing” in character, or which, among other things
as much 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.”

BACK GROUND OF THE CASE

In the year of 2012 November 17 a face book status was posted by a small twelve
years old boy in his account contains that the Mumbai had shut down in fear rather
out of respect for the funeral of the former CM of Mumbai and leader of
shivshena bal Thackeray . on seeing his post dhada and her friend rini liked the
status and updated on her face book account . after within a hour of posting the
post they was charged under the Indian penal code section 295 A and notorious
section, section 66A of the information technology act . one of the girl arrested
girl where released it has been discussed that the police had misused section 66 A
of the IT ACT AS this section allow the police to proceed or detain or arrest with
out the warrant . This result in the arrest of people highly renowned across the
country . And for political reason also . The central government had turned out a
notification that the no person should not be arrested without the prior approval
from the police inspector . This case deals with the validity of the IT act section
66A.

LEGAL ISSUE

 Section 66A excludes the freedom of speech and expression which is given by
the article 19(1) (a) .
 Article 14 has been violated .
 Admissibility of electronic evidence.

JUDGEMENT ;

This judgment maintain the safeguards of the freedom of speech and expression
given by the Indian constitution according to the article 19(1) . This thing is very
technical with its geographical spread also “it possible that the originator of the
content may not be contacted due to the fact that the originator of the content
may be in foreign countries or may lack the resources to argue and pursue its
case. Intermediaries will not fairly safeguard the material because they tend
not to spend resources on defending data from third parties. The blocking
process should be processed under rule number 6 of the access blocking
regulation which also says that the privacy should be preserved in the case of
the blocking case but this thing is omitted by the apex court.
 JUGEMENT RELATED TO EVIDENCES

In the particular section of the 124-A,153-B,292,293,295-A,505 ipc The

aforesaid IPC offences take into consideration any or every medium of
expression. As long as written words are within its ambit, merely because
they are written on a public medium on the internet would not take such
actions beyond their purview, especially view of Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act, 1872.

A rapid growth of the use of the computer and the technology and also
internet has given a birth to new crimes like publishing the sexual explicit
material on the internet and leakage of data and ect .. so such provision
should be induced in information technology act ,Indian penal code and
Indian evidence act

The accused should be directed to furnish undertaking that he should not visit the
place where the witnesses reside so the possibility of tampering the evidence
should be avoided .
 SCOPE OF SECTION 41 SHOULD BE NARROWED :

Certain offence are categorized under cognizable so the police officer may
incapacitate the offender causing the disappearing of evidence.

“while these decisions were related most directly to the provisions of the American
Constitution concerned with securing freedom of speech, the public interest
considerations which under laid them are no less valid in this country. What has
been described as "the chilling effect" induced by the threat of civil actions for
libel is very important. Quite often the facts which would justify a defamatory
publication are known to be true, but admissible evidence capable of proving those
facts is not available”.

The main thing is FIR is mandatory arrest of the accused immediate registration of
the FIR is not at all monitory there are the several safeguard against the arrested
people.

 Section 70 of IT act intermediately guidelines

The provision of subsection cannot apply when the actual notification is received
by the government that data or communication link residing or the computer
connected to the or controlled by the intermediary is used to do the unlawful act
the police have the authority to remove or disable access without vitiating the
evidence .
 CONCLUTION :

This was the one of the land mark judgment in the Indian legal history which
maintain the constitutional rights of freedom of speech . This was also a important
case which narrow the section41 of the police act. The accused should be directed
to furnish undertaking that he should not visit the place where the witnesses reside
so the possibility of tampering the evidence should be avoided . andin the It act
these changes are made

 Section 66A was struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and
is not saved under Article 19(2).
 Section 69A is valid.
 Section 79 is valid subject to the reading down of Section 79(3)(b).

BY

Charran sa

Bc0180010