Shreya iSinghal ivs iUnion iof iIndia

CITATION:AIR i2015 iSC i1523

BENCH:J. iChelameswar, iRohinton iFali iNariman

DATE iOF iJUDGMENT i:Decided ion i24th iMarch, i2015

PETITIONER: iShreya iSinghal

RESPONDENT:Union iof iIndia

INTRODUCTION
The iSupreme iCourt iin ia ilandmark ijudgment istruck idown ithat isection i66A iof ithe
iInformation iTechnology iAct, i2000. iwhich iprovided iprovisions ifor ithe iarrest iof ithose
iwho iposted iallegedly ioffensive icontent ias ithe iinternet iupholding ifreedom iof
iexpression. iSection i66A idefines ithe ipunishment ifor isending i“offensive” imessages
ithrough ia icomputer ior iany iother icommunication idevice ilike ia imobile iphone ior
itablet iand ia iconviction iof iit ican itake ia imaximum ithree iyears iof ijail iand ia ifine.

Over ithe ilast icouple iof iyears ithere ihas ibeen imany icases iin iwhich ipolice ihas
iarrested ithe ibroadcasting iof iany iinformation ithrough ia icomputer iresource ior ia
icommunication idevice, iwhich iwas i“grossly ioffensive” ior i“menacing” iin icharacter, ior
iwhich, iamong iother ithings ias imuch ias icause i“annoyance,” i“inconvenience,” ior
i“obstruction.” iIn ia ijudgment iauthored iby iJustice iR.F.Nariman, ion ibehalf iof ia ibench
icomprising ihimself iand iJustice iJ. iChelameswar, ithe iCourt ihas inow imarked ithat
iSection i66A iis inot ionly ivague iand iarbitrary, ibut ithat iit iis ialso i“disproportionately
iinvades ithe iright iof ifree ispeech.”

In iquashing iSection i66A, iin iShreya iSinghal, ithe iSupreme iCourt ihas inot ijust igiven
iafresh ilease iof ilife ito ifree ispeech iin iIndia, ibut iit ihas ialso iperformed iits irole ias ia
iconstitutional icourt ifor iIndians. iThe iCourt iheld ithat iit iprovided ithe ijurisprudence iof
ifree ispeech iwith ian ienhanced iand irare iclarity. iVarious iprovisions iof iIPC iand
iSections i66B i, i67C iof ithe iIT iAct iare igood ienough ito ideal iwith iall ithese icrimes
iand iit iis iincorrect ito isay ithat iSection i66A ihas igiven irise ito inew iforms iof icrimes.
FACTS iOF iTHE iCASE i:
1. iIn ithe iyear i2012, iShiv iSena ileader iBal iThakerey idied. iThere iwas ibandh ideclared
iby ithe ipeople iof i iShiv iSena i iin iMaharashtra.

2. iThese itwo igirls iShaheenDhada iand iRinu iSrinivasan ilived iin iThane, iwere iinvolved
iin ithis icase. iOne iamong ithem iposted isomething ion iFacebook iand ithe iother ione
iliked iit.

3. iThey iboth iexpressed itheir idispleasure iat ia ibandh icalled iin ithe iwake iof iShiva
iSena ichief iBal iThackery’s ideath.

4. iThey iwere iarrested iby ithe iMumbai ipolice iin i2012 iunder iSection i66A iof
iInformation iTechnology iAct, i2000.

5. iThis iSection ipunishes iany iperson iwho isends ithrough ia icomputer iresource ior
icommunication idevice iany iinformation ithat iis igrossly ioffensive, ior iwith ithe
iknowledge iof iits ifalsity, ithe iinformation iis itransmitted iby ithe ipeople ifort ithe
ipurpose iof icausing iannoyance, iinconvenience, idanger, iinjury, iinsult, ihatred, ior iill
iwill.

6. iThe iarrested iwomen ireleased ilater ion iand iit iwas idecided ito iclose ithe icriminal
icases iagainst ithem iyet ithe iarrested iattracted iwidespread ipublic iprotest.

7. iIt iwas ifelt ithat ithe ipolice ihas imisused iits ipower iby iinvoking iSection i66A iinter
ialia icontending ithat iit iviolates ithe ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression.

8. iIn i2013, ithe icentral iGovernment icame iwith ian iadvice iunder iwhich ino iperson ican
ibe iarrested iwithout ithe ipolice ihaving iprior iapproval iof iinspector igeneral iof ipolice
ior iany iother isenior iofficials ito ihim/her.

9. iThe iwrit ipetition ihas ibeen ifiled iin iPublic iInterest iunder iArticle i32 iof iConstitution
iof iIndia iby iPetitioner iseeking ito ideclare iSection i66A, iSection i69 iand iSection i79 iof
ithe iIT iAct, i2000.

10.As iofin ithis icase, ithe ipetitioner ihas iraised ia ilarge inumber iof ipoints ias ito ithe
iconstitutionality iunder isection i66A. iAccording ito ithem, ifirst iand iforemost isection
i66A iinfringes ithe ifundamental iright iof iright ito ispeech iand iexpression iand iit iwas
inot isaved iby iany iof ithe isubjects imentioned iunder iSection i19(2) iof ithe iConstitution
iof iIndia. iIt iwas ialso icontempted ithat ithis isection iis icreating ia ihuge ivagueness iand
ihence igiving iarbitrary ipowers ito ithe iauthorities.

11. iLarge inumber iof ipeople ihave ialready ibeen isuffered ifrom ithe imisuse iof ithis
isection.
12. iThe isupreme iCourt icalled ithe ientire ipetition irelated ito ithe iconstitutional ivalidity
iof iinformation itechnology iact ior iany isection iwithin iit iunder isingle iPIL icase iknown
ias i“Shreya iSinghal iv. iUnion iof iIndia”.

ISSUE iRAISED:
1. iThe iconstitutional ivalidity iof iSection i66-A, i69-A iand i79 iwas ichallenged.

2. iWhether ithe iSection i66A iis icurtailing iFreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression.

3. iWhether ithe iSection i66A iis isaved iunder iSection i19(2).

ARGUMENT iOF iPRTITIONER:

1. iSection i66A itakes iaway ithe iFreedom iof iSpeech iand iExpression iguaranteed iunder
iArticle i19(1)(a) iand iis inot isaved iby ithe ireasonable irestrictions imentioned iunder
iArticle i9(2).

2. iThat icausing iof iannoyance, iinconvenience ietc. iare ioutside ithe iscope iof iArticle
i19(2).

3. iSection i66A iseeks ito icreate ian ioffence ibut ihave iinfirmity iand ivagueness ias iit
idoes inot iclearly idefines ithe iterminology iused iare isubjective iin inature iand iare ileft
iopen iat ithe idesire iand iwill iof ithe ilaw ienforcement iagencies ito iinterpret iit. iThe
ilimitation iis inot ipresent.

4. iArticle i14 iviolates ias ithere iis ino iintelligible idifferentia ias ito iwhy ionly imeans iof
icommunication iis itargeted iby ithis isection. iThus, iself- idescrimination. iTherefore, iit iis
ia iviolation iof iArticle i14, i21 iof ithe iconstitution.

5. iPetitioner ialso icontended ithat ithis isection ihas ileft ithe iroom iopen ifor ithe
iadministrators ito iinterpret ithis isection iin ian iarbitrary imanner.

ARGUMENT iOF iRESPONDENT:

1. iLegislature iis iin ithe ibest iposition ito iaddress ithe irequirements iof ithe ipeople iand
ithe icourts iwill ionly istep iin iwhen ia ilaw iis iclearly iviolative iof iPart iⅢ iand ithere iis
ipresumptions iin ifavour iof iconstitutionality iof ithe ilaw iin iquestion.
2. iCourt iwould iso iconstrue ia ilaw ito imake iit ifunctional iand iin idoing iso ican iread
iinto ior iread idown ithe iprovisions iof ilaw.

3. iOnly iprobability iof iabuse icannot ibe ia ivalid ijustification ito ideclare iabuse ithat
icannot ibe ia ijustification ior ideclare ia iprovision iinvalid.

4. iVagueness iis inot ia iground ito ideclare ia istatue iunconditional iif iit iis iindirectly
iqualified iand inon iarbitrary.

HELD:

It iwas iheld ithat ithe iSection iis iunconstitutional ialso ion ithe iground ithat iit itakes
iwithin iits isweep iprotected ispeech iand ispeech ithat iit iinnocent iin inature iand iis iliable
itherefore ito ibe iused iin isuch ia iway ias ito ihave ia ichilling ieffect ion ifree ispeech iand
iwould, itherefore, ihave ito ibe istruck idown ion ithe igrounds iof iover ibreadth.

Section i66A iof ithe iInformation itechnology iAct, i2000 iis istruck idown iin iits ientirety
ibeing iviolative iof iArticle i19(1)(a) iand inot isaved iunder iArticle i19(2).

Section i69A iof iIT iAct istates iabout iblocking ifor iaccess iof iinformation iof iinformation
iby ipublic iare iheld ias iconstitutionally ivalid.

JUDGEMENT:
The icourt isaid: i“Every iexpression iused iis inebulous iin imeaning. iWhat imay ibe
ioffensive ito ione imay inot ibe ioffensive ito ianother”. iTherefore, ithe iinterpretation iwas
iheld ito ibe isubjective iin inature. iHence ithe icourt iordered i66A ias iviolative iof iright
ito ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iand iis inot icovered iunder ithe igrounds iof
ireasonable irestrictions igiven iunder iArticle i19(2). iThe icourt ialso iheld ithat iblocking
iof iinformation ifor ipublic iaccess igiven iunder iSection i69A iof iIT iAct iis
iconstitutionally ivalid iin inature.

ANALYSIS:
Protection iof iFreedom iof iSpeech iand iExpression iis ivery iimportant ito imaintain ithe
iintegrity iof ithe idemocracy. iFreedom iof iSpeech iand iExpression iis ithe ibasic ipillar iof
ithe idemocracy. iIndia iis ione iof ithe ibest iexample iof idemocracy, iSo iit ibecomes imore
ieven iimportant ito iprotect ithis iright. iBut ireasonable irestriction ihas ito ibe ithere ito
icontrol ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression. iTherefore, ireasonable irestriction ion
ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iahs ito ibe ithere ieven iin iCyber iSpace, iso ithat
ipeople idon’t imisuse itheir irights.
In ithis ipresent icase ialthough iit iwas ivery iunfair iand iunreasonable iarrest, iso isuch
iaction iis ijustified. iBut ithere iare isome iinstances iwhen ipeople ido imisuse ithe ipower
iof iFreedom iof iSpeech iand iExpression iand ido icomment ion iintegrity iof iour ination
ior ion ivarious iother iimportant imatters. iReasonable irestrictions ishould ibe ithere ito
icontrol isuch iactions. iCyber ispace iis ia iplatform ithrough iwith ipeople iare imore
iconnected iand iinfluenced. iSo, iif isomeone istates iany icomment ion iCyber iSpace
iwithout ithinking iabout ithe iconsequences, iit iaffects ithe ihuge ipart iof ithe isociety.
iThere iare imany iinfluential ipeople ilike istars, isportsman, isingers, ipolitians ietc, ithey
ido ispeak ion isuch iplatforms iabout imany itopic iwithout ithinking ithe iconsequences iof
ithat ion ipeople. iSuch icomments imay inot ifall iwithin iSection i19(2) iof ithe iconstitution
ibut ithese icomments iaffect iour isociety ivery ibadly. iTherefore, ithere iare iother isubject
imatters iwhich idon’t ifall iwithin ithe iambit iof iArticle i19(2) ibut ithen ialso ion ithese
itopics ialso ireasonable irestriction ihas ito ibe ithere.

According ito ime isome imore ithings ishould ibe iincluded iin ithe iambit iof iArticle i19(2)
iof ithe iConstitution. iAt ileast ipeople ishould ibe icautious ito ispeak ilame ithings iabout
iintegrity iof iour icountry ior iintegrity iof iour iforce. iAll ithose isoldiers, iwho isacrifices
itheir ilives ifor ithe iprotection iof iour ination ibut ieven ipeople ido ispeak ibad iwords
iabout ithem iwhich idiscourages ithe ifeelings iof ithe isoldiers. iTherefore, isuch ithings
ishould ibe istrictly irestricted.

Although iI iagree iwith ithis ijudgment ibecause ithe iimpugned isection iwas ivery ivague
iand iarbitrary iin inature. iBy itaking iit’s ishield, ipolice ior iadministrators iwere iarresting
iinnocent ipeople, iso iit imust istruck idown. iJust iby icommenting ion isomething, ino ione
ican ibe iarrested, ithis iis ia iviolation iof ibasic ifundamental irights igiven iby ithe
iconstitution.

CONCLUSION:
The icourt iobserved ithat ithe iexpressions iused iin i66A iare icompletely iopen-ended iand
iundefined iand iit iis inot icovered iunder iArticle i19(2) iof iIndian iConstitution. iSection
i66A iactually ihad ino iproximate iconnection ior ilink iwith icausing idisturbance ito ipublic
iorder ior iwith iincitement ito icommit ian ioffence iand ihence iit iwas istruck idown iby
ithe icourt. iThe iapproach iadopted iby ithe icourt iwas ito iprotect ithe ifundamental iright
iof ifreedom iof ispeech iand iexpression iand iin ino iway ithe ilegislation ican itake iaway
ithis iright iby iclaiming ithe ishield iunder iArticle-19(2) iof ithe iConstitution.
Also, ithe icourt iby iapplying ithe irule iof iseverability ihas istruck idown ionly ithose
isections iwhich iwere ivague iand iarbitrary iin inature. iThe iwhole ilegislation ineed inot
ibe iheld ias iinvalid.