LEGAL FOUNDATION | DISHARI CHAKRABARTI|MPG21022

Judgment: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Date: 24.03.2015
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1563
Judges: Justice Chelameswar, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Act/Provisions: Sections 66A, 69, and 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000, Information
Technology Rules, 2009 and Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act, Section 95 and 96 Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Articles 19(1)A and 19(2) of Constitution of India - The
instant appeal filed to determine the validity of Sections 66A, 69A and 79 of Act,
Information Technology Rules, 2009 and Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act
___________________________________________________________________________
Background and Issue: A series of the petition was filed that challenged the Section 66A,
69A, and 79 of the Informational Technology Act 2000 and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Act
for violating Articles 14, 19, and 21. These provisions were inserted in the IT Act through an
amendment in 2008 in the backdrop of the Mumbai terror attack and were passed by the
Parliament unopposed.
The issue before the court was whether the abovementioned provisions are violative of
Articles 14, 19, 21 and thus unconstitutional.

Held:
Section 66A of the IT Act and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act were struck down
entirely for being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2). The Court
opined that Section 66A creates offenses against persons who use the internet and try to
annoy or cause inconvenience to others very clearly affecting the freedom of speech and
expression of the citizens of India at large. Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively, and
disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such rights
and reasonable restrictions. It also opined those terms such as “grossly offensive, menacing,
annoying, inconvenient, dangerous, insulting, and intimidating” are void and ambiguous. The
Court argued that such ambiguity resulted in subjectivity, which undermines the rule of law.
The provision was declared unconstitutional because it did not meet the "just, fair, and
reasonable" and proportionality standards that Indian laws must follow to deprive people of
their fundamental right to life and personal liberty. It also has a “chilling effect on freedom of
speech and expression” and is thus unconstitutional.
Justice Nariman wrote that "it is obvious that Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and
disproportionately infringes on the right to free speech and upsets the balance between such
right and the legitimate restrictions that may be imposed on such right”. Additionally, section
118(d) suffers from the same kind of vagueness that led section 66A to be constitutionally
invalid.
Further, section 69A and Information Technology Rules 2009 were held to be
constitutionally valid because, unlike section 66A, several safeguards do not make it
constitutionally infirm. Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3) being read down. Section
79 is closely related to Section 69A and several safeguards have been provided in the sections
before any action is taken under this section. Section 79(3)(b) has to be read down to mean
that the intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge that a court order has been passed

Page | 1
 LEGAL FOUNDATION | DISHARI CHAKRABARTI|MPG21022

must then fail to remove or disable access to that material. This is for the reason that
otherwise it would be very difficult for intermediaries like Google, Facebook, etc. to act.
Significance:
This is a landmark judgment in Indian free speech jurisprudence. It was the first and only
time that a speech-restricting statute was declared unconstitutional rather than just being read
down. However, despite being declared unconstitutional this arbitrary provision keeps
haunting the Indian free speech landscape. The police keep on registering cases under this
provision. The apathy and indifference of the state machinery towards the judgment continue
to have chilling effects on free speech1.
Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India: A Case Which Rejuvenated The Liberty To Speech And Expression In The
Country

1
Suppal.Vaibhav (2020), Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India: A Case Which Rejuvenated The Liberty To Speech
And Expression In The Country, iPleaders Blog, available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-
india-case-rejuvenated-liberty-speech-expression-country/ (accessed on 08.07.2022)

Page | 2