satyaṁ brūyāt priyaṁ brūyān na brūyāt satyam

apriyam
priyaṁ cha nānṛitaṁ brūyād eṣha dharmaḥ
sanātanaḥ

“Speak the truth in such a way that it is pleasing to others. Do

not speak the truth in a manner injurious to others. Never speak
untruth, though it may be pleasant. This is the eternal path of
morality and dharma.”
SHREYA SINGHAL

VS
UNION OF INDIA
CHARACTERS

BAL THACKREY SHAHEENA AND SHREYA SINGHAL

RINU

Bal Thackeray was an Indian

politician who founded the She is an Indian lawyer.
Shiv Sena, Hindu nationalist
party active mainly in the
state of Maharashtra.
 ALL ABOUT IT ACT,2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as

ITA-2000, or the IT Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament
(No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the
primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic
commerce.
Secondary or subordinate legislation to the IT Act includes
the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media
Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
SECTION
66(A)
1 [66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service,
etc.--Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication
device,
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows 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 computer resource or a
communication device;
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance
or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin
of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and
with fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes 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 including
attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be
transmitted with the message.]
Ambiguous and Broad Provisions
● Vagueness in Language
Lack of clear and precise definitions of terms like "offensive,"
"annoying," "inconvenient," etc.

● Resulted in subjective interpretation by law enforcement and

authorities.

● Overbreadth
The provision covered a wide range of speech, potentially
criminalizing legitimate expressions of opinion and dissent.
Did not differentiate between harmful and harmless speech.
Misuse and Chilling Effect on Freedom of
Speech Online
● Misuse by Authorities
● Used to target individuals expressing dissent or criticism against
the government and public officials.

● Led to arbitrary arrests and harassment of citizens.

Chilling Effect

● Fear of legal repercussions deterred individuals from

expressing opinions freely online.

● Restricted the vibrant and open discourse essential for a

democratic society.
PETITIONERS

● Profile of Shreya Singhal

A law student and a free speech advocate.
Filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the
constitutionality of Section 66A.
● Reason for Filing the Petition
1. Concerned about the vague and overbroad provisions of
Section 66A.
2. Advocated for the protection of freedom of speech and
expression online.
3. Importance of Protecting Online Freedom of Speech
4. Essential for a democratic society to promote open
discourse, dissent, and exchange of ideas.
5. Upholding constitutional rights in the digital age.
CONSEQUENCES
FOR
REMOVING
66A
 The Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case primarily focused on the
constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000. However, the judgment in this case also had implications
for several other sections of the Information Technology Act, as they
were found to be unconstitutional due to their vagueness and
overbreadth.
1. Section 69A - Power to Issue Directions for Blocking Public Access of Any
Information

● Background:
● This section provided the government with the power to block public
access to any information online if it deemed it necessary in the
interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India,
security of the State, and friendly relations with foreign States.
● Impact:
● The Supreme Court's judgment in the Shreya Singhal case led to a
reevaluation of the provisions of Section 69A.
● The government was required to ensure that any restrictions on online
content were reasonable and complied with the principles of
proportionality and necessity.
2. Section 79 - Intermediaries Not to Be Liable in Certain Cases

● Background:
● This section provided immunity to intermediaries, such as
internet service providers and social media platforms, from
liability for any third-party information, data, or communication
link made available or hosted by them.
● Impact:
● The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the role of
intermediaries in the dissemination of information online.
● The judgment clarified that intermediaries were not liable for
third-party content unless they failed to comply with the due
diligence requirements as prescribed under the Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011.
3. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011

● Background:
● These rules provided the guidelines for intermediaries to follow
due diligence while discharging their duties under Section 79 of
the Information Technology Act.
● Impact:
● The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the importance of
due diligence by intermediaries in regulating online content.
● The guidelines were required to be reviewed and revised to
ensure that they were in line with the principles of freedom of
speech and expression and did not impose unreasonable
restrictions on online content.
4. Section 118(d) - Power of the Controller to Remove or Block Access
to Content

● Background:
● This section empowered the Controller of Certifying Authorities
to issue directions to any subscriber to extend facilities to
decrypt information.
● Impact:
● The Supreme Court's judgment in the Shreya Singhal case led
to a reevaluation of the provisions of Section 118(d).
● The government was required to ensure that any restrictions on
the decryption of information were reasonable and complied
with the principles of proportionality and necessity.
CONCLUSION: Shreya Singhal vs Union of India Case Study
The landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India by the Supreme Court of India marked a
significant milestone in the protection of freedom of speech and expression on the internet. The case
challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which
was criticized for its vague and overbroad provisions leading to the arbitrary and excessive censorship
of online content.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional on the grounds of its
vagueness, overbreadth, and the chilling effect it had on freedom of speech and expression online. The
Court emphasized the importance of upholding the fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression in the digital age and highlighted the need to prevent arbitrary and excessive censorship of
online content.
Furthermore, the judgment in the Shreya Singhal case had broader implications,
impacting several other provisions of the Information Technology Act, including
Section 69A, Section 79, Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules,
2011, and Section 118(d). The Court's decision led to a reevaluation and revision of
these provisions to ensure they were in line with the principles of freedom of speech
and expression and did not impose unreasonable restrictions on online content.

The Shreya Singhal case reaffirmed the importance of protecting digital rights in India
and set a precedent for future cases and legislative amendments to ensure the
protection of online freedom of speech and expression. The judgment empowered
citizens to express their opinions freely online without fear of legal repercussions and
highlighted the role of intermediaries in the dissemination of information online while
emphasizing the need for due diligence to regulate online content effectively.
In conclusion, the Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case stands

as a landmark judgment that strengthened the protection of

freedom of speech and expression online and highlighted the

importance of upholding fundamental rights in the digital age.

The judgment set a precedent for protecting digital rights in India

and influenced subsequent cases and legislative amendments to

ensure the protection of online freedom of speech and

expression.
REFERENCES
● Supreme Court Judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India

● Information Technology Act, 2000

● Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011

● WIKIPEDIA

● Youtube
~ THANK YOU ~