Shreya Singhal vs

Union of India
Bench: J. Chelameswar, Rohinton Fali Nariman
In November 2012, a Facebook status update was posted by 21-year-
old Shaheen Dhada from Palghar, Maharashtra, insinuating that
Mumbai had shut down in fear, rather than out of respect for the
funeral procession of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray. Dhada and
her friend Rini Srinivasan, who' liked' the status update, were arrested
within hours of the update, interrupting the forced calm that enveloped
Mumbai after the death of Thackeray.

About Case
Dhada was charged under the Indian Penal Code Section 295A and the notorious Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. The arrested girls were released later and it was decided that the
criminal cases against them would be dropped, yet their arrests pulled in protest across the country.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India
in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck
down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech,
as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(a) of
the Constitution of India.
The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction'
on the freedom of speech under Article 19. The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and
Rules under the Section.

It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an
order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for
online free speech in India
A written petition is filed by the applicant in the public interest pursuant to Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, seeking to make Section 66A, 69A and Section 79 unconstitutional on
the basis that the phraseology used in Section 66A, 69A and Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000
is so broad and vague and, at the same time, unable to be evaluated on objective standards
that it is susceptible to abuse.

The petitioner further claims that the words, menacing, disruptive, irritation, nuisance,
interference, risk, and insult were not specified in the General Clauses Act, the IT Act, or any
other statute, and are therefore susceptible to abuse.

FACTS IN ISSUE
1) It is the legislature who is responsible to meet the requirements of people and the court is
allowed to interfere only in case of violation of Part-III of the Constitution. The respondent
argued that there is presumption in favour of constitutionality of law in question.

2) It was contended that the probability of abuse of section could not be a possible ground for
declaring the section as invalid.

3) The vagueness is not the ground to declare the statue as unconditional when the statue
itself is not arbitrary in nature.

Objections Rose on Behalf of the Respondents Against the Maintainability of the

Writ Petition:
The court observed that the expressions used in 66A are completely open-ended and
undefined and it is not covered under Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution. Section 66A actually
had no proximate connection or link with causing disturbance to public order or with
incitement to commit an offence and hence it was struck down by the court. The approach
adopted by the court was to protect the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression and in no way the legislation can take away this right by claiming the shield under
Article-19(2) of the Constitution.

Read Full Judgements Hers - Shreya Singhal vs Union of India

Conclusion