Latest Articles
Back
Supreme Court’s judgement on Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India
Supreme Court’s judgement on Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India
The Supreme Court’s judgement on 24th March 2015 in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was a unicorn in Indian free speech jurisprudence. It was the first and only time a speech restricting law was struck down as unconstitutional instead of merely being read down.
The facts of the case were that Police arrested two women under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook about the shutting down of Mumbai city after the death of a political leader.
Section 66A. of the Information Technology Act, 2000- 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.
Even though the police released the women, the incident invoked media attention and criticism. The women filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it violates the right to freedom of expression though the police dismissed the prosecution.
The Supreme Court of India initially issued an temporary measure in Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, prohibiting any arrest in accordance with Section 66A unless such arrest is approved by senior police officers.
The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety as it violated Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution deals with the freedom of speech and expression. The Court held that prohibiting dissemination or spreading of information by means of a computer resource or communication device intending to cause insult, annoyance or inconvenience did not fall within any of the exceptions to exercise the right to freedom of expression. This means none of these grounds contained in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution were capable of invoking the legitimate defences to the validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was a relevant case in the Indian free speech jurisprudence since Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was unconstitutional. This section did not have anything within the reasonable restriction of the right of freedom of speech and expression. Spreading an information with an intention to cause insult, annoyance or inconvenience did not fall under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Therefore it was found that this section was against Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India i.e. the right to freedom of speech and expression.
