Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012

Author Details

Name-Deepali

BALLB (3rd year)

UILS, Panjab University

Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523

 Petitioner: Shreya Singhal

 Respondent: Union of India 

 Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

 Bench: Justice J.Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice J. Chelameswar.

 Judgment Date: 24th March, 2015

 Legal provisions used: Indian Constitution, Information Technology Act 2000, Kerala Police Act. 

“Freedom consists not in doing what we like but in having the rights to do what we ought”

-Pope John Paul 

INTRODUCTION

Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the right of Freedom and expression. It has been held to be the basic and indivisible for a democratic polity and considered as citizen’s most cherished right. It lays down the foundation of all democratic organisations, political parties, and international conventions like Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Fundamental Freedom. Our country is a democratic country where Government itself demands active participation of Individuals in the public matters but concurrently it should not be violative of public policy. To maintain the integrity of the country, law has imposed certain reasonable restrictions which are though not absolute.

Taking about independent media, it is reviewed as sine quo non. According to a study free and vibrant media is analogous to corruptionless government. INDIA is a democratic country where every individual is given equal opportunities, so under Article 19(1)(a) they are given right to know and obtain information regarding any public act done public servants or agents or any other person. Needless to say, an independent media is considered fore most significant for providing safe and secure data or information. With a view that access to any public information should necessarily promotes fairness and transparency in the justice system Unlike the constitution of other countries Indian constitution does not specifically mentions about the Freedom of Press. The omission was once explained by DR.BR AMBEDKAR that “Press had no special rights in India, the editor or the manager of the press exercises the power guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.”

The Landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, where a writ petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of section 66A of Information Technology Act 2000 as it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. So court further struck down the provisions and brought a legislative change in the Indian legal system.

BRIEF FACTS ABOUT THE CASE

Mumbai police arrested two girls identified as Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Shrinivasan in the year 2012 for creating disquietude statements on one of the leading social media platforms that is Facebook against the Bandh declared by Shiv Sena by reason of death of the leader of Shiv Sena Bal Thackery. Mumbai police acted against the girls under Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act,2000. Though the girls were realized later, but the media brought this case into limelight which created huge disapproval and opposition in the public. Public stated that Section 66A of IT Act 2000, violated the right to freedom of speech and expression which was guaranteed under Article 19(1)(A) of Constitution of India. Section 66A of IT act being cognizable offence police had the authority to arrest without warrant which resulted in arrest of many individuals and government referred it is ‘Objectionable Content’. After this incident Central Government issued notice stated that no individual shall be arrested without previous knowledge of the officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police.

Consequently, many writ petitions were filed by the individuals across the country under Article 32 of Indian Constitution to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India challenging the validity of Section 66A. The petitions were pull together into a single Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and named as Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

KEY ISSUES  

1. Whether Section 66A of IT Act 2000 violates Section 19 of Constitution of India? 
2. Whether Section 66A, 69A and 79 of the IT Act 2000 are constitutionally valid?
3. Whether the Section is Violative of Article 14 of Indian Constitution?
4. Whether Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act is valid?

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PETITIONER

• At first petitioner stated that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 is violative of Article 19 of Indian Constitution and it is not alluded by reasonable restrictions imposed by the Law, it is procedural unreasonableness. 
• Then, further contentions were made that this section is Vague and undefined, the terminologies disclosed are left upon the agencies to interpret as it contains no limitations.
• It also violated Article 14 as there exists no intelligible differentia as to why only Internet is being targeted.
• Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act was also held unconstitutional as it is violative of rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and the provisions mentioned are outside the ambit of Article 19(1)(a).

ARGUMENTS RAISED BY RESPONDENT

Solicitor general effectively responded to the arguments made by Petitioner and held that: –

• Firstly, they discussed the constitutional validity of Section 66A of Information Technology and stated that court cannot just strike down provision of any law that are made by the legislature, they can only interfere when the statute is violative of Part III of Indian Constitution.
• Vagueness of any part of statute is not a valid ground to proclaim whole Law unconstitutional.
• Loose language has been used to under Article 66A to protect individuals from violating through same medium.
• Reasonable restrictions should be put in on the speeches done through Internet until there is misuse of the power.
• If court believes that they are bot satisfied with the provisions they may apply ‘Doctrine of Severability’ as enshrined under Article 13 of the Indian Constitution.

JUDGEMENT

After bearing in mind the arguments from both the Petitioner and Respondent, following provisions were laid down: –

• Bench of two judges Justice J. Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice J. Chelameswar held Section 66A as unconstitutional and stated that it is violative of Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
• Court further held the constitutional validity of Section 69A of Information Technology 2000(Procedure & Safety Measures for Preventing Public Access to Information) rules 2009 and referred to them as constitutional.
• Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 79 is valid Subject to Section 79(3)(b) being interpreted down.
• Further Court also violated Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act as it is violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not enduring the reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
• There were several obiter dicta in this case’s ruling. Obiter dictum is the term for what judges say that is not pertinent to the ruling but offers advice and insight on matters pertaining to the topic at hand. 
• The Court further acknowledged that the rapidly changing nature of online communication presents a challenge to regulation itself and underlined the necessity of laws that “keep pace with technology” without compromising basic rights.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Explanation to Sections:  –

Article 13 of Indian Constitution– Article 13 makes fundamental rights justiciable and enforceable in the court. It proclaims all the laws void if it is against the principles of fundamental rights whether pre or post constitution. It provides for the judicial review for all the laws existing in the country. Power for the judicial review is given both to Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Court of India. Further state shall not make any law which is abridged by Law.

Article 14 of Indian Constitution– Every individual in the country is born with equality and therefore provision was made under the constitution of India for all the individuals. This article states that all the citizens of the country are equal before law and equal protection shall be given to them without any discrimination within the territory of India.

Article 19 of Indian Constitution-This right is considered as foremost important right under the constitution of India which provides for certain rights regarding freedom of Speech. 

19(1)(a)- This article protects people’ freedom of speech and expression. It protects the right to express oneself which allows people and organizations to express their thoughts as they see fit without any discrimination. 

19(2)-This section of the Indian Constitution provide certain reasonable restrictions imposed by law, the restrictions must not be against the public Policy, Public order or Nation’s security.

Section 66A of Information and Technology Act 2000- It describes punishment for the offenders who commits crime by sending offensive and derogatory message or any information which is likely to be false or misappropriate through any communicative device, they shall be punished for a term of three years which may extend further with fine.

Section 69A of Information and Technology Act 2000- This section gives power to Central government or any other officer prescribed by central government to issue directions for blocking the access of public to any information subject to maintaining the sovereignty of the country and to maintain public peace.

Section 79 of Information and Technology Act 2000- This section states that by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette, the Central Government may designate any department, body, or agency of the Central Government or a State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence in order to provide expert opinion on electronic form evidence before any court or other authority specified.

 So, in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, The Judgement delivered by Bench of two judges Justice J. Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice J. Chelameswar is one of the landmark judgements in the Indian History which resulted in revocation of Section 66A of Information Technology Act 2000. It was declared unconstitutional as it violated Section 19(1)(a) of Indian constitution. Particularly in this case Doctrine of Reasonable Restriction and Doctrine of Severability are handed down to analyse whether the provisions are constitutionally valid or not. 

India is a democratic country where every citizen has right to freely express their views and to criticize them. Similarly, right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). There are innumerable number of cases where right to freedom of speech and expression are discussed, one of the oldest case referred to as ‘Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras’ where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India stated that freedom of speech is the foundation of all democratic organisations.

So this case is one of the rarest case where the court proclaimed censorship law as unconstitutional which was enacted by the Parliament. 

CONCLUSION

This judgement is considered as the Landmark judgement in the Indian Legal history where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India struck down the provision of Section 66A of Information and Technology Act 2000. The judgement is considered as a moment of truth which transformed Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Now citizens can express themselves without any unreasonable restriction. The decision establishes a standard for further legal challenges and shows how judicial review might use PIL to safeguard civil freedoms. This judgement has also made legislative changes in regulating the electronic communication which forms the heart of democratic country

However, despite the Supreme Court’s order on March 24, 2015, invalidating Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, many cases have been brought under the statute against innocent people. Even judges in lower courts and police officers were unaware of this Supreme Court ruling. As a result, the state cannot just send higher officials circulars; it must also take concrete action.

So, if the judgement is casted-off constructively, the innocent would never be punished.