Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF 2012

Judgement on 24th March 2015 by Justice R.F. Nariman

*Facts of the Case* Two girls-Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, were arrested by

the Mumbai police in 2012 for expressing their displeasure at a bandh called in the wake of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackery’s death.

* The women posted their comments on the Facebook. The arrested women were released later on and it was decided to close the criminal cases against them yet the arrests attracted widespread public protest.

* It was felt that the police has misused its power by invoking Section 66A inter alia contending that it violates the freedom of speech and expression.

* The apex court judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act on the grounds of its vague and ambiguous and was being misused by the law enforcing authorities.

Issues:-

Whether section 66A of IT Act 2000 is curtailing the Right to speech and expression ?

Whether section 66A of IT Act 2000 is saved under Article 19(2)?

Observations• Definition of information as per IT act does not refer to what the

content of information can be. It refers only to the medium through which such information is disseminated. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners are correct in saying that the public's right to know is directly affected by Section 66A.

• It is clear that Section 66A is intended to punish any person who uses the internet to disseminate any information that falls within the sub-clauses of Section 66A. It will be immediately noticed that the recipient of the written word that is sent by the person who is accused of the offence is not of any importance so far as this Section is concerned.

Continued• It will be noticed that for something to be defamatory, injury to

reputation is a basic ingredient. Section 66A does not concern itself with injury to reputation. Something may be grossly offensive and may annoy or be inconvenient to somebody without at all affecting his reputation. It is clear therefore that the Section is not aimed at defamatory statements at all.

• Penal law is void for vagueness if it fails to define the criminal offence with sufficient definiteness. Ordinary people should be able to understand what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted. Also, those who administer the law must know what offence has been committed so that arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law does not take place.

JUDGMENT• It is held that the Section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it

takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of over breadth.

• Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).

• Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid.

Thank You PRESENTED BY:-SOUMYA SUBHANKAR