Case analysis on Unconstitutionality of sec 66A of IT Act

1. SHREYA SINGHAL V.
UNION OF INDIA
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF 2012
CASE ANALYSIS
BENCH: J. CHELAMESHWAR, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

2. TITLE FRAMED
CREATING AUTHORITY OF LAW
OVER A TECHNOLOGY: INSIGHTS
FROM SHREYA SINGHAL CASE

3. 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.

4. CONTINUED..
• 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.

5. ISSUES FRAMED
• Constitutional validity of Sec.66A, 69A & 79 was challenged.
• Whether Sec.66A is curtailing the Right to freedom of speech and
expression.
• Whether Sec.66A is saved under Art.19(2).

6. PETITIONER’S ARGUEMENTS
• The terminology used are subjective in nature and are left open at the
desire and will of the law enforcement agencies to interpret it. The
limitation is not present.
• Article 14 violated as there is no intelligible differentia as to why only one
means of communication is targeted by this section. Thus, self-
discriminatory.

7. RESPONDENT’S ARGUEMENTS
• Only probability of abuse cannot be a justification to declare a provision
invalid.
• Loose Language is used to safeguard the rights of the people from those who
violate them by using this medium.
• Vagueness is not a ground to declare a statute unconstitutional if it is
otherwise qualified and nonarbitrary
• Court would so construe a law to make it functional and in doing so can read
into or read down the provisions of law.
• LEGISLATURE IS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS

8. FINDINGS OF THE APEX COURT
• FREE SPEECH
• DIFFERENCE IN THE US AND INDIAN LAWS
• ON CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEC 66A
• ON PUBLIC ORDER
• ON CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER & TENDENCY TO EFFECT
• ON DEFAMATION
• ON DECENCY OR MARALITY

9. CONTINUED…
• ON INCITEMENT TO AN OFFENCE
• ON VAGUENESS
• ON CHILLING EFFECT AND OVER BREADTH
• ON PRESUMPTION OVER FAVOUR IN VALIDITY OF ENACTMENT
• ON DOCTRINE OF SEVEREBILITY
• ON ARTICLE 14
• ON SEC 69A AND 79
• MARKET PLACE IDEA THEORY BY JUSTICE HOLMES

10. JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
• Section 66A WAS struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19 (1)
(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).
• Section 69A and IT (procedure & safeguard for blocking for access of info by
public) rules are constitutionality valid.
• Section 79 is valid subject to reading down of Section 79(3) (b).
• Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act is struck down (public order).

11. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE
• preserved and saved the freedom of speech and expression given to people
under article19 (1) (a) of Indian Constitution.
• Given clear guidelines for further enacting law in relation to reasonable
restriction on fundamental right and freedom given by Indian constitution
But missed to implore the principle of transparency for rules to block the
website.

12. THE END
ANIKET SINGH B.A.LL.B (HONS.)
ENROLMENT 1020181957
4TH SEMESTER
HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SHIMLA.