case study "Sheya Singhal case"

1. THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, TRIPURA.
Submitted by :–
Mijanur Rahaman.
ID no :– 20IUT0130028
Prog. :– LL.B 2nd Year. (2nd
Semester)
Sub:- Cyber Law.
Internal – I :-
Topic :- Case study “Sheya
Singhal
vs
Union of
India”.
Submitted to :–
Asst. Professor,
Md.
Baharul Islam.
ICFAI Law School,
Tripura.
Kamalghat,West
Tripura.
1
THE ICFAI LAW SCHOOL

2. Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India. AIR-2013,
 Appellant:- Shreya Singhal .
 Respondent:- Union of India.
Legal Provision:-
1. Section 66A in The Information Technology Act, 2000
2. Section 69A in The Information Technology Act, 2000
3. Section 79 in The Information Technology Act, 2000
4. Article 19 in The Constitution of India 1949
2

3. Fact of the case:-
Police arrested two women for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable comments
on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai after the death
of a political leader. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends through a
computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive,
or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted for the purpose of
causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will.
Although the police later released the women and dismissed their prosecution, the
incident invoked substantial media attention and criticism. The women then filed a
petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it
violates the right to freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court of India initially issued an interim measure in Singhal v. Union of
India, (2013) 12 S.C.C.73, prohibiting any arrest pursuant to Section 66A unless such
arrest is approved by senior police officers. In the case in hand, the Court addressed
the constitutionality of the provision.
3

4. Legal Issues:-
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 came into force by virtue of an
Amendment Act of 2009. The petitioner in the present writ petition has thus challenged the
constitutional validity of section 66A. The petitioner has claimed that Section 66A has given
rise to new forms of crimes which is incorrect. The petitioner challenges the constitutional
validity of the act on the following grounds:-
 It infringes the fundamental right to free speech and expression and is not saved by any
of the eight subjects covered in Article 19(2).
 This section in creating an offence suffers from the vice of vagueness because of which
the innocent persons are roped in as offenders.
 The enforcement of the said section would really be an insidious form of censorship
which impairs a core value contained in Article 19(1)(a).
 The said section infringes the rights of the individual under Articles 14 and 21 in as much
there is no intelligible differentia between those who use the internet and those who by
words spoken or written use their mediums of communication.
4

5. Ratio Decidendi:-
5
Issue 1: Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is constitutionally valid or
not?
India is a sovereign, democratic and republic country as has been stated in the preamble of
the Constitution. It cannot be overemphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of
thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our
constitutional scheme. The content of the expression “freedom of speech and expression”
is thus three: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It is only when all these three contents
are fulfilled that Article 19(2) is applied. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not open to
the state to curtail freedom of speech to promote the general public interest. If a public
order under section 19(2) is violated by a law then that law is unconstitutional and void for
public order is synonymous with public safety and tranquility . The test to identify whether
the public order has been infringed or not is to ask a question: Does a particular act lead to
disturbance of the current life of the community or does it merely affect an individual
leaving the tranquility of society undisturbed?
Where no reasonable standards are laid down to define guilt in a section which creates an
offence and where no clear guidance is given to either law-abiding citizens or to
authorities and courts, a section which creates an offence and which is vague must be
struck down as being arbitrary and unreasonable. It is quite clear that the expressions used
in section 66A are completely open-ended, vague and undefined language.

6. Further, a prospective offender of section 66A and the authorities who are to enforce section
66A have absolutely no manageable standard by which to book a person for an offence
under section 66A. Thus section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades
the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable
restrictions that may be imposed on such right. 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.
Additionally, there is an intelligible differentia between speech on the internet and other
mediums of communication for which separate offences can be created by the legislation.
Thus section 66A is not discriminatory under Article 14.
Decision Held: 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).
Issue 2: Whether Section 69A and the Rules are unconstitutional?
Ratio: Section 69A is narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. Further, the rules are
also not constitutionally infirm in any manner. The rules, however, does not mention certain
additional safeguards such as those found in section 95 and section 96 of CrPC but the rules
cannot be said to be invalid for this very reason.
Decision Held: Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for
Blocking for Access to Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid.
6

7. 7
Decision Held: Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down being violative of
Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2).
Issue3: Whether Section 79(3)(b) and Information Technology “Intermediary
Guidelines” Rules, 2011 is constitutionally valid or not?
Decision Held: Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean
that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being
notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to
Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable
access to such material. Similarly, the Information Technology “Intermediary Guidelines”
Rules, 2011 are valid subject to Rule 3 sub-rule (4) being read down in the same manner
as indicated in the judgment.
Issue 4: Whether Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is valid or not?
Decision Held: Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down being violative of
Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2).

8. Judgment :-
Agreeing with the contention made by the petitioner on the ground that
section 66 A of the I.T. Act affects the right of freedom of speech and
expression the Supreme Court held that the words used in the Act can
seriously harm the society in terms of injustice and cause serious
arbitrariness and thus the said provision of the Act needs to be stuck
down as soon as possible.
The court in the present case pointed out the difference between “Hate
Speech and Fair Speech”, according to the court any innocent comment
made by anyone whose aim is not to defame or disrespect anyone can
not fall under the ambit of hate comment.
And further the court denies the principle of violation of article 14 which
was a contention made by the petitioner. According to the court, there is
intelligible differentia which was made between the print media and
speech when further compared with the speech published on the
internet. Thus, to challenge the violation of article 14 by the petitioner
was failed by the court.
8

9. Conclusion:-
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.
Also, the court by applying the rule of severability has struck down only those sections
which were vague and arbitrary in nature. The whole legislation need not be held as
invalid.
 This decision certainly expands the freedom of expression by narrowly interpreting
the reasonable grounds of restricting the right, such as maintaining public order or
protecting one’s reputation.
 The Court declined to address the Petitioners’ challenge of procedural
unreasonableness since the law was already declared unconstitutional on
substantive grounds. It also found Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act to be
unconstitutional as applied to Section 66A. Based on the forgoing reasons, the Court
invalidated Section 66A of ITA in its entirety as it violated the right to freedom of
expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
9

10. 10