Summary of Recent judgment

Case: Shreya Singhal v Union of India



Date of Order / Judgment: 20th August, 2024

The Matter Heard by Bench: Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice Chelameshwar

Background

The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) deals with the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision criminalized the sending of "offensive" messages through communication service, which was broadly defined. Shreya Singhal, a petitioner, challenged the provision on grounds of it being unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).

Issues
  • 1. Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, is unconstitutional for violating the right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
  • 2. Whether the provision is overly vague and prone to misuse, thereby infringing upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Observation:

The Supreme Court observed that Section 66A was excessively broad and vague, which led to a chilling effect on free speech. The terms "offensive" and "menacing" were not defined clearly, giving wide discretion to authorities and leading to potential misuse. The Court noted that the provision was not in consonance with the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression, as it did not meet the reasonable restrictions test. The Court emphasized that while the state has a legitimate interest in regulating communication, the regulation must not be excessively broad or infringe upon fundamental freedoms in an arbitrary manner. The Court also noted that the vagueness of Section 66A could lead to arbitrary and inconsistent application, which is contrary to the principles of legality and fair notice.

Decision:

The Supreme Court declared Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, unconstitutional and struck it down. The Court held that the provision was violative of Article 19(1)(a) and did not satisfy the test of "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(2). This judgment affirmed the importance of protecting free speech and expression while also establishing that any restrictions imposed should be precise and not open to arbitrary interpretation.