CONCEPT – SHREYA SINGHAL CASE ON INTERNET FREEDOM

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

 CONCEPT – SHREYA SINGHAL CASE ON INTERNET FREEDOM

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Political Background : A major amendment was made in 2008. It introduced the Section 66A which penalized sending of “offensive messages” and also introduced the section 69. It was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in Lok Sabha. It was signed into law by president Pratiba Patil, on 5th February, 2009.
• Shreya Singhal is an Indian born lawyer. She was born in a family of eminent lawyers. Her fight against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 brought her to the national prominence in India. By this amendment, Government of India has restricted freedom of speech for voiding self harm and misuse. This allowed arrest of any person which the law per se feel like harmful or misuse. Over a couple of years, there has been many cases in which police has arrested people for the broadcasting of the information through computer resource or communication devices. In 2012, Shreya filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India, against the Act and in 2015, the Hon’ble Court has struck this Section down. This was hailed as a major step in the country’s quest for the freedom of speech and expression.
• Judicial Background : In various Cases, Hon’ble Court interpreted the freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions harmonising as per the facts of respective case. In this present case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that all the restrictions imposed by the legislature can not be interpreted as reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. Legislature can not restrict the freedom of speech and expression by taking the shield of Article 19(2).
• Facts

1. In the year 2012, Shiv Sena leader Bal Thakerey died. There was bandh declared by the Shiv Sena People in Maharashtra.
2. These two girls Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan lived in Thane, involved in this case. One of them posted something on Facebook and the other one liked it.
3. They both expressed their displeasure at a bandh called in the wake of Shiva Sena chief Bal Thackery’s death.
4. They were arrested by the Mumbai police in 2012 under Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. This Section 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.
6. The arrested women released later on and it was decided to close the criminal cases against them yet the arrested attracted widespread public protest.
7. 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.
8. In 2013, the central Government came with an advice under which no person can be arrested without the police having prior approval of inspector general of police or any other senior officials to him/her.
9. The writ petition has been filed in Public Interest under Article 32 of Constitution of India by Petitioner seeking to declare Section 66A, Section 69 and Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.
10. In this case, the petitioner has raised a large number of points as to the constitutionality of section 66A. According to them, first and foremost section 66A infringes the fundamental right of right to speech and expression and it is not saved by any of the subjects mentioned under Section 19(2) of the Constitution of India. It was also contempted that this section is creating a huge vagueness and hence giving arbitrary powers to the authorities.
11. Large number of people have already been suffered from the misuse of this section.
12. The supreme Court called the entire petition related to the constitutional validity of information technology act or any section within it under single PIL case known as “Shreya Singhal v. Union of India”.

• Issues Raised

1. Constitutional validity of Section 66-A, 69-A and 79 was challenged.
2. Whether Section 66A is curtailing Freedom of speech and expression.
3. Whether Section 66A is saved under Section 19(2).

• Judgment

1. The Supreme Court agree with the petitioner that none of the grounds contained in Section 19(2) were capable of being invoked as legitimate defences to the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. “Any law seeking to impose a restriction on freedom of speech can only pass muster.”
2. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that none of the grounds contained in Section 19(2) were capable of being invoked as legitimate defences to the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act. They believed that the term offensive in Section 66A of IT Act is very vague. They stated that what might offensive to someone may not be for someone else. Therefore, it is very subjective in nature.
3. Two things will be noticed. The first is that the definition is an inclusive one. Second, the definition does not refer to what the content of information can be. In fact, 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. Information of all kinds is roped in-such information may have scientific, literary or artistic value, it may refer to current events, it may be obscene or seditious. That such information may cause annoyance or inconvenience to some is how the offence is made out. It is clear that the right of the people to know-the market place of ideas-which the internet provides to persons of all kinds is what attracts Section 66A. 
4. That the information sent has to be annoying, inconvenient, grossly offensive etc., also shows that no distinction is made between mere discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view which may be annoying or inconvenient or grossly offensive to some and incitement by which such words lead to an imminent causal connection with public disorder, security of State etc. The Petitioners are right in saying that Section 66A in creating an offence against persons who use the internet and annoy or cause inconvenience to others very clearly affects the freedom of speech and expression of the citizenry of India at large in that such speech or expression is directly curbed by the creation of the offence contained in Section 66A.

• Case comment : Protection of Freedom of Speech and Expression is very important to maintain the integrity of the democracy. Freedom of Speech and Expression is the basic pillar of the democracy. India is one of the best example of democracy, So it becomes more even important to protect this right. But reasonable restriction has to be there to control freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, reasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression ahs to be there even in Cyber Space, so that people don’t misuse their rights.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.