In a historic judgment on March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India. This case played a pivotal role in defining the scope of free speech in the digital era by striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional. The judgment reaffirmed the fundamental right to free speech and expression, setting a precedent for digital freedom in India.
66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.--Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, terms "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.
What's the Matter?
The case arose in response to multiple arrests made under Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending offensive messages through electronic communication. The law was introduced by an amendment in 2009 and became controversial due to its vague and broad wording, leading to arbitrary arrests and misuse.
The immediate trigger for the case was the arrest of two young women in Maharashtra in 2012. One of them had posted a comment on Facebook questioning the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of politician Bal Thackeray, while the other had merely liked the post. This incident sparked nationwide outrage and brought the draconian nature of Section 66A to the forefront.
Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A. Her primary contention was that the law violated Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, and was not protected under the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2).
The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 66A, which penalized sending "grossly offensive" or "menacing" messages and any information that caused "annoyance," "inconvenience," or "insult." The petitioners argued that these terms were vague, subjective, and open to interpretation, leading to potential misuse by law enforcement authorities.
What Happened in Court?
The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that Section 66A infringed upon the fundamental right to free speech and expression, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a), stating that the law was not narrowly defined and criminalized even legitimate speech.
The language of the section was excessively vague and left individuals uncertain about what constituted an offense, with the Court emphasizing that “what may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another.”
This vagueness led to a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals feared legal repercussions for expressing their opinions online. The Court further found that the provision failed to meet the test of Article 19(2) since the government justified the law under reasonable restrictions such as public order and decency, but there was no proximate connection between Section 66A and these restrictions. Additionally, the Court noted that the law had been arbitrarily implemented, with authorities using it indiscriminately against citizens, including political dissenters and social media users expressing personal views.
.
The judgment is a milestone in the protection of free speech in India, particularly in the digital age. By striking down Section 66A, the Supreme Court upheld the essence of democracy—ensuring that the internet remains a space for open discussion and diverse opinions. This case stands as a testament to the power of judicial intervention in safeguarding constitutional rights, reminding us that freedom of speech is a fundamental pillar of a thriving democracy.
Comments