Introduction:
Shreya Singhal vs UOI is a landmark judgment in which the Supreme Court of India questioned the constitutionality, and then struck down S. 66A of the “Information Technology Act, 2000” (henceforth referred to the IT Act, 2000).
S. 66A of the IT Act, 2000 used to deal with the punishment for sending ‘offensive’ messages through any communication device, or a computer. The sentence prescribed under the Section was a term of imprisonment that may extend to three years, including a fine. “A court could impose it for sending information: (a) ‘ menacing’ in nature, or ‘grossly offensive’. (b)For spreading false information to: “annoy, inconvenience, put in danger, obstruct, insult, cause injury, case criminal intimidation, perpetuate hate, enmity or ill will in a persistent manner with the help of any communication or computer system.” (c) Also, sending electronic mails or messages to cause annoyance, inconvenience, deceive and mislead the receiver of such message.”[1]
Let us critically analyze the case at hand and understand the judgment.
Facts of the Case
The Mumbai Police arrested two girls, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan in 2012 as they were unhappy about the bandh called by the members of the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra after the death of the chief of Shiv Sena, Bal Thackery, and expressed such displeasure by the manner of posting ‘Facebook’ comments. The police arrested the two girls under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. The two girls were later released, and the police dismissed their prosecution. However, the incident led to widespread protests and garnered national media attention and harsh criticism.
By a Public Interest Litigation, the girls filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, which challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. They contended that the Section in question violated their Right to Freedom and Expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
Issues Addressed
Whether Section 66A, 69A, and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 are constitutional or not was addressed; and
Whether 66A of the IT Act, 2000, violates the Right to freedom and expression.
Now, we take a look at the arguments garnered by both sides.
Petitioners Arguments
The petitioners’ main argument was that Section 66A of the IT Act was violative of one’s Right to freedom and expression which the Constitution of India grants to Indian citizens under Article 19 (1) (a). They argued that the Section’s intention to protect against such things as “annoyance, inconvenience, putting in danger, obstruction, insulting, causing injury, casing criminal intimidation, perpetuating hate, enmity or ill will”, fell outside the scope of Article 19 (2) of India’s Constitution, which provides power to the Government to impose “reasonable restriction” and only for “the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or concerning contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offense”.[2]
They contended that the provisions of the Section were “vague” and causes a lot of uncertainty. The uncertainty subsequently leads to the Section being interpreted by authorities on their discretion and requirements. They held that there was no proper limitation established concerning the Section and provided law authorities with “arbitrary powers” while interpreting the Section.
The petitioners stated that the cause of disruption, hassle, and so on is not subject to fair restrictions as set out in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution.
They argued that a lack of “intelligible differentia” in the requirements for ‘just methods’ of communication under Section 66A was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same leads to self-discrimination which is again, a violation of Article 14 as well as 21 of the Constitution of India.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued against the very maintainability of the writ petition at hand.
The respondents argued that the Court was allowed to interfere with any legislative process only in cases of a violation listed under Part- III of India’s Constitution. In other cases, it was the legislature’s job to decide upon what was best for the citizens.
The respondents stated that the probability of abuse of the Section at hand did not warrant the declaration of the Section as invalid.
They further argued that the Section was not arbitrary in nature, and that “vagueness’ could not be held as a ground to declare the Section as invalid.
Application of Law and Reason by Judges to the Case
A two-judge bench consisting of Justice Chelameshwar and Justice Nariman delivered the verdict to the case.
They first discussed certain fundamental concepts in order to understand the Right to freedom of expression, which is “discussion, advocacy, and incitement”. The Court stated that advocacy or discussion was not to be considered a punishable offense under Section 66A. No matter how unpopular the opinion was, these two virtues were an integral part of the Right to freedom of expression. They went on to state that advocacy and discussion were to be kept in check only if it were of such an extent, that it led to incitement.[3]
The Court was of the opinion that, because Section 66A did not distinguish between discussion or advocacy and incitement, the Section had the capability to limit all internet communication. [4]
On whether Section 66A had been a legitimate attempt to shield individuals from defamatory statements by means of online interactions, the Court stated that the vital ingredients to defamation were ‘injury to reputation.’ It ruled that the law doesn’t apply to this objective, as it also condemns derogatory remarks which may annoy or disappoint a person without affecting his or her reputation.[5]
The Court also rejected the petitioner’s claim, which stated that Section 66A was violative of Article 14 of India’s Constitution.
The Court also held that the Section did leave a lot of room for open-interpretation due to extreme vagueness, and therefore, the whole Section was to be considered void.
Judgment
The Court held Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 to be wholly void and confirmed that it did violate the Right to freedom of expression as enshrined under Article 19 (1) (a) of India’s Constitution and deemed the Section to be unconstitutional.
The Court further upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 69A, one of the issues raised, and held that withholding certain information from the public under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 was valid.
Critical Analysis
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India’s judgment is a landmark one in which the Supreme Court took a huge step in quashing what is essentially a censorship law.
By passing this judgment, the scope of one’s Right to freedom of expression under Article 19 (1) (a) in the Constitution of India has increased considerably.
The Court focussed on the importance of the requirement of incitement and not just discussion or advocacy. Acknowledgment of the gaps in law further leads to better-suited legislations and a broader scope of enjoyment of one’s rights.
Vague laws and definitions of law lead to open-interpretation, which further leads to the abuse of the law, to which the Court has put an end to with the above verdict.
Therefore, the Court brought about broader enjoyment of the Right to Freedom of Expression by narrowly scrutinizing the law.
Direction after the Verdict
In February 2019, the Court was faced with a case that claimed that the decision of the Shreya Singhal vs UoI case was not being implemented in the required fashion. In November 2018, the Internet Freedom Foundation released a report on continued usage of the Section, which revealed that between 65 and 70 cases were collectively reported in various legal records and that new cases were recorded in police stations, examined, and eventually regarded by the lower courts. They approached the Court with an application for directions on the same.[6]
The application demanded for a copy of the judgment of the Shreya Singhal to be sent to all of the Chief Secretaries of States as well as to the Directors General of the Police by appropriate circulars. A similar direction was sought for the High Courts for further distribution to the District Courts under its jurisdiction.[7]
The Supreme Court granted the appeal for distribution of the judgment by order dated 15 February 2019.
Conclusion
Due to the severe open-endedness of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, the Court decided that it was best to scrap the Section as it had been deemed unconstitutional.
They stated that the scope of Section 66A was not covered under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, by applying the rule of severability, the Court struck down the Section that was unconstitutional and left the rest of the legislation intact.[8]
The judgment was a victory to India’s citizens as Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, which was interpreted as per the law enforcement officers’ requirements and wishes. It used to cause severe hassle to those just trying to express their opinions.
References:
[1] INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000. 66A.
[2] SHREYA SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA – GLOBAL FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, Footnote: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India – Global Freedom of Expression Global Freedom of Expression, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ (last visited Jan 17, 2021)
[3] SHREYA SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2015 SC 1523, Supreme Court of India.
[4] SHREYA SINGHAL VS UNION OF INDIA, AIR 2015 SC 1523, Supreme Court of India.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Supra 2
[7] Ibid
[8] SINGH, R. Shreya Singhal v U.O.I, Footnote: Shreya Singhal v U.O.I Legalservicesindia.com, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2473/Shreya-Singhal-v-U.O.I.html (last visited Jan 17, 2021)
){kind=link}
0 Comments