Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dealt with a significant question: Can the state impose restrictions on online speech under laws that are vague and overbroad? Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, criminalised sending “offensive” or “menacing” messages through electronic communication devices. 

This provision had been misused on multiple occasions, leading to arrests over innocuous expressions. The case thus challenged the legality of Section 66A on grounds of its unconstitutionality under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protect the freedom of speech and personal liberty.

The case is considered a watershed moment in India’s digital rights landscape. The Supreme Court’s judgement highlighted the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression, particularly in the digital realm, where the potential for censorship is significant.

Background of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

The case began after several individuals were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act, which penalised anyone who sends offensive messages via a computer or communication device. The provision was criticised for its vague language, particularly the terms “offensive” and “menacing,” which were not defined clearly. This led to widespread misuse, where even harmless content, such as political commentary or jokes, was targeted.

Key Developments in the Background:

• Section 66A: The provision allowed the authorities to punish individuals for sending messages deemed to be grossly offensive, menacing, or intended to cause annoyance or insult.
• Arrests and Controversies: Numerous arrests, including those of two women for posting a Facebook status about a political leader’s death, sparked public outrage over the misuse of Section 66A.
• Legal Challenge: These incidents prompted several individuals, civil society organisations, and companies to challenge the constitutionality of Section 66A. They argued that the provision was overly vague and an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

The petitioners in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India argued that Section 66A violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). They contended that the law was not only vague but also posed a chilling effect on free speech by enabling arbitrary arrests and suppression of legitimate expression.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court was tasked with addressing two significant legal issues in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India:

Whether Section 66A violates the right to freedom of speech and expression

• Constitutional Protection of Speech: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right. The question before the Court was whether Section 66A was a reasonable restriction on that right or whether it violated it.
• Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(2): Article 19(2) allows the state to impose restrictions on free speech, but only on specific grounds, such as public order, decency, morality, etc. The Court had to determine whether Section 66A met the “reasonable restrictions” standard or whether it was disproportionate.

Whether the provision is overly vague and prone to misuse

• Vagueness and Arbitrary Application: The petitioners argued that Section 66A used vague and subjective terms like “offensive,” “menacing,” and “annoyance” without any clear definition. This created scope for arbitrary application by law enforcement agencies, leading to potential misuse.
• Chilling Effect on Speech: The broadness of the provision was also argued to have a chilling effect on free speech. People were likely to self-censor to avoid the risk of prosecution, even if their speech did not cause any actual harm or disturbance.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India Judgement

The Supreme Court delivered a unanimous judgement declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional. The key points of the Court’s decision are as follows:

Striking Down Section 66A

• Violation of Article 19(1)(a): The Court held that Section 66A violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The provision was deemed overly broad, and the Court concluded that it did not meet the standard of “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2).
• Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The Court highlighted that the vague and overbroad language of Section 66A had the potential to suppress legitimate speech, thereby creating a chilling effect on free expression. This was not compatible with the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

Read Down Section 79

• Clarifying Intermediary Liability: The Court read down Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which provided a framework for intermediary liability. The Court clarified that online intermediaries would only be liable for content if they received a court order or directive from a government authority.
• Balancing Interests: This clarification helped ensure that intermediaries were not held liable for content hosted by users unless they were explicitly directed to remove such content, protecting them from undue legal burden while ensuring the removal of illegal content.

Upholding Section 69A

• Takedown Mechanism for Content: The Court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to issue directions for the removal of content deemed to threaten national security or public order. The Court found that Section 69A had sufficient safeguards in place to prevent misuse and protect freedom of speech.
• Narrow and Specific Provisions: Unlike Section 66A, Section 69A was found to be narrowly tailored and specific, and the Court endorsed its application for blocking content that genuinely posed a threat to national security or public order.

Conclusion

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a landmark decision that has redefined the scope of free speech in India’s digital era. By striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental right to free speech, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for expressing opinions that may be considered “offensive” or “menacing.” 

The Court’s ruling also clarified the liability of online intermediaries, protecting them from excessive legal burdens while promoting accountability.

Researcher: Ashutosh Nath (Symbiosis Law School)

Author: Aishwarya Agrawal