The landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) dealt with the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). The judgment, rendered by the Supreme Court of India, has been hailed as a monumental decision that reinforced the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. Section 66A, which was intended to address the misuse of digital platforms, had increasingly been criticized for being vague and overbroad, leading to its misuse by law enforcement authorities to stifle legitimate expression.

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Date of Judgment: March 24, 2015
Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1
Relevant Law: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Facts of the Case
The controversy surrounding Section 66A gained national attention following the arrest of two young women in Mumbai in 2012. The women were arrested for posting comments on Facebook expressing their displeasure with the shutdown of the city following the death of Bal Thackeray, a prominent political figure. The comments, though innocuous, led to their arrest under Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized the sending of any information via a computer or communication device that was "grossly offensive" or had "menacing character." The arrest sparked widespread outrage and debates on the misuse of the provision, raising serious concerns about its constitutionality.

In 2013, in response to the growing criticism, the Union Government recommended that no arrests under Section 66A should be made without the prior approval of a superior police officer, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police. Despite this, multiple petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A. These petitions were eventually consolidated into a single Public Interest Litigation (PIL), led by Shreya Singhal, a law student, who sought the striking down of the provision as unconstitutional.

Writ Filed
The petitioners sought the following reliefs:
Declaration of Section 66A, Section 69A, and Section 79 of the IT Act as Ultra Vires: The petitioners argued that these sections were unconstitutional as they had vague and ambiguous interpretations, leading to arbitrary and excessive restrictions on free speech.

Violation of Fundamental Rights: The petitioners contended that Section 66A violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19(1)(a) (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

Arguments of the Petitioners
The primary arguments advanced by the petitioners were as follows:

• Vagueness and Overbreadth: The petitioners argued that the language of Section 66A was vague and overbroad, leading to its arbitrary application. Terms such as "grossly offensive," "menacing character," and "annoyance" were not defined, giving law enforcement authorities unchecked discretion to determine what constituted an offense.
   
• Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The petitioners asserted that Section 66A had a chilling effect on free speech. The fear of being arrested under this provision for expressing one's views on social media or other digital platforms deterred individuals from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression.
   
• Inconsistency with Article 19(2): The petitioners argued that Section 66A did not fall within the reasonable restrictions permissible under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which allows the government to impose restrictions on free speech only on specific grounds such as security of the state, public order, and decency or morality.
   
• No Clear Nexus with the Objective: The petitioners contended that Section 66A did not have a clear and direct nexus with the objective it sought to achieve, which was to prevent the misuse of digital platforms. Instead, it was being used as a tool for harassment and intimidation by the authorities.

Arguments of the Respondent (Union of India)
The Union of India defended the constitutionality of Section 66A on the following grounds:

• Legislative Competence: The respondent argued that it was within the legislative competence of the Parliament to enact Section 66A as a measure to curb the misuse of digital platforms for transmitting offensive or menacing content.
   
• Need to Address Cyber Crimes: The respondent emphasized that the rapid growth of the internet and digital platforms necessitated the creation of laws like Section 66A to address emerging cyber crimes and protect individuals from harm caused by offensive or harmful content disseminated online.
   
• Judicial Interpretation: The respondent contended that the judiciary had the power to interpret the law in a manner that made it justly enforceable. The abuse of the law by executive authorities should not be a ground for declaring the law itself unconstitutional.
   
• Protection of Citizens' Rights: The respondent argued that the broad terminology used in Section 66A was necessary to protect the rights of citizens from those who infringe them through the misuse of digital platforms.

Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court was called upon to address the following key issues:

• Whether Section 66A of the IT Act violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether Section 66A could be justified as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)?
• Whether the provisions of Section 69A and Section 79 of the IT Act were ultra vires to the Constitution?

Judgment
On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment, declaring Section 66A of the IT Act unconstitutional and striking it down. The key observations and findings of the Court were as follows:

• Vagueness and Arbitrary Application: The Court held that Section 66A was vague and used undefined terms, leading to an arbitrary application of the law. The Court observed that terms like "grossly offensive," "annoyance," and "inconvenience" were open to subjective interpretation, which could result in different interpretations by different individuals. This lack of precision made the provision violative of Article 14, as it failed to ensure equality before the law.
   
• Chilling Effect on Free Speech: The Court recognized that Section 66A had a chilling effect on free speech. The possibility of being arrested for expressing one's views on social media or other digital platforms deterred individuals from exercising their right to freedom of speech and expression. The Court noted that the chilling effect of the provision was exacerbated by the arbitrary and subjective nature of its application.
• Violation of Article 19(1)(a): The Court held that Section 66A was in clear violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. The Court emphasized that the right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right and can only be restricted on the grounds specified in Article 19(2). Section 66A did not fall within the permissible grounds for restriction under Article 19(2), making it unconstitutional.
   
• No Clear Nexus with the Objective: The Court found that Section 66A did not have a clear and direct nexus with the objective it sought to achieve, which was to prevent the misuse of digital platforms. Instead, it was being used as a tool for harassment and intimidation by the authorities.
   
• Striking Down of Section 66A: Based on the above findings, the Court declared Section 66A of the IT Act unconstitutional and struck it down in its entirety.
   
• Section 69A and Section 79: While Section 66A was struck down, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A, which deals with blocking access to information, and Section 79, which provides for the exemption of intermediaries from liability, subject to certain conditions. The Court held that these provisions were within the legislative competence of the Parliament and did not violate the Constitution. However, the Court read down Section 79(3)(b) to ensure that intermediaries could only be held liable if they failed to act on a court order or notification from a government agency.

Significance of the Judgment
The judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a landmark decision that has had a profound impact on the interpretation of the right to freedom of speech and expression in India. The ruling reaffirmed the principle that any restriction on free speech must be reasonable, specific, and fall within the permissible grounds under Article 19(2). The judgment also underscored the importance of precision in legislative drafting, particularly in laws that have the potential to infringe on fundamental rights.

The striking down of Section 66A was widely celebrated as a victory for free speech and a blow against state overreach. The judgment served as a reminder that the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution are inviolable and cannot be curtailed by vague and overbroad laws. It also highlighted the role of the judiciary as the guardian of constitutional rights, capable of striking down laws that infringe on those rights.

Conclusion:
The Shreya Singhal case is a cornerstone in the jurisprudence of free speech in India. By declaring Section 66A of the IT Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court not only protected the right to freedom of speech and expression but also set a precedent for the rigorous scrutiny of laws that impose restrictions on fundamental rights. The judgment is a testament to the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of the Constitution and ensuring that legislative enactments do not trample on the rights of citizens.