Case Summary: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
Citation: (2015) 10 SC CK 0160 | (2016) 5 SCC 808
Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 13, 14, 18, 23, 24, 70, 83, 108, 124, 209, 309, 310, 323, 341 of 2015 & TP(C) Nos. 391, 971 of 2015
Date of Decision: 16 October 2015
Bench: Hon'ble Justices J.S. Khehar, Jasti Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, A.K. Goel
Final Decision: National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) struck down as unconstitutional
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=971549
Law Points Raised
- Constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, challenged under Article 19(1)(a).
- Vagueness and overbreadth of terms like 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', 'grossly offensive'.
- Violation of Articles 14 and 21 due to lack of intelligible differentia.
- Section 66A compared unfavorably with the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2).
- Procedural safeguards missing in enforcement, leading to arbitrary arrests.
Ratio Decidendi
- Section 66A is unconstitutional as it infringes on the right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and is not saved by Article 19(2).
- The terms used in Section 66A are vague and undefined, leading to chilling effect on free speech.
- The law punishes speech on the basis of subjective criteria, which invites arbitrary and discriminatory application.
Final Ruling
- Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was struck down as unconstitutional.
- The Court upheld the importance of freedom of speech and clarified that only incitement to violence or disorder could be lawfully restricted.
Relevant Paragraphs
Para 5: Petitioner arguments on vagueness and arbitrariness.
Para 13: Concepts of discussion, advocacy, and incitement clarified.
Para 20: Public's right to know and effect of Section 66A on freedom of speech.
Final holding: Section 66A declared unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a).