LexSHREYA SINGHAL versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 5 S.C.R. 963 SHREYA SINGHAL A ....... .,.....,.""'-.. v. UNION OF INDIA (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of2012 etc.) B MARCH 24, 2015 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] • Information Technology Act, 2000: s. 66A - Constitutional validity of - Held: s. 66A is violative c of Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved under Article 19(2) - It arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such rights and the reasonable restrictions imposed thereupon - the expressions used in s. 66A are open ended, vague and D undefined - The reach of the section is such that it has a chilling effect on free speech and thus suffers from the vice . of overbreadth - Therefore, s. 66A as a whole is declared unconstitutional - Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 19(1) (a) E and 19(2). s. 66A - Whether constitutionally invalid on the touchstone of Art. 14 of the Constitution - Held: There is an intelligible differentia between speech on the internet and other mediums of communication - Hence s. 66A is not violative F of Art. 14 - Constitution oflndia, 1950-Art. 14. s. 69A and Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) G Rules, 2009 - Constitutional validity of- Held: s. 69A as well as the Rules are constitutionally valid - s. 69A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards under the Rules - Merely absence of certain additional safeguards as provided ulss. 95 and 96 Cr.P. C. does not make the Rules H 963 964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 5 S.C.R. A constitutionally infirm - Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss. 95 and 96. B s. 79 and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011- Constitutional validity of- Held: s. 79 is valid, subject to s. 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being modified by the appropriate Government C or its agency that unlawful acts re/atab/e to article 19(2) are going to be committed, and then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material - Similarly the Rules are valid, subject tor. 3(4) being read down in the same manner as s. 79(3)(b) - Information Technology (Intermediary D Guidelines) Rules, 2011- r. 3(4). Kera/a Police Act, 1960 : s. 118 - Legislative competence of- Challenged - Held: E The Act as a whole ands. 118 as part thereof falls in pith and substance within Entry 2 List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution - Even otherwise, the penalty created for causing annoyance in an indecent manner in pith and substance would fall within Entry 1 List Ill and would thus be F within the competence of the State Legislature - Constitution of India, 1950- Seventh schedule, List II, Entry 2; List Ill Entry 1 - Doctrine of Pith and Substance. s. 118 - Constitutional validity of - Held: s. 118 suffers from G the vice of vagueness and overbreadth - Thus violates Art. 19(1 )(a) and since not saved under any of the subject matters contained in Art. 19(2), hence is unconstitutional. Statutes - Challenge to the vires of - Ground for - Held: H Possibility of abuse of a statute is not a ground to test its SHREYASINGHALv. UNION OF INDIA 965 validity, if the statute is otherwise valid. A Doctrine of Severability -Applicability of- Discussed. Words and Phrases: 'Reasonable restrictions' - Meaning of, in the context of Art. B 19(2) of the Constitution. Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1. When it comes to democracy, liberty of c thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under the constitutional scheme. There are three concepts which are fundamental in understanding the reach of this most basic of human rights i.e. "freedom of speech and o expression". The first is discussion, the second is advocacy, and the third is incitement. Mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular it is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of E incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in~ It is at this stage that a law may be made curtailing the speech or · expression that leads inexorably to or tends to cause public disorder or tends to cause or tends to affect the sovereignty & integri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.