SHREYA SINGHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA
Section 66(A) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, is violated the fundamental right to freedom of expression, under article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India was held by Supreme Court of India in the month of March 2015 while dealing with Public Interest litigation against section 66(A) of IT Act 2000 was filed in 2012, by a then 21-year-old law student, Shreya Singhal. In the Supreme Court, the bench of J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman, stuck down sec 66-A of I.T Act in entirely for being violative of Art. 19(1) (a) and not saved under Art. 19(2) of Constitution of India.
The petition said, “The phraseology of section 66(A) of the IT Act, 2000, is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, therefore, falls foul of articles 14, 19 (1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution…unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law, as it stands, is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country.”
A few years ago, several incidents sparked an outcry against section 66A. While the Maharashtra government arrested two girls in Palghar near Mumbai for criticising on Facebook a shutdown of Mumbai city during the funeral of former Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, a businessman in Puducherry was arrested for comments made on Twitter against Karti Chidambaram, son of former finance minister P Chidambaram. In another incident, Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor of chemistry at Jadavpur University in West Bengal, was arrested for posting a cartoon of state Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on a social networking site.
Post Contributed By:
Miss Rupa Pradhan
Asst. Prof. in Law
Indian Institute of Legal Studies
