About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

9 Supremo Amicus 55 (2019)
Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73

handle is hein.journals/supami9 and id is 65 raw text is: SUPREMO AMICUS VOLUME 9 ISSN: 2456-9704 SHREYA SINGHAL V/S UNION OF INDIA (2013) 12 SCC 73 By Anshika Bhadauria From Banasthali Vidyapith, Bansthali. Abstract The internet is the first thing that the humanity has built that humanity does not understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had Eric Schmedit. Fundamental right of speech and expression is an indispensible right granted by the Constitution besides the question stands whether such right can be defied where, the legislature creates a law having an overriding effect over the fundamental rights? This case irons out the position that regardless of importance of a provision, The Fundamental Right of Speech and Expression shall withstand. Law changes according to society; Society changes law , this phrase meticulously epitomizes the case, as by the virtue of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 Section 66A, Section 69A and Section 79 were introduced because of technological shift in the society, whereas in 2015 Section 69A was struck down as it was against the interest of society and is 'Contradictio in Adjecto'. Section 69A was much mooted amongst the denizens, but as an 'infamy'. Stepping to the fore, Honourable Supreme Court of India has declared a censorship law as felonious. Background Two girls namely Rim Srinivasan and Shaheen Dhada were arrested in 2012 as they communicated trepidation at Bandh on demise of Bal Thackrey. One girl shared her views on facebook and also mentioned that, an attack has been conducted by Shiv Sena activists on her Uncle's clinic, this post was liked by another girl and hence both the girls were arrested under Section 66A, as it is a cognizable offence under which an arrest can be made even without warrant. This incident turned last nail in the coffin and was protested all over the world. The petitioner in the said case contended, that Section 66A is not clear in phraseology i.e. the words are ill-defined and even an innocent can come under the jurisdiction of such law as it gives the government authorities a wide spectrum of arbitrariness also it is similar to the concept of Censorship and is insidious to Article 19. Section 66A is discriminatory, in the light of Article 14 and Article 21 as there is dearth of differentiation between crime committed by spoken words/writing v/s the crime committed by the means of using internet. Issues: / Whether Section 66A of IT Act infringes the fundamental right to speech and expression envisaged under Article 19? / Whether Section 66A of IT Act is covered under the parasol of Article 19(2)? Analysis of Arguments: Petitioner's argument: / Section 66A infringes the fundamental right of speech and expression as well as is not protected under Article 19(2). / Phraseology of Section 66A is vague and ambiguous in nature, as there are no limitations defined and is open to the law authorities to put forward any interpretation as the terms 'insult', www.supremoamicus.org 55

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most