About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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


ISSN: 2456-9704

INDIA (2013) 12 SCC 73
By Anshika Bhadauria
From Banasthali Vidyapith, Bansthali.
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.
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.
/ 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
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',


What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most