Vodafone International Holding v UOI
- 2022-02-16
Citation: (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73
Decided On: March 24 2015
Bench: Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice R.F. Nariman
Facts : Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 became infamous after the arrests of two young women, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan by the Mumbai police officers who expressed their discontent on their social media platform at a bandh called in the wake of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray’s death. Several other cases with similar circumstances were reported in various parts of the country. It was felt that the police was misusing Section 66A which punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will in such a manner that it is violating the freedom of speech and expression. Therefore, a petition was filed in public interest questioning the validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Issues:
Judgment: It was argued by the petitioner that the Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is unconstitutional. They brought forth the point that the provision is violative of freedom of speech and expression i.e. Section 19(1) and does not fall under the eight subject matters considered to be reasonable restriction under Section 19(2). Moreover, the vagueness attributed to the provision gives unfettered power to the law enforcement and administrative agencies which could result in frequent violations of fundamental rights. Though the Respondents i.e. the government made several arguments opposing the points stated by the petitioner, the Supreme Court held that they did not amount to legitimate defenses to the validity of Section 66 A of the IT Act.
The Supreme Court concurred with the petitioner and stated that the arbitrary power bestowed on the police officer to arrest any user who expresses his/ her opinion that may be offensive to some without giving due regard to the form of communication is violative of the fundamental right. Further, it was noted that section 66A creates a lot of ambiguity and vagueness because unlike other offences in the Act, several relevant terms are either not defined or cannot be defined. This may lead to a situation wherein innocents are being roped in for offences they haven’t committed.
Section 66A was put to two tests namely – the test of danger and the probability of affecting public order i.e. creating public hatred. After analyzing several cases, it was stated that there should be a clear and present danger that is not remote, conjectural, or far-fetched. The chilling effect on speech due to Section 66 A was also noted to be a cause of concern. The court referred to cases such as Romesh Thapper v. State of Madras, Khushboo v. Kanniamal & Anr and Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh to conclude that Section 66 A is violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, it was noted that Section 69A, unlike Section 66A ,is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. Several measures are to be taken up by the government before the blocking order is passed. Hence, Section 69A of IT Act which provides the Central government power to block public access to online information was held constitutional.
Analysis: The verdict of the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case was a monumental achievement for advocates of free speech. The case gives a clear understanding as to what is the scope of Section 19 concerning freedom of speech and expression. The fact that Section 66A does not fall under the eight subject matters under Article 19(2) and therefore is bad in law shows the limited space given to the government in curbing the freedom of speech and expression.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India is certainly a judgment which presents us the right to freely express ourselves, to dissent and to oppose, to offend and to annoy, free of substantial interference from the state. It is without doubt a triumph for all the proponents of free online speech.
