Speech Online and Its Limits

In one line

The Supreme Court struck down the provision that made it an offence to send a grossly offensive or annoying message, and the reasons it gave are the test for every speech restriction online.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2); that section 69A and the Blocking Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid; and that section 79 is valid subject to section 79(3)(b) being read down so that an intermediary loses its immunity only on actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed and then fails to act.

What section 66A said, and the fact that it is void

Facts. Section 66A was inserted by the amendment of 2008. It punished a person who sent, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; or (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages. The punishment was imprisonment which may extend to three years and fine. Arrests followed for posts and messages of a kind that would not have been actionable in any other medium, and the constitutional validity of the section was challenged in a batch of writ petitions.

Held. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523, decided on 24 March 2015 by Chelameswar and Nariman JJ, summarised its own conclusions in four propositions. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2). Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid. Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down to mean that an intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a court order or on being notified by the appropriate government or its agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19(2) are going to be committed then fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to such material, and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 are valid subject to rule 3(4) being read down in the same manner. Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act is struck down as violative of article 19(1)(a) and not saved by article 19(2).