BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Bench: J. Chelameswar, Rohinton Fali Nariman

CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.167 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHREYA SINGHAL … PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA … RESPONDENT

__________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT. PAGE NO.

1. LIST OF ABRIVATION. 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. 4

3. LEGISLATION. 5

4. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. 7

5. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 9

6. ISSUES WITH THE CASE. 10

7. ARGUMENT ADVANCED. 11

8. PRAYER. 13
List of Abbreviations

1. Vs. – Versus

2. Hon’ble – Honourable

3. SC – The Supreme Court

4. HC – High Court

5. Crl. – Criminal

6. Ors. – Others

7. i.e. – Id Est

8. SCC – Supreme Court Cases

9. AIR – All India Reporter

10. PVS – Permanent Vegetative State

Index of Authorities
• Statutes
1. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000
2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950

• Sites Referred
1. https://www.aironline.in/
2. https://www.scconline.com/
3.
https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/37709.pdf
RELATED PROVISIONS: –

ARTICLE 66 A OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

ACT,2000-Section 66A defines the punishment for
sending “offensive” messages from a pc or any other
form of communication medium, such as a mobile phone
or a tablet, enforcing three years ‘ imprisonment and a
fine.

ARTICLE 14 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: –

Article 14 of the Constitution of India is as under: “the

State shall not deny the right to equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India.”

ARTICLE 19 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION: –

It states that – “everyone has the right to freedom of

opinion and expression; this right shall include freedom
to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.”

ARTICLE 19(1) (A):-

In India, freedom of the press has been suggested, in the

right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Article 19(1)(a) states
that all citizens shall have the right to freedom of
expression and freedom of speech.

ARTICLE 19(2):-

Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, authorizes

the government to fully implement the law, reasonable
restrictions on the freedom of expression “in the interest
of the public.”
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: –
There was a Bandh declared by the Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra, the death of the political leader of the Bal
Thakery.
Two little girls -Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan
expressed their displeasure at the bandh by posting a
comment on Facebook.
They were arrested by the Mumbai Police immediately, in
accordance with article 66 of the Information Technology
Act, for the sake of the post, and register for a response,
which can be the cause of irritation, & hatred in the
minds of the public at large.
Fast, the girls were released, but then it went to a great
public protest, and the attention of the media, claiming
that it violates the right to freedom of Expression
guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution.
It was also said that the police are abusing their power,
and by the invocation of article 66 of the I. T Act, which
allows police to investigate the cases provided without
warranty of any kind. This has led to a major arrest of
innocent people, just because they express their views
and visions, which, according to the Government, it was
Distasteful Content.
After this incident, in 2013, the Central Government
issued an advisory on the basis of which a person may be
arrested without a prior written approval of the Inspector-
General of Police. A wide variety of applications that have
been submitted in accordance with Article 32 of the
constitution challenging the validity of section 66 – A of
the I. T act, as amended.
The supreme court strucked all of ”his is in (P. I. L), and
the case has been referred to as the Shreya Singhal vs.
union of India.
FACTS OF THE CASE: –
• The main issue was whether section 66A of the ITA
had been otherwise violated while imparting the
right to freedom of speech and freedom of
expression, as guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of
the Constitution of India. As an exception to the
law), Article 19(2) permits the government to
impose reasonable restrictions and limitations . . .
in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, security of State, friendly relations with
foreign States, public order, decency or morality,
or in relation to contempt, court, defamation or
incitement to an offence.”
• The plaintiffs asserted that section 66A is
unconstitutional, because the proposed protection
from annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstacles,
insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or when they
are ill, this is outside the scope of application of
Article 19, paragraph 2). They also argued that the
law was unconstitutionally vague if it does not
explicitly define it, is strictly prohibited. In
addition, they argued that the law was a “chilling
effect” on freedom of expression.
• The government, on the other hand, argued that
the legislature is in the best position to satisfy the
needs of the people and the courts are not to
interfere with the proper working of the
legislative process, which is “an act, it is clearly in
conflict with the rights granted to its citizens, in
accordance with Part III of the Constitution” [doc.
 6] the government argued that the mere presence
of abuse of a provision is not a basis for declaring
that the rule is contrary to the constitution of the
country.
• The government also believed that the language
of the act could not be a ground for nullity, as the
law is concerned with the methods, the
disturbance of the rights of the people are using
the internet.
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT: –
Subsequent issues were raised before the court –
1)Whether Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act,2000 is constitutionally valid or
not?
2)Whether Section 66A of Information
Technology Act, 2000 violated the Fundamental
Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression or not?
3)Whether the vagueness of Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act,2000 can be a ground
to declare any statute unconditional especially
when it’s not arbitrary in nature?
ARGUMENT ADVANCED:
Arguments raised by Respondent: –

The Respondent argued that the constitutional

validity of section 66, and noted that the
legislature is in the best position to understand
and appreciate the needs of the people.

And the courts will only step in when a law is

clearly violative of Part Ⅲ and there is
presumptions in favour of constitutionality of the
law in question.

The Court of law can interpret the law in a manner

which makes it justly enforceable and while doing
so the intricacies of the provisions can also be
read down by it.

The next objection is, that the mere possibility of

abuse of this section, the police could not be a
ground for declaring the section makes no sense.
The abuse of legislation by the executive
authorities cannot be a sole reason to pronounce
the law ultra-vires to the Constitution of India.
The other objection of the defendant was that the
vagueness of the language cannot be accepted as a
reason to lay down the statute unconstitutional by
the articles of association. It must be authorized
by the law.

In addition, the language of the section does not

contain all of the terms and conditions for a
person to be able to use the internet to infringe
upon the rights of others.
 PRAYER
In the light of the issues raised, arguments
advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly
prayed and implored before this Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India that it may graciously grant as
follows:

1. To ensure that the present Writ Petition

under Art 32 of the Constitution of India is
not maintainable before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India.
2. Further to hold section 66(A) of the IT
Act,2000 as Constitutionally valid.

AND /OR
Pass any other direction or relief that this
Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of
Justice , Equity and Good Conscience.

All of which humbly and respectfully submitted.

Counsel on the behalf of the

Respondent

Vaishnavi Mankar LL.B III (87 B)