In which one of the following cases, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the year 2015?

Correct option is B

The correct answer is (b) Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Explanation

On March 24, 2015, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, delivered the landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in its entirety.

The Court ruled that Section 66A was unconstitutional because:

• Vagueness: The terms used in the section (like "annoyance," "inconvenience," and "grossly offensive") were not defined. This left the law open to arbitrary interpretation by the police.
• Violation of Article 19(1)(a): It restricted the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression in a way that was not "narrowly tailored" to the specific reasonable restrictions allowed under Article 19(2).
• Chilling Effect: The Court observed that such a vague law creates a "chilling effect" on free speech, where individuals refrain from expressing themselves for fear of being arrested.

Information Booster:

Section 66A was added to the IT Act via the 2008 Amendment. It prescribed up to three years of imprisonment for sending "offensive" messages through a computer or communication device. The law came under heavy fire after several high-profile arrests were made for political satire and social media posts, most notably the arrest of two girls in Palghar for a Facebook post regarding a Mumbai 'bandh'.

Key Outcomes of the Verdict:

1. Section 66A Struck Down: It is now void and cannot be used to book anyone.
2. Section 69A Upheld: The power of the government to block websites for national security was upheld, provided procedural safeguards are followed.
3. Section 79 "Read Down": Intermediaries (like Facebook or X) are only required to take down content when they receive a court order or a government notification, rather than deciding what is "illegal" themselves.

Additional Knowledge

The other cases mentioned in the options are also significant in the history of Indian Cyber Law and Evidence Law:

• (a) Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana (2015): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a Compact Disc (CD) or any electronic record is a "document" under Section 294 of the CrPC (now BNSS). The court ruled that the accused has a right to have such electronic evidence played or examined in court to prove their innocence.
• (c) Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2005/2012): This is famously known as the Bazee.com case. It involved the sale of an obscene MMS clip on an auction website. The Supreme Court eventually held that the CEO could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of a third-party user unless the company itself was prosecuted as an accused.
• (d) Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004): This case is historic as the first conviction under the IT Act in India. It involved a man who posted defamatory and obscene messages about a woman in a Yahoo group after she rejected his marriage proposal. He was convicted under Section 67 of the IT Act.