Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

ISC-144 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
(ix) In case of other mediums, it is impossible to
maintain anonymity as a result of which
speech ideal opinions films having serious
potential of creating a social disorder never
gets generated since its origin is bound to be
known. While in case of an internet mostly
its abuse takes place under the garb of
anonymity which can be unveiled only after
thorough investigation.
(x) In case of other mediums like newspapers,
television or films, the approach is always
institutionalized approach governed by
industry specific ethical norms of self
conduct. Each newspaper / magazine /
movie production house / TV Channel will
have their own institutionalized policies in
house which would generally obviate any
possibility of the medium being abused. As
against that use of internet is solely based
upon individualistic approach of each
individual without any check, balance or
regulatory ethical norms for exercising
freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19[ 1] [a].
(xi) In the era limited to print media and
cinematograph; or even in case of
publication through airwaves, the chances of
abuse of freedom of expression was less due
to inherent infrastructural and logistical
constrains. In the case of said mediums, it
was almost impossible for an individual to
create and publish an abusive content and
make it available to trillions of people.
Whereas, in the present internet age the said
infrastructural and logistical constrains have
disappeared as any individual using even a
smart mobile phone or a portable computer
device can create and publish abusive
material on [his] own, without seeking help
of anyone else and make it available to
trillions of people by just one click.”
28. As stated, all the above factors may make a
distinction between the print and other media as
opposed to the internet and the legislature may
well, therefore, provide for separate offences so
far as free speech over the internet is concerned.
There is, therefore, an intelligible differentia
having a rational relation to the object sought to
be achieved – that there can be creation of
offences which are applied to free speech over the
internet alone as opposed to other mediums of
communication. Thus, an Article 14 challenge
has been repelled by us on this ground later in
this judgment. But we do not find anything in the
features outlined by the learned Additional
Solicitor General to relax the Court’s scrutiny of
the curbing of the content of free speech over the
internet. While it may be possible to narrowly
draw a Section creating a new offence, such as
Section 69A for instance, relatable only to speech
over the internet, yet the validity of such a law
will have to be tested on the touchstone of the
tests already indicated above.
29. In fact, this aspect was considered in Secretary
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government
of India v. Cricket Association of Bengal, (1995) 2
SCC 161, in para 37, where the following
question was posed:
“The next question which is required to be
answered is whether there is any distinction
between the freedom of the print media and that
of the electronic media such as radio and
television, and if so, whether it necessitates more
restrictions on the latter media.”
This question was answered in para 78 thus:
“There is no doubt that since the airwaves/
frequencies are a public property and are also
limited, they have to be used in the best interest
of the society and this can be done either by a
central authority by establishing its own
broadcasting network or regulating the grant of
licences to other agencies, including the private
agencies. What is further, the electronic media is
the most powerful media both because of its
audiovisual impact and its widest reach covering
the section of the society where the print media
does not reach. The right to use the airwaves and
the content of the programmes, therefore, needs
regulation for balancing it and as well as to
prevent monopoly of information and views
relayed, which is a potential danger flowing from
the concentration of the right to broadcast/
telecast in the hands either of a central agency or
of few private affluent broadcasters. That is why
the need to have a central agency representative
of all sections of the society free from control
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015
58