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

ISC-168 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [IND-SC] (2015) 1 LAW
Any person who, –
(d) Causes annoyance to any person in an
indecent manner by statements or verbal or
comments or telephone calls or calls of any type
or by chasing or sending messages or mails by
any means;
shall, on conviction be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine not exceeding ten
thousand rupees or with both.”
103. Learned counsel first assailed the Section on
the ground of legislative competence stating that
this being a Kerala Act, it would fall outside
Entries1 and 2 of List II and fall within Entry 31
of List I. In order to appreciate the argument we
set out the relevant entries:
“List - I
31. Posts and telegraphs; telephones, wireless,
broadcasting and other like forms of
communication.
List - II
1. Public order (but not including the use of any
naval, military or air force or any other armed
force of the Union or of any other force subject
to the control of the Union or of any contingent
or unit thereof in aid of the civil power).
2. Police (including railway and village police)
subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I.”
The Kerala Police Act as a whole would
necessarily fall under Entry 2 of List II. In
addition, Section 118 would also fall within Entry
1 of List II in that, as its marginal note tells us, it
deals with penalties for causing grave violation of
public order or danger.
104. It is well settled that a statute cannot be
dissected and then examined as to under what
field of legislation each part would separately
fall. In A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras, [1957]
S.C.R. 399, the law is stated thus:
“The position, then, might thus be summed up:
When a law is impugned on the ground that it is
ultra vires the powers of the legislature which
enacted it, what has to be ascertained is the true
character of the legislation. To do that, one must
have regard to the enactment as a whole, to its
objects and to the scope and effect of its
provisions. If on such examination it is found
that the legislation is in substance one on a
matter assigned to the legislature, then it must be
held to be valid in its entirety, even though it
might incidentally trench on matters which are
beyond its competence. It would be quite an
erroneous approach to the question to view such
a statute not as an organic whole, but as a mere
collection of sections, then disintegrate it into
parts, examine under what heads of legislation
those parts would severally fall, and by that
process determine what portions thereof are intra
vires, and what are not.” (at page 410)
105. It is, therefore, clear that the Kerala Police
Act as a whole and Section 118 as part thereof
falls in pith and substance within Entry 2 List II,
notwithstanding any incidental encroachment that
it may have made on any other Entry in List I.
Even otherwise, the penalty created for causing
annoyance in an indecent manner in pith and
substance would fall within Entry 1 List III which
speaks of criminal law and would thus be within
the competence of the State Legislature in any
case.
106. However, what has been said about Section 66A
would apply directly to Section 118(d) of the Kerala
Police Act, as causing annoyance in an indecent
manner suffers from the same type of vagueness
and over breadth, that led to the invalidity of
Section 66A, and for the reasons given for
striking down Section 66A, Section 118(d) also
violates Article 19(1)(a) and not being a reasonable
restriction on the said right and not being saved under
any of the subject matters contained in Article 19(2) is
hereby declared to be unconstitutional. (emphases ours)
Section 69A and the Information Technology
(Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for
Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
107. Section 69A of the Information Technology
Act has already been set out in paragraph 2 of the
judgment. Under sub-section (2) thereof, the 2009
Rules have been framed. Under Rule 3, the
Central Government shall designate by
notification in the official gazette an officer of the
Central Government not below the rank of a Joint
Secretary as the Designated Officer for the
purpose of issuing direction for blocking for
Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015
82