Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (UOI) (24.03.

2015 - SC) : MANU/SC/0329/2015

Held, Petitioners were correct in saying that public's right to know was directly affected by Section 66A -
Petitioners were right in saying that Section 66A in creating offence against persons who use internet
and annoy or cause inconvenience to others very clearly affects freedom of speech and expression of
citizenry of India at large - Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades right of
free speech and upsets balance between such right and reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on
such right - Therefore, hold Section 66A was unconstitutional also on ground that it takes within its
sweep protected speech and speech that was innocent in nature - Therefore hold that no part of Section
66A was severable and provision as whole must be declared unconstitutional - Section 66A creates
offence which was vague and overbroad, and, therefore, unconstitutional under Article 19(1)(a) and not
saved by Article 19(2) –

Potluri Sri Bala Vamsi Krishna vs. The State of A.P. (22.12.2015 - APHC) : MANU/AP/0873/2015

Criminal - Conviction - Jurisdiction - Maintainability of appeal - Section 66 of Information Technology

Act, 2000 and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Present petition filed against order convicting
Petitioner/Accused for offences punishable under Section 66 of Act and Section 379 of Code - Whether
Magistrate can try any offence under Act and if so, along with any other Code offences or offence of any
other special law and if so, in event of conviction by Trial Court to which form appeal lies to say whether
it is to Court of Sessions or Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT) - Held, adjudicating officer even equated to
CAT has no jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate Chapter XI and part of Chapter XIII of Act offences with
or without any of provisions of Code or other laws as case may be - Office objection taken by Court of
Sessions for numbering appeal saying CAT is constituted and got jurisdiction from provisions is
untenable - From Act, jurisdiction of CAT is only civil jurisdiction as a substitute to Civil Court with bar of
civil suit and not for criminal proceedings - Appeal lies before Sessions division covered and not before
CAT and office objection of Court of Sessions for numbering appeals, is untenable

Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar (20.01.1962 - SC) : MANU/SC/0074/1962

The case questioned the constitutionality of the statute that penalized sedition and Dagduas conducing
to public mischief and further questioned whether it infringe the freedom of speech - The Court ruled
that the Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, that makes sedition an offence, was
constitutionally invalid - Further, though the section imposes restrictions on the fundamental freedom
of speech, the restrictions are in interest of the public order and are within the ambit of permissible
legislative interference with the fundamental right