Progression of Information Technology Act 2000 and the Role of Judicial Construal

In an age of technological innovation and increased use of social media, every person portrays one or other viewpoint that is relevant to politics, current affairs and many other subjects, but what if one could be legally convicted for expressing opinions. The landmark judgment of Shreya Singhal Case , if any person posts “offensive content” on social media may be arrested under the section 66A of the IT Act, this was held unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took cognizance of all petitions pertaining to the constitutionality of provisions relating to 66A, 69A, and 79 of the IT Act of 2000, as well as the regulations issued under those sections. Pursuant to section 66 A of IT Act where in there where the arrests being made which were violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. This legislation, arbitrarily unfairly and disproportionately, infringes the right to freedom of expression and has no immediate connection with the stimulation to commit an offence. The apex court for indepth study for impact and content of free speech was comprehensively focused on American judgments. In addition, the Supreme Court recognized that the same degree of procedural oversight must be extended to laws that aim to restrict internet content as would be applied to laws that regulate more conventional media. This landmark Judgment signifies the triumph of freedom of expression in India.