A Maharashtra government panel has recommended amending the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to specifically criminalize defamatory social media posts, reviving the spirit of the now-struck-down Section 66A of the IT Act. This raises critical constitutional questions about balancing free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with the right to reputation (Article 21), especially after the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) for vagueness and overbreadth. For exam aspirants, understanding the legal framework of defamation, the concept of reasonable restrictions, and the proportionality standard is crucial.
Exam Lens
Quick Exam Facts From News
1-Minute Revision
- ›Section 66A struck down: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
- ›Criminal defamation upheld: Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
- ›Target this Data: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A of IT Act for vagueness and overbreadth.
- ›Target this Nodal Body: Maharashtra Government Panel on defamatory social media content; amendment to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
- ›Target this Legal Point: Article 19(2) of the Constitution explicitly lists defamation as a ground for reasonable restrictions on free speech.
Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.
Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.