Authored By: M. Kavya Sri
Kl University
CASE TITLE: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
CITATION: (2015) 5 SCC 1
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice J.S. Kehar and Justice Rohinton F. Nariman
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24 March 2015
PARTIES INVOLVED:
Petitioner: Shreya Singhal, a law student who filed the Public Interest Litigation challenging Section 66A of the IT Act.
Respondent: Union of India (Government of India), defending the constitutionality of Section 66A under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
INTRODUCTION:
The Shreya Singhal case is a landmark judgment in India that fundamentally shaped Freedom of Speech and Expression in the digital era. This case challenged Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized sending online messages that were “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” or caused “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.”
Section 66A was widely misused, leading to arrests for ordinary online posts that were critical or humorous in nature. For example, in Maharashtra in 2012, two young women were arrested for posting comments on Facebook criticizing a political bandh (general strike), which the police claimed caused ‘annoyance’ to the public1. In another incident the same year, a male student was detained for posting comments criticizing political leaders and government policies. In both cases, the posts did not incite violence or hatred, yet they led to police action.
Other incidents included arrests for sharing jokes, memes, or sarcastic commentary on social media2. In some cases, citizens were booked simply for criticizing public officials or government policies, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the law. These incidents created a sense of fear.
Recognizing this misuse, Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court. She argued that Section 66A was vague, overbroad, and unconstitutional, violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and preventing citizens from exercising their right to free speech. The PIL became a watershed moment in digital rights in India, highlighting the importance of protecting citizens’ freedom of expression online.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In 2012, Mumbai police arrested two young women, Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, for posting comments on Facebook expressing their disapproval of a bandh (general strike) called following the death of Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray. Their posts were peaceful opinions and did not incite violence or hatred. However, the police invoked Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, alleging that the posts caused “annoyance” to the public. The arrests sparked nationwide outrage, with activists, media, and citizens condemning the action as an abuse of authority. The girls were eventually discharged, and the criminal cases against them were dropped, but the incident highlighted the potential misuse of Section 66A to suppress free speech.
Section 66A is a cognizable offense, which allows the police to arrest individuals without prior approval or a warrant. This broad power led to numerous arrests across India for online posts, opinions, or satire that were entirely lawful and non-threatening. Many people were booked simply for expressing political criticism or dissenting views, while the government categorized such posts as “objectionable content.” This created a climate of fear among internet users, discouraging citizens from expressing themselves freely on social media and highlighting the law’s vagueness and overreach.
In response to the growing concern over arbitrary arrests, the Central Government issued an advisory in January 2013 stating that no person should be arrested under Section 66A without prior approval from the Inspector General of Police or a senior officer. This advisory aimed to prevent misuse of authority, but it was seen as a temporary measure, as the law itself remained overbroad and vague, capable of curtailing constitutional rights.
The present case arose from a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging Section 66A as violative of Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. The petition was filed to prevent further misuse and chaos caused by arbitrary enforcement of the law, particularly after the arrests of Dhada and Srinivasan. The matter consolidated several writ petitions that challenged the validity of Section 66A and other related provisions of the IT Act, emphasizing the constitutional importance of protecting free speech in the digital age.
It is also important to note that Section 66A was not originally part of the IT Act, 2000. It was introduced through an amendment to address the rise of cybercrimes. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment highlighted that the rapid growth of computer and internet use had led to crimes such as publishing sexually explicit material online, video voyeurism, breaches of confidentiality, identity theft, phishing, and sending offensive messages via mass communication services. While the amendment’s objective was to tackle cybercrime, the law’s language was vague and overly broad, allowing authorities to apply it even in cases of lawful online dissent or political commentary.
Section 66A prescribed punishment for three main types of offenses. First, it criminalized sending information that is grossly offensive or menacing in character. Second, it targeted sending false information through computer resources that caused annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, hatred, or criminal intimidation. Third, it penalized sending electronic messages with the intent to annoy, inconvenience, or mislead someone about the origin of the message. The broad wording of these provisions gave authorities wide discretion, making it possible to misuse the law against individuals exercising their constitutional right to free expression online3.
ISSUES ARISED:
- Did Section 66A violate Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression)?
- Were the restrictions in Section 66A reasonable under Article 19(2)?
- Did vague terms like “grossly offensive” and “menacing” make the law susceptible to misuse ?
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:
The petitioners contended that Section 66A of the IT Act was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They emphasized that the law’s vague and broad language created uncertainty, as terms like “grossly offensive” and “menacing” were subjective and undefined, leaving law enforcement with excessive discretion. This ambiguity, they argued, posed a serious threat to free speech, because ordinary citizens could not predict whether their online messages might invite criminal prosecution.
The petitioners also highlighted the chilling effect the law had on online expression. Many users, fearing arrest or harassment, began self-censoring their social media activity, refraining from political debate, satire, or even harmless criticism of public figures and government policies. The arrests of Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, as well as other high-profile cases, were cited as clear examples of arbitrary enforcement, showing that Section 66A was used more to suppress dissent than to prevent genuine harm.
They further argued that the punishments under Section 66A were disproportionate. With imprisonment of up to three years possible for posts that were merely annoying or inconvenient, the law imposed excessive and unjust penalties for minor acts. Such harsh consequences, they claimed, were not justified and reinforced the law’s overreach.
Additionally, the petitioners pointed out that Section 66A violated international norms on freedom of expression, which emphasize the protection of digital speech. They argued that the misuse of the law set a dangerous precedent where governments could curb dissent and critical commentary online, undermining democracy and individual liberties4.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:
The Union of India defended Section 66A by asserting that it was necessary to regulate online communication and prevent messages that were offensive, menacing, or likely to disturb public order. They claimed the law was intended to protect citizens from harassment, threats, and misuse of digital platforms, not to restrict legitimate expression.
The government argued that Section 66A fell under Article 19(2), which allows reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech in the interest of public order, morality, or decency. They maintained that the law’s intent was to provide a protective mechanism, ensuring that social media and electronic communication were not misused to harm individuals or society.
They also emphasized the growing threat of cybercrime, including online harassment, offensive messages, and identity-related frauds. According to the government, Section 66A offered a legal framework to address these emerging challenges, allowing authorities to act against harmful content online.
However, the petitioners countered by showing that actual enforcement of the law demonstrated widespread misuse, with arrests occurring even when posts were harmless or critical of public officials. This, they argued, indicated that Section 66A was overbroad and arbitrary, making it impossible to reconcile with constitutional guarantees of free speech and expression5.
SUPREME COURT ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 66A in light of freedom of speech online. The Court held that freedom of speech extends to digital expression, including social media posts, emails, and other electronic communication.
The Court applied the reasonable restrictions test under Article 19(2) and found that Section 66A failed. Its terms were vague, undefined, and overbroad, granting authorities arbitrary discretion to decide what content could be punished.
The Court also observed the chilling effect of the law on online expression, noting multiple arrests for lawful posts, criticism, and satire. Such enforcement violated the very essence of democratic discourse.
Section 66A was struck down as unconstitutional, while other IT Act provisions, like Sections 69A and 79, were upheld for containing clear procedural safeguards and avoiding vagueness. The judgment emphasized that citizens have the right to post opinions online, subject only to narrowly defined restrictions like incitement to violence or hatred6.
JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court declared Section 66A unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a) and failing the test for reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The Court reaffirmed that online expression is protected speech, and laws must be precise and non-arbitrary. Other sections of the IT Act were upheld because they included clear safeguards and did not restrict free speech excessively7.
IMPACT OF THE JUDGEMENT:
The judgment had profound legal, social, and policy impacts. Legally, it strengthened the protection of online speech, setting a precedent for the digital era. Socially, it restored confidence among citizens to express opinions on social media, satire, and political commentary without fear of arrest. Policy-wise, it highlighted the importance of drafting precise laws that balance regulation with constitutional freedoms. Globally, the case became a benchmark for digital rights and free expression.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
While Section 66A was struck down, the judgment did not provide a comprehensive framework for online harassment or hate speech, leaving room for future legislation. The case demonstrates the Supreme Court’s role in defending fundamental rights, ensuring laws are not misused to curb free expression. The judgment is highly relevant today as social media continues to grow, offering guidance for balancing freedom with responsibility.
CONCLUSION:
The Shreya Singhal case is a landmark decision that reaffirmed citizens’ right to free expression online. It struck down a vague, overbroad law, strengthened democracy, and set a precedent for protecting constitutional freedoms in the digital age. The judgment illustrates that citizens can challenge arbitrary laws and that constitutional rights must be preserved, even in the era of social media.
Reference(S):
1Rajini Vaidyanathan, India Facebook Arrests: Shaheen and Renu Speak Out, BBC News (Nov. 26, 2012), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-20490823.
2 Abinav Sekhri & Apar Gupta, These Rights Aren’t Going to Fight Themselves!, Internet Freedom Foundation (Mar. 24, 2019), https://internetfreedom.in/these-rights-arent-going-to-fight-themselves/
3 Abhinav K. Shukla, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: A Critical Analysis, THE SOCIETY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW DISCUSSION (Apr. 10, 2024), https://www.tscld.com/shreya-singhal-v-union-of india-a-critical-analysis.
4Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/.
5Shreya Singhal (n. 4).
6Shreya Singhal (n. 4).
7Shreya Singhal (n. 4).
