Authored By: Khushi Tandon
Bharati Vidyapeeth, New Law College, Pune
Case Name- Shreya Singhl vs Union of India
Case Citation-
Shreya singhal vs Union of India(2015) 5 SCC 1[1] decided by the Supreme Court of India on 24 March 2015 by a division bench comprising Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Introduction-
With the advancement of technology and social media people have entered into a digital era where they can talk about their opinions digitally at the same time it also makes freedom of speech and expression concerning. The decision in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India plays a very important role because it has challenged the validity of Sections 66A and 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) . Earlier section 66A was considered a criminal offence for sending offensive texts through computer or communication device but its definition was broad and undefined which resulted in numerous arrests for posting social media posts, online comments or emails. This problem raised serious questions regarding its compatibility with the constitutional guarantee for free speech
In this case the petitioner was Shreya Singhal who under article 32 challenged the validity of sec 66 A of IT Act. The main question in this case was whether the restrictions which are present in sec 66A are consistent with article 19(1)(a) and 19(2)[2].
FACTS
As Internet and social media expanded its usage in India, the parliament had to introduce sec 66 A through IT Amendment act, 2008. This provision was criminal in nature therefore information sent through the internet which is offencive, menacing or caused annoyance,insult, injury, enmity, hatred or ill will were punishable with imprisonment of upto three years and fine. This act was highly criticised by the people because its wordings were broad and unclear. Many people were arrested for posting their opinions on the internet, posting comments, expressing their views. Soon after its enactment two young adults were arrested in Maharashtra for commenting on facebook, questioning the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a political leader.
The petitioner Shreya Singhal filed a writ petition in public interest under Article 32 of the constitution of India challenging the validity of section 66A[3], 69A[4] and 79A[5] of Information Technology Act, 2000 along with this the petitioner also challenged 118D of the Kerala Police act[6]. It was argued by the petitioner that restrictions in section 66A and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 violates the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under Article 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the constitution and sec 69 gives more power to the government to block online content.
The Supreme Court in its final judgement declared sec 66A And the Kerala Police Act, 2011 unconstitutional on the other hand it upheld the constitutional validity of sec 69 and 79 of IT Act however it interpreted the section more clearly and provided guidelines for the same.
Legal Issues-
Legal issues in this case included-
- Whether sec 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 violates article 19(1) and 19(2) of the India constitution which deals with freedom of speech and expression and reasonable restriction provided in clause 2.
- Whether the words such as “grossly offensive”, “annoyance”, “menacing”, etc. used in section 66A are broad and unclear?
- Whether section 69 and 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 are constitutionally valid ?
- Whether Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act can be struck down?
ARGUMENTS-
Petitioner’s Argument- the petitioner argues that section 66a of IT Act restricts the right to free speech and expression which is a fundamental right under article 19(1) and terms such as annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will are all outside the purview of restrictions provided in Article 19(2) of the India Constitution. They argued that the provisions written in this section are not defined and vague thus interpretation is needed by the law enforcement authorities.
They also argued that the power given to the government under section 69 also restricts the freedom of speech and expression because the government can block online contents. They said that this law should be exercised only with proper procedural safeguards in order to avoid any arbitrary action.
The petitioner also challenged Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act and said that it is similar to that of Section 66A of the IT Act therefore it was also out of the purview of reasonable restriction given in Article 19(2) and violative of Article 19(1)(a).
RESPONDENT ARGUMENT- The respondent argued that only the parliament has power to make laws regarding electronic communication and such laws were enacted in order to prevent cybercrime, maintain public peace and online defamation. It also argued that misuse of any law can not be held unconstitutional, the court can deal with such cases without making the law unconstitutional. Vagueness of the provisions is not the ground to declare a law unconstitutional , it can be declared unconstitutional when it is arbitrary or if it is beyond legislative competence of parliament
COURT REASONING-
The court examined whether sec 66A , 69 and 79 are clashing or not with the Fundamental rights provided in part 3 of the Indian constitution . After analysing the restriction written in these sections the court held sec 66A as unconstitutional due to the words such as grossly offensive, annoyance, inconvenience, hatred and ill will are vague and are not defined properly resulting in arbitrary arrests of the people and violating the rights of to freedom of speech and expression of such people. These rights are provided in part 3, Article 19(1) and 19(2) of the Indian constitution.
It was observed by the court that due to its criminal nature people might avoid expressing their opinions through the internet creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech therefore the court held that the provisions stated in the statute are not consistent with the article 19(1) and 19(2).
Section 69 and 79 were upheld by the apex court. The court analysed and held that unlike section 66 A, Sec 69 contains defined procedural safeguards therefore it is not arbitrary and is consistent with article 19(2) and the Indian Constitution.
For section 79 the court held that intermediaries and internet service providers have no right to block online content whether it is lawful or unlawful. Only intermediaries can do this after receiving court order or if the valid government has asked under section 69 of IT Act, 2000
JUDGEMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI-
The Supreme court declared Section 66A of Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental rights under Article 19(1) and (2)[7]. The court also struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 on similar grounds however the apex court upheld section 69 and sec 79 of IT Act,2000 stating these sections include sufficient procedural safeguards in order to avoid arbitrary exercise of power by the government. The court stated that only intermediaries can block the online content on court order or through the order of a valid government.
RATIO RECIDENDI
The supreme court held that the provisions of the law should be interpreted properly and clearly and it should be consistent with the fundamental rights of the India Constitution otherwise such provision can be held unconstitutional. The court held that online speech and offline speech both enjoy the same constitutional powers.
Lastly it also declared that discussions and advocacy are also a form of speech which are protected under Article 19(1)(a) however any speech amounting to incitement can be restricted under Article 19(2).
CRITICAL ANALYSIS- This landmark judgement has provided significant contributions. Firstly, it played an important role in strengthening the freedom of speech and expressions and all the other reasonable restrictions that are provided in article 19(2) of the India Constitution, protecting individuals from getting arrested for just talking and expressing their opinion through communication devices. By declaring sec 66A unconstitutional the court confirmed that nothing can violate the fundamental rights which are being protected by the Constitution of India. It also reaffirmed that constitutional rights should be applied equally whether it is online communication or offline communication.
Secondly the court stated that there are many kinds of speech such as discussion and advocacy. Discussion means expressing the opinion and advocacy means supporting or opposing any idea . The court clarified that both of them are protected forms of speech but speech given in incitement can be restricted Lastly the court saved intermediaries from being forced to remove any online content even if it is lawful.
Hence this decision recognised that computer and communication devices are important for exchanging ideas and opinions and political participation. It also strengthened the democratic values, encouraging the citizens to express themselves without any kind of fear.
Conclusion-
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India is a landmark judgement in which the Supreme Court of India advocated the importance of freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court decision on striking down section 66A and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, has protected citizens from arbitrary rules. It upheld section 69 and 79 of the Information TechnologyAct, 2000 in order to regulate the online content but through procedural safeguards. Lastly it established that laws should be consistent with the requirements of fundamental rights provided in India constitution Part III.
Bibliography
Table of Cases
- Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (SC).
Table of Legislation
- Constitution of India.
- Information Technology Act 2000.
- Kerala Police Act 2011.
Online Sources
- iPleaders, ‘Shreya Singhal v Union of India: The Case That Rejuvenated Liberty of Speech and Expression in the Country’ (accessed 2 July 2026).
- Indian Kanoon, ‘Shreya Singhal v U.O.I on 24 March 2015’ (accessed 2 July 2026).
- Manupatra Academy, ‘MANU/SC/0329/2015: Shreya Singhal v Union of India (UOI)’ (accessed 2 July 2026).
[1] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (SC).
[2] Constitution of India, arts 19(1)(a), 19(2).
[3]Information Technology Act 2000, s 66A.
[4]Information Technology Act 2000, s 69A.
[5] Information Technology Act 2000, s 79.
[6] Kerala Police Act 2011, s 118(d).
[7] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (SC).
