Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of the IT Act
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Court held that the provision punishing "offensive" online messages was vague and overbroad, and not saved by any reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
- Case
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- J. Chelameswar J., R.F. Nariman J.
- Decided
- 24 March 2015
- Case number
- W.P. (Crl.) No. 167 of 2012
- Citation
- (2015) 5 SCC 1
In 30 seconds
- Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in its entirety.
- Section 69A, which lets the government block online content, and its blocking rules were upheld.
- Section 79 was read down: platforms must remove content only on a court order or a government notification.
Background
Section 66A made it an offence to send information through a computer or phone that was “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, or sent to cause “annoyance” or “inconvenience”.
In 2012, two young women in Palghar, Maharashtra, were arrested over a Facebook post, one for writing it and one for liking it. Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a petition challenging the provision, which was heard with several others.
The issue
Does Section 66A violate the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), or is it a reasonable restriction permitted by Article 19(2)?
What the Court held
The Court distinguished between discussion, advocacy and incitement, and held that only incitement can be restricted. Words such as “annoying” and “grossly offensive” were undefined and could cover protected speech, creating a chilling effect.
Why it matters
The judgment remains the leading authority on free speech online in India. The Supreme Court has since directed that no one may be prosecuted under Section 66A.
Key terms
Chilling effect: when people stop speaking lawfully because a vague law might punish them.
Read down: when a court narrows how a provision is interpreted instead of striking it down.