Published on: 26th November 2025
Authored by: Karen Nair
VIT Chennai
Introduction
Shreya Sinhal v. Union of India is a landmark judgement that redefined the boundaries of freedom of speech in the digital era. It challenges the constitutional validity of section 66(a) of the information technology act, 2000 (IT act) which criminalizes the sending of offensive messages through social media.[1] Given the lack of procedural safeguards the provision raised a huge uproar after the arrest of several innocent people dur to social media posts that were considered grossly offensive and annoying
The petitioners, led by law student Shreya Singhal, argued that Section 66A was vague, overbroad, and inconsistent with the protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The case also examined the validity of Section 69A (government blocking powers), Section 79 (intermediary liability), and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, bringing into sharp focus the struggle between state power and individual rights in the age of the internet.
By striking down Section 66A, the Supreme Court invoked core constitutional principles—clarity in penal statutes, necessity of reasonable restrictions, and the centrality of free expression—to protect online speech. The decision not only impacted India’s digital regulatory landscape but also resonated globally as a pivotal moment for internet freedoms in the world’s largest democracy
1. Case Title: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015 INSC 257
2. Citation: 2015 INSC 257
3. Court: Supreme Court of India
4. Bench: Justice Jasti Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
5. Date of Judgment: 24.03.2015
6. Relevant Statutes/Key Provisions:
- The Information Technology act Section – 2,43,66,67,69,79
- The Indian Penal Code Section – 24,25, 108(a), 108(b),124(a),153,155,195,294,295(a),499,505,510
- The Criminal Procedure Code Section – 3,95,96,113,196,
- The Indian Constitution Article – 13,14,19,21,32,226
- Kerela Police Act – 118(d)
7. Brief Facts
The facts of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India center on an incident in November 2012. Shaheen Dhada posted a comment on Facebook criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of politician Bal Thackeray, suggesting it stemmed from fear rather than respect. Rinu Shrinivasan liked the post and added a supporting comment. Local political activists filed a complaint, leading to the arrest of both women under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which criminalized sending “offensive” or “menacing” messages online, with a maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment. The arrests triggered widespread public backlash, and the charges were later dropped. Shreya Singhal, a law student, filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A, arguing it violated the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution[2]. This initiated the legal proceedings that followed.
8. Issues Involved
- Does Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution?
- Is the language of Section 66A, which criminalizes “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” or “annoying” online messages, too vague and overbroad to be constitutionally valid?
- Can Section 66A’s provisions be justified as reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2), such as for public order, decency, or morality?
- Does the ambiguity of Section 66A enable arbitrary enforcement, thereby chilling free expression online?
9. Arguments
Petitioner’s Arguments:
● The petitioner states that the sec 66(a) of the IT act is grossly in violation of article 19(1)(a) of the constitution i.e., right to freedom of speech and expression, stating that term such as ‘Grossly offensive’, ‘annoyance’, ‘menacing’ etc. are not defined, vague and subjective. The petitioner argues that as such the section will have a chilling effect i.e. The broad language would make people avoid legitimate speech out of fear, thus limiting the marketplace of ideas and curbing the public’s right to know.
● The petitioner states that section is also in violation of article 14 as it treats speech on social media differently form speech’s made in the media
● The section also doesn’t provide procedural safe guard to the accused as it allows cognizance and arrest without a victims complaint and thus violating article 21
● The petitioner also states that that the crime that are being covered by sec 66(a) of the IT act i.e. criminal intention defamation etc, are already covered other legislations in the IT act itself or the IPC
Respondent’s Arguments
● The respondent argues that the section is in constitutional and the court is not to interfere unless and until there is a violation of constitutional rights
● It is argued that the intent behind the establishment of sec 66(a) it to curb the rapid spread of harmful messages on the internet and the misuse of anonymity that it gives. The intent behind the section is to protect public order and address modern cyber crimes
● The vagueness in the law can not be solely the recon to invalidate a law and especially in case of crimes committed on the internet due to its broad nature
● The respondent also tried to establish a distinction between various media sources on the basis of factors such as reach anonymity and lack of pre-censorship and justifying the warrant of the different standards set for online communication
● The arrest don under section 66(a) followed the criminal procedure and the mere misuse by the officers can’t be held as a reason to strike down the law itself
10. Judgment
The two-judge bench, consisting of Justices J. Chelameswar and Justice R.F. Nariman, unanimously struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional[3]. The Court held that the provision violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It ruled that Section 66A did not fall within the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2), as its vague and overbroad terms failed to establish a clear connection to specific grounds like public order or national security. The Court also upheld the validity of Section 69A (blocking of websites) and Section 79 (intermediary liability) of the IT Act, finding them narrowly tailored and procedurally sound,[4] but emphasized that Section 66A’s blanket criminalization of online speech was impermissible. As a result, the law was nullified, marking a significant victory for digital free speech in India.
11. Ratio Decidendi
The court held that section 66(a) of the IT act was in violation of the article 19(1)(a) of the constitution and doesn’t fall under the exception mentioned in article19(2).The court stated that the section is vague and overboard as its language is undefined and thus subjecting protect and innocent speech to criminal action
The court also stated the sec 66(a) fails the proximate nexus test i.e. the terms used in the section don’t have proximate nexus to the to any of the exception mentioned in article 19(2). A mere inconvenience or nuisance can’t constitute a disruption to public order
The court also stated the section 66 (a) is in violation of the constitutional requirement for penal laws to be defined well enough for even the common man to understand so that the law doesn’t promote arbitrary action
The entire provision was struck down; it could not be saved by reading down or deleting problematic expressions, because its language was so wide that it covered both protected and unprotected speech.
12. Obiter Dicta
The court broadly discusses the difference between social media and other traditional and online medial sources and whether the unique nature constitutes serious control. The court held that in case the parliament want to make separate laws to govern social media they sill have be in concurrence with the constitution.
The court also talked about the chilling effect that the section will have on the people and cause them to self-censor message that are lawful and socially valuable speech due to fear of criminal prosecution. As per the court the other existing provision in the it act and the Indian penal code are sufficient to targets the harm under section 66(a)
The validation of Section 69A (blocking of websites) and Rule 3(4) of the Intermediary Guidelines (subject to reading down) are observations on related matters but not the core of the holding with respect to Section 66A.
In summary, the binding legal principle is the striking down of Section 66A for violating Article 19(1)(a) due to its vagueness, overbreadth, and lack of connection to Article 19(2) grounds. The extended discussions on the nature of internet speech, comparative constitutional law, and legislative competence are mostly obiter
13. Final Decision
The court held that section 66(a) of the IT act was unconstitutional along side section 118 of the Kerala police act as it face seminal problems of vagueness and overbreadth
The court held that section 69 (a) and other related blocking rules of 2006 are constitutionally valid as they had sufficient procedural safeguard
Section 79 of the IT Act (and rules) was held to be valid, but with a limitation: Section 79(3)(b) must be “read down” so that intermediaries are required to remove or disable access to content only upon receiving actual knowledge via a court order or government notification strictly conforming to Article 19(2) grounds.
[1] Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, § 66A http://legislative.gov.in/actsofparliamentfromtheyear/information-technology-amendment-act-2008 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A, arguing it violated the right to freedom of e
[2] Constitution of India, art 19(1)(a).
[3] Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 (SC).
[4] Information Technology Act, 2000, ss 69A, 79.
