Author: Sakshi Rana
ABSTRACT
in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) represents a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the realm of digital rights and freedom of speech. This judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutional, reaffirming the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) and connecting it to the right to life and liberty of the person under Article 21 of the Constitution. This article explores the background, legal arguments, constitutional dimensions, and the transformative impact of this ruling on Indian democracy and internet governance.
INTRODUCTION
The internet, a global platform for sharing information, has revolutionized communication but also posed significant challenges to regulatory frameworks. In India, the Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted to address cyber-related concerns. However, certain provisions—especially Section 66A—were criticized for being vague, broad, and prone to misuse. The Shreya Singhal case challenged the constitutional validity of this provision, ultimately resulting in its annulment by the Supreme Court.
This article critically analyzes the judgment, its interplay with Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, and its wider implications for civil liberties and the regulation of digital spaces in India.
CASE BACKGROUND: WHAT LED TO THE SHREYA SINGHAL PETITION
The controversy began in 2012, when two young women—Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan—were arrested in Maharashtra for posting and “liking” comments on Facebook that criticized the bandh imposed following the death of a political leader, Bal Thackeray. They were booked under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which penalized sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication.
The arrest sparked national outrage. Civil rights activists, lawyers, and media outlets expressed concerns over the chilling effect on free speech. Shreya Singhal, a law student, moved a PIL in the Supreme Court questioning the constitutional validity of Section 66A of IT Act, 2000.
LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
Whether Section 66A of the IT Act violates the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Whether such a restriction could be saved under Article 19(2) as a reasonable restriction.
Whether the law violates upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Whether the provision is vague and arbitrary, violating Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Issue 1: Whether Section 66A of the IT Act violates the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?
Yes, the Supreme Court held that Section 66A violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Reasoning:
Section 66A imposed criminal liability for online speech that was “grossly offensive,” “annoying,” or caused “inconvenience.” These expressions were deemed vague, subjective, and overbroad.
The Court held that these terms could cover protected speech, including political dissent, satire, humor, or unpopular views.
Justice Nariman emphasized that mere possibility of abuse is not a valid ground for upholding a law that restricts fundamental rights.
The Court cited U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence and held that freedom of speech must include protection for unpopular or even offensive speech, as long as it does not incite violence or create public disorder.
“Discussion or even advocacy of a cause however unpopular at its core is the substance of Article 19(1)(a).” — Justice R.F. Nariman.
Issue 2: Whether such a restriction could be saved under Article 19(2) as a reasonable restriction?
No, Section 66A of the act could not be saved under Article 19(2) of Constitution of India.
Reasoning:
Article 19(2) provides grounds on which freedom of speech can be reasonably restricted, such as in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, public order, decency, morality, defamation, etc.
The Court observed that Section 66A was not narrowly tailored to meet any of these specific grounds.
The expressions used in 66A did not explicitly link the speech to incitement, public disorder, or other protected restrictions.
Thus, it failed the test of proportionality and necessity, both of which are essential for determining the constitutionality of a speech restriction.
“Section 66A has no proximate relation to any of the eight subject matters in Article 19(2) and hence cannot be sustained.” — Justice R.F. Nariman
Issue 3: Whether the law violates upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21?
Yes, the Supreme Court held that Section 66A violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
Reasoning:
The Court found that the arbitrary and broad language of the law gave excessive discretion to law enforcement agencies, resulting in unjustified arrests and harassment.
The lack of procedural safeguards meant that individuals could be deprived of liberty without just cause or fair process.
The judgment stressed that liberty of thought and expression is an essential component of personal liberty, and its arbitrary curtailment is a direct violation of Article 21.
“Arbitrary application of a law which curtails speech chills the constitutional guarantee of liberty under Article 21.” — Justice Nariman
Issue 4: Whether the provision is vague and arbitrary, violating Article 14 (Right to Equality)?
Yes, Section 66A was held to be vague, arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Reasoning:
The Court held that the expressions in the provision were not defined in the Act or anywhere else in Indian law, leaving it open to subjective interpretation by police and authorities.
This allowed discriminatory enforcement, as what constituted “annoying” or “grossly offensive” varied from person to person.
The lack of intelligible differentia and absence of a rational nexus with the law’s objective led to a violation of the right to equality under Article 14.
“When no clear standards are laid down by the legislature, the law becomes unworkable and violative of Article 14.” — Court’s observation
SECTION 66A OF THE IT ACT, 2000: THE DISPUTED PROVISION
Section 66A criminalized the sending of messages through a computer resource or communication device that were:
Grossly offensive or menacing,
Known to be false, and meant to annoy, cause inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will
Sent continually by utilizing a computer or communication device.
Penalty: Imprisonment for a maximum of three years and a fine.
Critics argued that the language used in the provision—like “grossly offensive” and “annoyance”—was excessively vague and subjective, making it prone to arbitrary enforcement.
SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT IN SHREYA SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA [(2015) 5 SCC 1]
Bench: Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman
FINAL RULING: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety, declaring it unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 19(1)(a), 19(2), 21, and 14.
The judgment saved Indian democracy from a digital chilling effect, where citizens could have been jailed for mere opinions, criticism, memes, or satire.
Key Judicial Reasoning
1. Vagueness and Overbreadth
The Court concluded that the words employed in Section 66A were undefined and vague. Words like “annoying” or “grossly offensive” could mean different things to different people. The lack of clear boundaries created scope for misuse by law enforcement.
“What may be offensive to one may not be offensive to another… Such expressions are incapable of precise definition.” — Justice Nariman
2. Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a))
The Court reaffirmed that free speech includes the right to criticize, dissent, and express unpopular opinions. The provision criminalized even innocuous or trivial content, thereby disproportionately curtailing freedom of expression.
Section 66A failed the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2), which allows restrictions only in cases involving:
Security of the State,
Public order,
Decency or morality,
Defamation,
Incitement to an offence, etc.
Section 66A’s broad scope went far beyond these permissible grounds.
3. Article 21 of COI: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The judgment emphasized that the arbitrary and unchecked power of arrest under Section 66A posed a direct threat to personal liberty under Article 21. Citizens were subjected to harassment and detention for merely expressing views online.
“A law that gives unfettered power to arrest based on subjective interpretation of content is a direct violation of Article 21.”
4. Article 14 of COI: Equality Before Law
The provision lacked clear standards for distinguishing lawful and unlawful speech. This arbitrary enforcement violated Article 14’s guarantee of equal protection of law.
Post-Judgment Analysis: Sections 69A and 79
Section 69A (Blocking of websites)
Upheld as constitutional.
The Court found that Section 69A had sufficient procedural safeguards, including a hearing and a reasoned order.
Section 79 (Safe Harbour Provision)
The Court held that intermediaries (like social media platforms) are not liable for user-generated content unless they fail to comply with government orders or court directions to take down unlawful content.
Significance of the Judgment
Protection of Free Speech
This case marked a significant affirmation of the Indian judiciary’s commitment to uphold civil liberties. It became a pillar decision in defending online speech in the cyber era.
Internet and Constitutional Law
The verdict bridged the gap between constitutional freedoms and digital expression. It acknowledged that cyberspace is an essential avenue for exercising the right to speech.
Check on Arbitrary State Power
By invalidating a vague criminal provision, the judgment acted as a check on the state’s power to suppress dissent and criticism.
Public Discourse and Digital Democracy
The ruling has empowered journalists, artists, activists, and citizens to express themselves more freely online, fostering healthier public discourse.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
Provision
Description
Article 14
Right to Equality
Article 19(1)(a)
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Article 19(2)
Reasonable Restrictions on Free Speech
Article 21
Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Comparative Perspective
In countries like the United States, the First Amendment ensures strong protection of speech, even when it is offensive or unpopular. The Indian Supreme Court, through this judgment, aligned more closely with liberal democratic standards of free expression.
The IT Act, 2000 and Its Future
While Section 66A has been struck down, concerns remain about the overreach of digital surveillance, data privacy, and online censorship. The ruling highlighted the need for:
Clearer laws,
Judicial oversight,
Protection against unlawful surveillance,
Promotion of digital literacy.
Conclusion
The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India verdict is not just a milestone in constitutional law but a testament to the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democracy in the digital era. By striking down Section 66A, the Supreme Court protected the core values of free speech, personal liberty, and rule of law. It set a precedent for evaluating legislation through the lens of constitutional morality and digital age realities.
As India continues to develop its digital infrastructure and legal ecosystem, this judgment serves as a beacon for future reforms aimed at balancing regulation with freedom.
❓ Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000?
Section 66A criminalized sending “offensive” messages through electronic communication. It was criticized for being vague and used to arrest people for social media posts.
2. Why was Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 struck down?
It was held to be unconstitutional because it infringed the right of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) of Constitution of India and also was not saved by the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) . It was also found to be vague and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 21 of COI.
3. How does this case relate to Article 21 of Constitution of India?
The judgment linked Section 66A’s misuse to unlawful arrests and harassment, thereby infringing upon the right to personal liberty under Article 21.
4. Can the government still regulate online content?
Yes, but only under laws that are constitutionally valid and have procedural safeguards, such as Section 69A of the IT Act.
5. Do social media platforms bear responsibility for content posted by their users?
As per Section 79 of the IT Act, intermediaries are not liable unless they fail to remove unlawful content when ordered by the government or courts.
6. Is Section 66A of IT Ac still in force?
No. It was declared unconstitutional in 2015. However, there have been instances where police have continued to misuse the provision, prompting courts to intervene again.
References
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1
Supreme Court of India Judgment
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/
The Constitution of India
Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(2), and 21
Ministry of Law and Justice
https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india
The Information Technology Act, 2000
Sections 66A, 69A, and 79
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
https://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-act
Law Commission of India – 267th Report on Hate Speech (2017)
https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report267.pdf
PRS Legislative Research – Brief on IT Act and related laws
https://prsindia.org/
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) – Research on intermediary liability and digital rights
https://cis-india.org/
Journal of Indian Law and Society – Article: Freedom of Speech in the Internet Age: A Constitutional Analysis
https://jils.ac.in/
The Hindu – “SC strikes down Section 66A of IT Act,” March 24, 2015
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-strikes-down-section-66a-of-it-act/article7027375.ece
LiveLaw.in – Case reports and expert commentary
https://www.livelaw.in
Bar & Bench – Timeline and impact analysis of the case
https://www.barandbench.com
