Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 

Shourya Singh 

Student at National Law University, Jodhpur, India

on 8 August 2025.

Citation Number: (2015) 5 SCC 1 

Introduction

In its decision in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court of India decisively struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000(“The IT Act”), on the grounds of unconstitutionality. The case came before the court in the backdrop of intensifying concerns over abuses of Indian digital speech regulation law. Section 66A had criminalised the sending of offensive messages through communication services, but its vague and sweeping nature facilitated gross misuse and chilling of free speech. The verdict is landmark as it reaffirms the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression in the internet age and reaffirms the need for legislative specificity while curbing constitutional freedoms.

This commentary discusses the facts, legal issues, arguments, judicial reasoning, and broader implications of this case, a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law on digital freedom. 

Facts

The case's origin was the 2012 arrest of two teenage girls in Maharashtra under Section 66A of the IT Act. One had posted a Face book status wondering why Mumbai city was being closed down after a political leader died, and the other had simply liked the post. The arrest shocked the country, triggering public interest litigation (PIL) by law student Shreya Singhal, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A. 

Apart from Section 66A, the petition also challenged Section 69A of the IT Act, which provides  for blocking public access to online content, as well as Section 79(3)(b), which addresses  intermediary liability. However, the main challenge related to Section 66A, which was being frequently utilized to quell online criticism of political authority, thereby causing apprehensions regarding State arbitrariness.

Issues

The Supreme Court decided a host of constitutional and statutory issues in this case:

• Freedom of Speech: Whether Section 66A contravenes the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. 

• Reasonable Restrictions: Whether the provision is reasonable under any of the grounds for reasonable restrictions enumerated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 

• Vagueness and Over breadth: Whether the words in Section 66A of the IT Act are too imprecise, with no definitions to speak of, and liable to arbitrary interpretation. 

• Chilling Effect: Whether the threat of penal sanctions under the section has a chilling effect on legitimate free expression. 

• Intermediary Liability: Whether provisions under Section 79(3) (b) of the IT Act place unreasonable burdens on intermediaries to police speech.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Submissions:

The petitioners alleged that Section 66A of the IT Act was ultra vires to the Constitution as it contravened Article 19(1) (a) but was not a reasonable restriction available under Article 19(2). The section punished utterances only "grossly offensive," "annoying," or "inconvenient," words which were not defined in the Act and not known in popular legal terminology. The petitioners argued that those ambiguous words facilitated arbitrary arrests, suppressed dissent, and had a tangible chilling effect on online communication platforms.

The law was also argued to lack the ingredient of incitement to violence or public disorder, which is a condition precedent to allowable restrictions in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The petitioners referred to numerous instances in which the law has been used to muzzle public criticisms of public officials.

The Defence

The Union of India had rationalized Section 66A of the IT Act as a safeguard against cyber bullying, hate speech, and threats to national security. The government had asserted the internet to have a much greater reach and influence than other forms of media, and therefore needed to be more strictly regulated. They contended that imprecise words in the provision could reasonably be construed, and the Court should not invalidate law for chances of abuse. It was further contended that the provision fell within the scope of Article 19(2) of the Constitution, specifically on grounds of public order as well as defamation.

Judgment

Striking Down Section 66A:

The Supreme Court, with a unanimous judgment read by Justice Rohinton Nariman, declared Section 66A of the IT Act to be unconstitutional and void ab initio. The Court declared the provision to violate Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution and could not be salvaged by any of the reasonable restrictions enshrined in Article 19(2) Constitution. It pointed out that these words like "grossly offensive" or "menacing" were entirely subjective and no objective test or standard of application was provided. What may be offensive to A might be innocuous to B, and the choice would depend on the whim of the enforcing officer. This vagueness, the Court declared, rendered the law constitutionally defective.

Doctrine of Chilling Effect

The Court observed that Section 66A of the IT Act created a chilling effect on freedom of speech, since individuals were reluctant to express themselves because they did not want to be prosecuted. The potential of criminal prosecution without a proper legal standard stifled legitimate expression and debate, especially on matters political and social.

Over breadth and Proportionality

The Court held the provision to be overbroad, criminalizing a wide range of speech with no nexus to the legitimate interests of Article 19(2) of the Constitution. It held that any restriction on speech must be narrowly worded to the interest which it is designed to protect, which Section 66A of the IT Act was unable to do.

Section 69A and Intermediary Guidelines

Notably, the Court upheld the constitutional legitimacy of Section 69A of the IT Act, noting that it had proper procedural safeguards in the form of a hearing before blocking content. It read down Section 79(3) (b) of the IT Act    , while briefly addressed in the judgment, warrants deeper examination due to its significant implications for platform governance and content moderation. The provision places intermediaries in a delicate position, potentially requiring them to act against user content based on vague directives. Although the Court clarified that takedown obligations are limited to directives from courts or designated government agencies, this still raises concerns about due process, transparency, and the risk of undue pressure on digital platforms. A more thorough analysis of how these impacts the operational practices of tech companies and the speech rights of users would enrich the commentary, especially in the evolving landscape of online regulation. But noted that intermediaries would only need to act on court orders or notification from the relevant government agency, thus restricting arbitrary take-downs.

Legacy

The Shreya Singhal decision is a milestone decision in Indian cyber law and constitutional law. It has articulated clear doctrinal norms on the limits of speech regulation in the online environment:

• Reaffirmation of Free Speech: The decision reaffirmed that freedom of speech and expression is a pillar of democratic society and must be protected against vague and sweeping regulation. 

• Judicial Activism in Internet Era: When the Supreme Court is willing to strike down the whole clause as unconstitutional unless it is in a position to interpret the clause narrowly, then it is very much assertive on the side of preserving civil liberties and technological modernity.

• Blue prints  for Future Legislation: The ruling stated that legislation aimed at hindering free speech needs to prove clarity, proportionality, and necessity. It also halted discretionary powers to arrest based on subjective sentiments of hurt.

• Precedential Value: The case is now the benchmark for reviewing future legislation in the online environment. It is frequently cited in cases of online expression, privacy, and online surveillance.

• Awareness and Empowerment: The case generated further awareness among legal and public constituencies about rights within the online context, sparking debate and reform in cyber law enforcement.

Conclusion

The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment is a landmark ruling in Indian constitutional law history. By striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, the Supreme Court not only safeguarded personal freedom but also established a principled framework for weighing State interests against fundamental freedoms. The judgment gives a message to legislators that vague and overboard limits cannot clear constitutional standards. It also sets the judiciary's role to safeguard against parliamentarian overreach, especially in the complex and dynamic sphere of the internet. In a democracy and multiculturalism as Indian as the country India is, the rule is a beacon of light for the protection of digital rights and freedom of expression.

Sources 

• Bhadauria, A., 2019. Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India (2013) 12 SCC 73. Supremo Amicus, 9, p.55. 

• Thakkar, R.D., 2025. Legal Reactions to Online Hate Speech in India: Analyzing Section 66A and the Supreme Court's Ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Studies in Law and Justice, 4(3), pp.26-30. 

• The Constitution of India, 1950

• Information Technology Act, 2000. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/