In the 2015 landmark judgment Shreya Singhal vs Union of India the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, declaring it unconstitutional. This provision had criminalized sending "offensive" messages via communication services, but the Court found it to be overly vague and susceptible to misuse. It ruled that Section 66A violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and also infringed upon the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The verdict marked a crucial step in safeguarding online free speech in India affirming that digital expression is entitled to the same constitutional protections as traditional forms of speech. Learn about other important Landmark Judgements.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India Introduction

The landmark case Shreya Singhal v Union of India 2015 challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 which criminalized sending "offensive" electronic messages. The Petitioners in Shreya Singhal case argued that this provision violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Articles 19(1)(a), 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court in this case addressed the scope of free speech in the digital age and examined whether broad and vague legislative provisions can curtail online expression.

Download Free Shreya Singhal vs Union of India PDF

The Shreya Singhal case centers around the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision was introduced in 2009 which criminalized sending "offensive" messages through electronic communication. The Petitioners challenged it on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), Article 14 and Article 21 of Indian Constitution. The Shreya Singhal v Union of India case raised important questions about the scope of free speech in the digital age and the limits of legislative power in regulating online content. The following are the brief facts of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India -

Background

The Shreya Singhal case emerged from a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitions mainly challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which was introduced through an amendment in 2009 and came into effect on 27th October, 2009. The section criminalized sending “offensive” messages via electronic communication.

Contentions of Petitioners in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India

The Petitioners in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India argued that Section 66A violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and was not safeguarded by any of the reasonable restrictions mentioned under Article 19(2). The Petitioners in Shreya Singhal vs UOI contended that the terms used in the section such as "annoyance," "inconvenience," and "insult" were vague, undefined and susceptible to arbitrary interpretation. This vagueness, they argued, enabled misuse by authorities and amounted to a form of indirect censorship. The Petitioners in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India also contended that the law had a chilling effect on free speech, affecting both speakers and the right of the audience to access diverse viewpoints online. Additionally, it was argued that the law violated Article 14 due to discriminatory treatment of internet users and Article 21 for its adverse impact on personal liberty.

Contentions of the Respondent in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India

The Union of India in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India defended the validity of Section 66A of IT Act by asserting that legislative enactments are presumed valid unless proven to be clearly unconstitutional. The Government in the Shreya Singhal case contended that the mere possibility of misuse is not a valid ground for striking down a law. It also stated that the use of broad and flexible language in Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 was necessary to consider the evolving nature of online threats. Lastly, it also argued that vagueness alone does not render a provision unconstitutional if it is legislatively competent and non-arbitrary in application.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India Issue addressed

The following issues were addressed in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India -

• Constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000

The main issue in Shreya Singhal case was whether Section 66A of IT Act 2000 which criminalizes the sending of "offensive" messages through electronic communication, infringes the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The case Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India also examined whether the restrictions imposed by Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 qualify as “reasonable restrictions” under Article 19(2), or if the section is overly broad, vague and susceptible to arbitrary misuse.

• Validity of Sections 69A and 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India examined whether Sections 69A and 79 of IT Act are constitutionally valid and do not infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens especially the freedom of speech and expression.

• Constitutional Validity of Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act

Lastly, the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India analysed whether Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, which contains provisions related to police conduct or restrictions on public behavior, should be declared unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights or principles of natural justice and whether it should be struck down.

Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Section 66A, Section 69A, Section 2(v), Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000 and Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act played a significant role in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions:

Article 21 of Indian Constitution

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty which has been interpreted to include the right to access justice and a fair trial. In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Article 21 was invoked alongside Article 19(1)(a) to argue against Section 66A of the IT Act 2000. The Petitioners in Shreya Singhal case contended that Section 66A of IT Act not only violated freedom of speech but also infringed upon personal liberty under Article 21.

Section 66A of IT Act

Section 66A of Information Technology Act prescribes punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services. Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 was the primary focus of the Shreya Singhal case. The Petitioners challenged this provision on the grounds that it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The vague and overly broad language of the Section 66A terms like “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” and “insult” were argued to allow arbitrary and excessive restriction of free speech online. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India examined whether this provision unjustifiably curtailed free expression in the digital sphere and whether it was constitutionally sustainable.

Section 69A of IT Act

Section 69A of IT Act empowers the Central Government or its authorized officers to issue directions for blocking public access to any information through computer resources under specific circumstances like sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State etc.

Section 66A was the central issue in Shreya Singhal case but it also considered the constitutional validity of Section 69A of IT Act. The Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India analyzed whether this power, and the procedures governing it, were consistent with constitutional protections of free speech and due process. The issue was whether these blocking powers were reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of Constitution.

Section 2(v) of the IT Act

Section 2(v) of IT Act provides the legal definition of “information,” which is important because Sections 66A and 69A regulate the transmission and blocking of “information” via electronic means. Understanding what qualifies as “information” helped the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India to interpret the scope of Sections 66A and 69A and their impact on digital communication.

Section 79 of the IT Act

Section 79 deals with intermediary liability the conditions under which internet service providers and platforms can be held responsible for content hosted on their networks. The Shreya Singhal case examined whether intermediaries are liable for third-party content and the extent of their responsibility in policing online speech.

Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act

The case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India also questioned the legality of Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act, which was challenged for potentially infringing on free speech. The Court had to consider whether this state provision was in conflict with constitutional guarantees or overlapped with central legislation like the IT Act.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India Judgment and Impact

On 24th March, 2018 the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Chelameswar in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India delivered the opinion on the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act. 

Failure to Meet Constitutional Standards for Reasonable Restrictions

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India found that Section 66A did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for reasonable restrictions. Unlike recognized restrictions that require a clear connection between the speech and a threat to public order, security or morality. Section 66A of IT Act penalized speech merely because it was annoying or inconvenient, without requiring proof of harm or incitement. The absence of a necessary link to any legitimate state interest rendered the restriction excessive and arbitrary, thereby violating the guarantee of free speech.

Vagueness and Overbreadth of Section 66A of IT Act

The Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India noted that language of Section 66A was vague and indefinite, with terms such as “grossly offensive” and “annoying” lacking precise legal definitions or objective criteria. This vagueness gave rise to arbitrary enforcement and created a chilling effect, discouraging individuals from exercising their right to free expression for fear of prosecution.

Lack of Nexus to Incitement or Public Disorder

The Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India noted that unlike other restrictions on speech, Section 66A of IT Act did not require any element of incitement, defamation, or connection to public disorder. The provision failed to differentiate between mass communication capable of causing public disturbance and private communication that might simply annoy an individual. This lack of a nexus between the prohibited speech and any substantive harm meant that the provision could not be upheld under the constitutional test.

Rejection of Misuse Argument and Severability

The Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India acknowledged that misuse of a provision by authorities is a serious concern, it cannot justify the constitutional validity of an overly broad or vague law. Section 66A of IT Act 2000 was not capable of being partially saved or severed because its entire scheme was unconstitutional. Therefore, the provision was struck down in its entirety.

Chilling Effect on Free Speech

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India also highlighted that ection 66A of IT Act 2000 unclear wording could suppress a significant amount of protected and innocent speech, which may result in a chilling effect on the right to freedom of expression.

Differentiation Between Internet Speech and Other Forms & Examination of Article 14

The Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India considered that online communication differs from other speech forms and that separate laws regulating internet speech may be justified. However, it rejected the argument that Section 66A of the IT Act violated Article 14 of Indian Constitution.

Contrasting Valid Provisions: Section 69A and Section 79 of the IT Act

In contrast, Section 69A of the IT Act 2000 which empowers the government to block public access to certain information online was upheld in the Shreya Singhla case. This is because it incorporates procedural safeguards such as written orders, transparency and the right to be heard, ensuring accountability and fairness. Similarly, Section 79 provides conditional immunity to intermediaries like social media platforms, requiring them to act swiftly to remove offending content following legal orders, thus balancing freedom of expression with accountability.

Decision on Procedural Challenges and Kerala Police Act

Since Section 66A of IT Act 2000 was declared unconstitutional on substantive grounds, the Court in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India declined to consider procedural issues. It also struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act insofar as it applied Section 66A.

Conclusion

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India the Supreme Court on 24th March 2015 struck down Section 66A of the IT Act and declared it unconstitutional for being vague, overly broad, and infringing on free speech rights without adequate justification. The decision in the Shreya Singhal case reinforced the importance of safeguarding freedom of expression in the digital era while upholding constitutional limits on reasonable restrictions.