Pratidin
Science and technologyJudgements2015

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000.

Written by Pratidin; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work

The provision was vague and overbroad and violated free speech under Article 19(1)(a).

The central wing of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, which houses the Chief Justice's courtroom.
The central wing of the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi, which houses the Chief Justice's courtroom. Subhashish Panigrahi, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Practise this in the app: flashcards, quiz and a timed answer
Prelims

Quick recall

Which provision did Shreya Singhal strike down?
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000.
Why was it struck down?
It was vague and overbroad, violating Article 19(1)(a).
Which clause lists grounds for restricting speech?
Article 19(2).
What distinction did the Court draw?
Between discussion, advocacy and incitement; only incitement can be restricted.
What happened to Section 69A?
Blocking powers were upheld with procedural safeguards.
What did the Court say about intermediaries under Section 79?
They must act on takedown only after a court order or government notification.

Asked before in UPSC

Recurring theme: Free speech under Article 19 and the limits of online speech regulation

Mains
  1. 2014 · GS2 · 12.5 marks

    What do you understand by the concept "freedom of speech and expression"? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss.

    Shreya Singhal separated discussion and advocacy from incitement, the key line for deciding when speech, including hate speech, can be restricted.

  2. 2013 · GS2 · 10 marks

    Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

    Shreya Singhal answered this question two years later by striking down Section 66A as violating Article 19(1)(a).

The basics

Why it matters

In Shreya Singhal (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, which punished 'offensive' online messages. It is the landmark case on free speech online.

Section 66A
Struck down in 2015
For being vague and overbroad.

Why 66A failed

The Court applied clear tests for free speech limits.

Speech that can and cannot be restricted
Can be restricted
  • Incitement to an offence
  • Threats to public order under Article 19(2)
vs
Cannot be restricted for that alone
  • Discussion and advocacy
  • Content that is merely annoying or offensive

The chain of free speech tests

Restrictions must fit Article 19(2).

Testing a speech restriction
  1. 1Legal basisA law must exist.
  2. 2GroundIt must fall under Article 19(2).
  3. 3ClarityVague terms are invalid.
  4. 4ProportionalityOnly incitement, not advocacy, can be punished.

You now know

  • Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down in 2015.
  • It was vague and overbroad and violated Article 19(1)(a).
  • The Court distinguished discussion, advocacy and incitement.
  • Section 69A (blocking) and Section 79 (intermediaries) were read down or upheld with safeguards.

Go deeper

In one line: Shreya Singhal protects online speech from vague criminal laws.

Why it matters for UPSC

It defines the limits of State power over the internet.

The core idea

A law that punishes 'annoying' or 'offensive' messages lets police decide what speech is allowed. The Court held such Vagueness doctrine problems make a law invalid, and set rules for platforms under Intermediary liability.

Where to go next

In one line: The case set the framework for online speech regulation.

After 2015

Police kept filing cases under 66A for years; the Court in 2022 directed that no case be registered under it.

Blocking and platforms

Section 69A blocking with reasons and review; Intermediary liability limited to actual knowledge through court or government orders.

New challenges

Fact-check units, deepfakes and the IT Rules, 2021. The Vagueness doctrine remains the key test.

Where to go next

Vagueness doctrine

Why unclear laws are unconstitutional

In one line: A law is void for vagueness if ordinary people cannot know what conduct it prohibits.

Why it matters

Vague laws give authorities wide discretion and chill free speech.

Use in India

Applied in Shreya Singhal to Section 66A.

Where to go next

Intermediary liability

When platforms are responsible

In one line: Intermediary liability decides when platforms are responsible for users' content.

Safe harbour

Section 79 of the IT Act protects intermediaries that follow due diligence.

Shreya Singhal

Knowledge means a court order or government notification, not private complaints.

Where to go next

Prelims-style quiz

  1. Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down in:

    1. Puttaswamy
    2. Anuradha Bhasin
    3. Shreya Singhal
    4. Romesh Thappar
    Show answer

    Answer: (c) Shreya Singhal. Shreya Singhal (2015).

  2. Consider the following:
    1. Section 66A was struck down for vagueness.
    2. Section 69A blocking powers were also struck down.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    1. 1 only
    2. 2 only
    3. Both 1 and 2
    4. Neither 1 nor 2
    Show answer

    Answer: (a) 1 only. Section 69A was upheld with safeguards.

  3. Reasonable restrictions on free speech are in:

    1. Article 51A
    2. Article 21
    3. Article 19(1)
    4. Article 19(2)
    Show answer

    Answer: (d) Article 19(2). Article 19(2).

  4. Which of these was held protected speech in Shreya Singhal?

    1. Advocacy of a cause
    2. Contempt of court
    3. Incitement to violence
    4. Defamation
    Show answer

    Answer: (a) Advocacy of a cause. Discussion and advocacy are protected; incitement is not.

Syllabus

Related stories

Primary source