Introduction:
In the digital age, where communication flourishes across online platforms, freedom of speech has found a new expression — and new threats. One of the most crucial Supreme Court judgments in cyber law, Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, transformed how online expression is protected in India.
🕵️♂️ Background:
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalized sending of “grossly offensive” or “menacing” messages through electronic communication. It empowered authorities to arrest individuals over vague online content, including social media posts, satire, and political criticism.
- Introduced in 2008 after the Mumbai terror attacks
- Widely used to suppress dissent and criticism
- Lacked precise definitions — leading to misuse and arbitrary arrests
⚖️ Case Facts:
In 2012, Shreya Singhal, a law student, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A after two girls were arrested in Maharashtra for criticizing the bandh after Bal Thackeray’s death via Facebook.
Main Grounds of Challenge:
- Violation of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech)
- Vague and undefined terms
- Chilling effect on online expression
🧑⚖️ Supreme Court Judgment:
On 24 March 2015, a two-judge bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice R.F. Nariman delivered a historic ruling.
🧾 Key Findings:
- Struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional
- Held that it violated Article 19(1)(a) and was not protected under reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)
- Declared that vague terms like “offensive” and “menacing” cannot be the basis of penal provisions
- Reaffirmed that freedom of expression includes the right to express unpopular opinions
🧠 Why the Judgment Matters:
✅ Safeguards online freedom of speech
✅ Prevents arbitrary arrests for social media content
✅ Forces the legislature to define offences clearly and narrowly
✅ Becomes a foundation for future cyber freedom jurisprudence
🧩 Real-Life Impact:
- Over 22,000 FIRs registered under Section 66A were rendered ineffective.
- Many pending cases were withdrawn.
- The ruling served as a caution to governments against framing vague digital laws.
⚠️ Post-Judgment Concerns:
Despite being struck down, Section 66A was still used by police in various states. In 2019, the SC had to issue another direction reminding authorities that 66A is no longer valid.
📌 Practical Tip for Citizens:
If you are booked under 66A post-2015, you can approach the High Court to get the FIR quashed based on this ruling.
🔚 Conclusion:
The Shreya Singhal case isn’t just a victory for one individual — it is a cornerstone in India’s cyber democracy. It ensures that the law respects both the power and the vulnerability of online expression.
📚 Legal Citations:
- Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1
- Bench: Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice R.F. Nariman
- Date of Judgment: 24 March 2015
📞 Need Legal Help on Cyber Law?
🧑⚖️ Advocate Adarsh Singhal
Cyber Crime Lawyer | Rajasthan High Court
📞 +91-8952090299
📧 advadarshsinghal@gmail.com | contact@advocateadarsh.com