The Shreya Singhal case is a landmark Supreme Court judgment, formally titled Shreya Singhal and Ors. v. Union of India, delivered on March 24, 2015. This judgment is a pivotal concept in Indian constitutional law concerning freedom of speech in the digital age.
The case originated from the widespread misuse of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). This provision, introduced by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, made it a punishable offense to send "grossly offensive" or "menacing" information via a computer or communication device, with punishment up to three years imprisonment. The problem it sought to solve was the rise of cybercrime, but its vague terminology, such as "annoyance" or "inconvenience," led to arbitrary arrests for innocuous online posts, including political commentary. The immediate trigger was the arrest of two women in 2012 for a Facebook post criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai following a political leader's death.
The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman, struck down Section 66A in its entirety. The ratio decidendi was that Section 66A was unconstitutional as it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, and was not saved by the "reasonable restrictions" permitted under Article 19(2). The Court found the provision to be over-broad and vague, creating a "chilling effect" on free speech, and failing to distinguish between mere discussion, advocacy, and incitement.
The judgment also connected to other provisions by reading down Section 79 of the IT Act, clarifying that online intermediaries are only obligated to take down content upon receiving an order from a court or a government authority. While Section 66A was struck down, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 69A of the IT Act, which deals with the power of the government to block public access to any information through any computer resource. Despite the judgment, the provision has faced challenges, as cases continued to be registered under the defunct Section 66A years after it was repealed, prompting the Supreme Court to issue further notices to the Union Government and states.