The Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India is a landmark judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on March 24, 2015. The case challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. This provision was inserted into the Act by an amendment in 2009 and was intended to combat cybercrime by criminalizing the sending of "offensive messages" through communication services.
The problem it solved was the arbitrary and excessive restriction on online free speech, as the vague terms in Section 66A—such as "grossly offensive" or "menacing" information, or information sent to cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience"—led to widespread misuse by law enforcement. The Supreme Court, in a two-judge bench, struck down Section 66A in its entirety. The ratio of the judgment was that Section 66A was unconstitutional because it was vague and over-broad, and arbitrarily, excessively, and disproportionately invaded the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The court held that the provision did not fall within the ambit of "reasonable restrictions" permitted under Article 19(2).
The judgment connects directly to the constitutional framework of free speech, establishing that restrictions must be narrowly tailored and not cause a "chilling effect" on expression. While Section 66A was struck down, the court affirmed the constitutionality of Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, which deals with the power of the government to block public access to information. Furthermore, the court "read down" Section 79 of the IT Act to clarify that online intermediaries are only obligated to take down content upon receiving a court order or a notification from a government authority. The core change is that the specific offense created by Section 66A no longer exists in Indian law.