Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Case Title: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
Date of Judgment: 24 March 2015

1. Background

The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) deals with the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision criminalized the sending of “offensive” messages through communication service, which was broadly defined.

Shreya Singhal, a petitioner, challenged the provision on grounds of it being unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The Court held it violated Article 19(1)(a).

2. Facts of the Case

• Two young women from Maharashtra were arrested for posting comments on Facebook criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after Bal Thackeray’s death.
• The arrests were made under Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending “offensive,” “annoying,” or “menacing” messages through electronic communication.
• Several petitions, including one by law student Shreya Singhal, challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A.

3. Issues Before the Court

1. Whether Section 66A of the IT Act violates the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a)?
2. Whether the restrictions under Section 66A are protected by Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions)?
3. Whether vague terms like “offensive” and “annoying” create scope for arbitrary misuse by authorities?

4. Arguments

Petitioners (Shreya Singhal & others):

• Section 66A is vague and overbroad; it does not define what is “offensive” or “annoying.”
• It chills free speech, as people may self-censor to avoid punishment.
• It goes beyond the scope of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Respondent (Union of India):

• The section was enacted to prevent misuse of internet and social media.
• Freedom of speech is not absolute; restrictions are necessary to maintain public order and morality.
• The law should be interpreted narrowly to avoid misuse.

5. Judgments Referenced

Various judgments of this Court have referred to the importance of freedom of speech and expression both from the point of view of the liberty of the individual and from the point of view of our democratic form of government.

For example:

• In Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, [1950] S.C.R. 594 at 602, this Court stated that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organizations.
• In Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 842 at 866, a Constitution Bench of this Court said freedom of speech and expression of opinion is of paramount importance under a democratic constitution which envisages changes in the composition of legislatures and governments and must be preserved.

6. Judgment

The Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional.

Key reasoning:

• The section is vague, as terms like “offensive” and “annoying” are subjective and undefined.
• It has a chilling effect on free speech.
• It does not fall under the grounds for restriction in Article 19(2).
• The law gave excessive power to police authorities, leading to arbitrary arrests.

7. Significance of the Case

• First major judgment in India addressing online free speech.
• Reaffirmed that freedom of expression applies equally to the internet.
• Strengthened judicial protection against vague laws restricting speech.
• Set a precedent for striking down laws that disproportionately curb digital rights.

8. Critical Analysis

• The judgment is praised as a progressive step toward protecting democratic values in the internet era.
• It safeguarded citizens from arbitrary state action.
• Critics argue that completely striking down the law left a vacuum in dealing with cyber harassment and abuse, which still require specific regulation.
• The case demonstrates the judiciary’s role in balancing rights and security concerns.

9. Conclusion

The Shreya Singhal judgment is a milestone for digital rights in India. By striking down Section 66A, the Court reaffirmed that the internet is a vital medium of free expression and that vague, overbroad laws cannot be allowed to stifle dissent.

Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India