Shreya Singhal Case (2015)
– Online Speech and Article 19(1)(a)
Background of the Case
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalised the sending of “Grossly offensive”, “Menacing”, “Annoying” messages through Computers, Mobile phones, Other electronic communication devices
The provision:
- Used vague and undefined terms
- Enabled arbitrary arrests
- Was frequently misused to silence dissent
The constitutionality of this section was challenged in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Does Section 66A violate freedom of speech and expression?
- Is it saved by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)?
- Does the medium (internet) justify greater restrictions?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court delivered a free-speech-protective verdict.
(a) Section 66A Declared Unconstitutional
The Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety and held that:
- It violates Article 19(1)(a)
- It fails the test of reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)
(b) Doctrine of Vagueness
The Court held that:
- Terms like “offensive”, “annoying”, “inconvenient” → Are vague and subjective
- Do not give citizens a clear standard of prohibited conduct
Thus, A law that is vague chills free speech and is unconstitutional.
(c) Over-breadth of the Provision
The Court observed that:
- Section 66A covered protected speech
- Along with unprotected speech
Such over-inclusiveness:
- Creates a chilling effect
- Discourages lawful expression
(d) Internet Does Not Dilute Fundamental Rights
The Court rejected the argument that → Wider reach of the internet justifies greater restrictions
It held that → The content of the right under Article 19(1)(a) remains the same regardless of the medium.
(e) Distinction Between Discussion, Advocacy and Incitement
The Court clarified that:
- Only incitement can be restricted under Article 19(2)
- Mere Discussion, Advocacy, Criticism → cannot be criminalised
This principle became a key free-speech standard.
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Expanded free speech protection into cyberspace
- Strengthened the doctrine of → Vagueness, Over-breadth
- Reaffirmed content neutrality
- Limited executive discretion in censorship
Impact of the Judgement
- Section 66A ceased to exist in law
- Strengthened → Digital rights, Online dissent
- Became the foundation for later cases on:
- Internet shutdowns
- Online expression
Place in Free Speech Jurisprudence
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Romesh Thappar (1950) | Press freedom |
| PUCL (2013) | Electoral expression |
| Shreya Singhal (2015) | Digital free speech |
Summary
The Shreya Singhal Case (2015) struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as vague and over-broad, reaffirmed that online speech enjoys full protection under Article 19(1)(a), and clarified that only incitement—not mere discussion or advocacy—can be restricted.