Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1Supreme Court of India2015Information Technology Law, Constitutional Law I

Rule established

S.66A IT Act unconstitutional (vague, overbroad, violates Art.19(1)(a)); S.79 intermediary liability triggered only by court order or government notification, not private complaint.

Facts

Multiple petitions challenged the constitutional validity of S.66A IT Act (inserted by 2008 Amendment)
S.66A penalized sending "grossly offensive," "menacing," or messages causing "annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" through electronic communication
Several arrests were made under S.66A for social media posts criticizing politicians
Petitioners argued the provision had a chilling effect on free speech

Issues

Whether S.66A IT Act violates Art.19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
Whether S.79 IT Act requires intermediaries to act on private complaints (losing safe harbour) or only on court/government orders.

Held

Terms "grossly offensive," "annoying," "inconvenient" are vague and undefined
The section is not a reasonable restriction under Art.19(2) because it does not fall within enumerated grounds
Creates a chilling effect: citizens self-censor out of fear of prosecution
Not severable: the entire section is unconstitutional
"Actual knowledge" in S.79(3)(b) means knowledge through court order or government notification under S.69A

Ratio Decidendi

A criminal provision restricting speech must be narrowly defined and fall within Art.19(2) reasonable restrictions. Vague terms that permit subjective interpretation by police create unconstitutional overbreadth. Intermediary liability cannot be triggered by private censorship demands; judicial or executive oversight is the constitutional minimum.

How to use it in an exam

Part A: S.66A struck down for vagueness and overbreadth; S.79 requires court order for "actual knowledge."
Part B: Three-fold analysis: (1) vagueness doctrine applied to "grossly offensive," (2) Art.19(2) grounds analysis (none fits), (3) chilling effect doctrine.
Key line: "Section 66A is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2)."

Source

Source: SCC Online; (2015) 5 SCC 1

This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.

Cited in study notes

Constitutional Law IArticle 19 Freedoms and Reasonable RestrictionsVagueness and overbreadth as grounds for striking down speech restrictions

Information Technology LawIntermediary Liability and ISP RegulationS.79 "actual knowledge" = court order, not private complaint

Information Technology LawCyber Crimes under the IT Act 2000Constitutional limits on cyber crime legislation