Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Supreme Court of India | AIR 2015 SC 1523 — Section 66A of the IT Act struck down for violating free speech.
Quick Summary
Case Title: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Main Question: Is Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 valid under the Constitution?
The Supreme Court said no. The Court held that mere discussion or advocacy is protected under Article 19(1)(a). Only when speech reaches incitement can the State limit it under Article 19(2). Section 66A was vague, broad, and punished harmless speech. So, it was struck down completely.
Issues
- Whether Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is constitutionally valid under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)?
- Does Section 66A draw a clear line between protected speech and punishable incitement?
- Is the provision void for vagueness and overbreadth?
Rules
Free Speech Rule: Discussion or advocacy—even if unpopular—is protected by Article 19(1)(a). Article 19(2) allows limits only when speech becomes incitement and has a close link to harm like disorder.
Problem with Section 66A: It did not distinguish between mere discussion and incitement. Words like “annoyance”, “grossly offensive”, or “menacing” are vague and subjective.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant (Petitioner)
- Section 66A is vague and overbroad; it chills free speech.
- Terms like “annoyance” or “grossly offensive” are subjective; no clear test.
- No requirement of incitement or proximate connection to disorder.
Respondent (State)
- Provision protects citizens from online abuse and threats.
- Reasonable restriction under Article 19(2) for public order and decency.
- Court can read down the section to save it.
Judgment
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A entirely. The section punished sending messages to cause “annoyance” or “inconvenience” without any tight link to public disorder. This fails the proximate connection test under Article 19(2).
As for defamation, the Court said Section 66A was not actually about protecting reputation. It targeted “offensive” messages even when reputation was untouched. Many terms in the section are not offences under the IPC and are too uncertain to guide citizens or police.
Ratio
- Advocacy vs Incitement: Advocacy is protected; only incitement can be limited.
- Proximity: There must be a close link between words and public disorder.
- Clarity: Criminal laws must be clear; vague terms chill free speech.
Why It Matters
This case is a landmark for online speech in India. It protects open debate on the internet and sets a strong standard: the State cannot punish speech just because it is unpleasant or unpopular. The test is incitement with real risk, not irritation or shock.
Key Takeaways
- Section 66A is unconstitutional and void.
- Article 19(2) allows limits only when speech nears incitement.
- Vague terms cannot form the basis of criminal liability.
- Defamation and other real harms are covered by separate, clear laws.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “Talk OK, Trigger Not OK.”
- Talk: Discussion/advocacy stays protected.
- Trigger: Only incitement triggers Article 19(2).
- Not OK: Vague laws like 66A are not okay.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Is Section 66A consistent with Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2)? |
| Rule | Advocacy protected; only incitement may be restricted; need proximity to harm and clarity in law. |
| Application | 66A punished “annoyance” and “grossly offensive” messages without any incitement or proximate link; terms are vague. |
| Conclusion | 66A is unconstitutional; struck down in full. |
Glossary
- Incitement
- Speech that pushes people towards lawless action or disorder.
- Overbreadth
- A law that covers both harmful and harmless speech, catching too much.
- Vagueness
- Unclear terms that do not tell people what is illegal.
- Proximate Connection
- A close, direct link between speech and the harm the State wants to prevent.
FAQs
Case Metadata
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now