2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V.

Union Of India

Home 
Law Articles
Case Briefs
About
Write For Us
Reach Out

Study Notes
Cyber Law Case Briefs
   

Case Summary:
Shreya Singhal v.
Union of India
By Priya September 18, 2024 12 min read

Table of Contents
Introduction
Key Takeaways
The Genesis of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act,
2000
The Arrests That Sparked the Debate
Constitutional Provisions and Challenges

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 1/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 

19(1)(a)
Reasonable Restrictions and Article 19(2)
The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
Vagueness and Overbreadth of Section 66A
The Ruling on Constitutional Validity
Impact on Other Provisions: Sections 69A and 79
Implications of the Judgment
On Civil Liberties and the Chilling Effect
On Other Statutes: The Kerala Police Act
The Broader Context in National and International
Law
Comparative Aspects with International Human
Rights Law
Role of Public Interest Litigation in India
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
case about?
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India?
How did Shreya Singhal v. Union of India impact
free speech in India?

Case Name: Shreya Singhal v. Union of

India
Court: Supreme Court of India
Year: 2015
Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523

Introduction

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 2/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

The landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India 

significantly impacted the landscape of freedom of
speech and expression in India. At the heart of the
debate was Section 66A of the Information Technology
Act, which many argued was too broad and infringed
upon the basic right to free speech. This case has
become pivotal in understanding the constitutional
boundaries of freedom within the digital space.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter resonated

with the principles laid down in previous judgments, like
in Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India,
emphasising the paramount importance of free speech
in a democratic society. Shreya Singhal challenged the
state’s power to curtail this freedom, particularly
regarding online expression, marking a significant
precedent in Indian judicial history.

Freedom of speech and expression was robustly

defended by invalidating Section 66A as
https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 3/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

unconstitutional. This ruling not only reaffirmed 

individual rights but also shaped the broader context of
national and international law regarding digital
freedoms. Readers interested in legal precedents and
digital rights will find this case both instructive and
essential.

Key Takeaways
Section 66A of the IT Act was invalidated for being
unconstitutional.
The case reinforced the supreme importance of free
speech in a democracy.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India set a significant
precedent for online freedom of expression.

The Genesis of Shreya Singhal v.

Union of India
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India revolves around the
constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000, and the arrests that ignited
public debate. The case scrutinised how this section
curtailed freedom of speech on digital platforms like
Facebook.

Section 66A of the Information

Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000
penalised online communication deemed “grossly
offensive” or menacing. This section included vague
terms like “annoyance” and “inconvenience”, allowing
authorities to interpret it loosely.

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 4/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

The section provided a framework for arresting

individuals for sending messages that caused
“annoyance or inconvenience” via electronic
communication. However, the lack of clear guidelines
led to arbitrary arrests, which triggered significant
concern.

The section granted extensive powers to law

enforcement agencies, creating a chilling effect on
online speech. Many argued it violated Article 19(1)(a) of
the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of
speech and expression. More critically, it was criticised
for being overly broad and vague, leading to misuse by
authorities.

The Arrests That Sparked the Debate

Two arrests in November 2012 sparked significant
debate. The first involved two young women in Mumbai,
Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan, who were arrested
for a Facebook post criticising the shutdown of Mumbai
following Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’sThackeray’s
death. Their comments led to their arrest by the
Mumbai Police, claiming the post caused ” annoyance.”

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 5/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

The situation highlighted the misuse of Section 66A, as 

the women were not inciting violence or harm but
merely expressing their views. This incident drew
widespread criticism and led Shreya Singhal, a law
student, to file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A.

These arrests revealed the potential for misuse of the

law, sparking public outcry and legal challenges,
ultimately leading to the Supreme Court’s landmark
judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Constitutional Provisions and

Challenges
The landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
focuses on the interpretation and application of
freedom of speech and its boundaries under the Indian
Constitution. Key constitutional provisions and their
challenges are discussed, particularly Article 19(1)(a)
and Article 19(2).

Freedom of Speech and Expression under

Article 19(1)(a)
Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the
right to freedom of speech and expression. This article
is a cornerstone of democracy, allowing citizens to
freely express their thoughts and opinions. It includes
the freedom to communicate ideas and information
without interference.

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 6/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India questioned the

constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000. The Supreme Court held that
Section 66A violated Article 19(1)(a) because it was
vague and overly broad. It led to arbitrary arrests for
expressing opinions online, thereby chilling free speech.

The Court’s ruling underscored the importance of clear

and precise laws to uphold freedom of expression. This
landmark judgment emphasised that any law
restricting speech must be scrutinised to ensure it does
not infringe on constitutional rights.

Reasonable Restrictions and Article 19(2)

While Article 19(1)(a) provides freedom of speech, Article
19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on this freedom.
These restrictions aim to balance individual freedoms
with the interests of society. Article 19(2) lists specific
grounds for imposing restrictions, including public order,
decency, morality, defamation, and national security.

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 7/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

In the Shreya Singhal case, the Court found that Section

66A did not qualify as a reasonable restriction under
Article 19(2). The provision’s wording was too vague,
leading to its misuse and arbitrary enforcement. It was
not explicitly targeted enough to meet any of the
criteria listed under Article 19(2).

The ruling highlighted that restrictions on speech must

be narrowly defined. Laws must specify clear standards
to prevent misuse and protect fundamental rights. Thus,
restrictions must be based on tangible and well-drawn
criteria that do not arbitrarily infringe on free speech.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

and Judgment
The Supreme Court of India scrutinised Section 66A of
the Information Technology Act, 2000. Their judgment
addressed the issues of vagueness, overbreadth,
constitutional validity, and its influence on sections like
69A and 79.

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 8/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

Vagueness and Overbreadth of Section 

66A
The Supreme Court found Section 66A vague and overly
broad. The terms used, such as “grossly offensive” and
“menacing,” lacked clear definitions, leading to
inconsistent enforcement and interpretation.

Citizens could not reasonably foresee what constituted

an offence under the law.

This uncertainty threatened the principles of free

speech because people might avoid lawful expression,
fearing prosecution. The Court emphasised that laws
must be precise to prevent arbitrary enforcement. The
broad language of Section 66A allowed authorities to
misuse it, suppressing fair comments, criticism, and
dissent. Thus, the Court ruled that vagueness and
overbreadth rendered the section constitutionally
invalid.

The Ruling on Constitutional Validity

The Supreme Court declared Section 66A
unconstitutional. The primary reason was its
inconsistency with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution,
guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression. The
section failed the “reasonable restrictions” test under
Article 19(2).

It did not have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.

The Court noted that criticism and dissent are essential

aspects of democracy and must be protected. Section
66A was struck down for violating constitutional
guarantees because it did not meet these standards.
Thus, this judgment upheld citizens’ rights to express

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 9/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

themselves freely and without fear of legal 

repercussions.

Impact on Other Provisions: Sections 69A

and 79
The judgment also addressed Sections 69A and 79 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 69A,
which deals with blocking online content, was upheld
because it had adequate procedural safeguards.

Section 79, concerning the liabilities of intermediaries,

was deemed valid with certain restrictions.

The Court mandated intermediary guidelines to ensure

compliance with constitutional concerns. Unlike Section
66A, these sections had more clearly defined terms and
built-in safeguards. They stood distinguished from
Section 66A due to their specific limitations and
procedural checks. This part of the ruling reinforced
judicial oversight in technology-related laws.

Implications of the Judgment

The landmark decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India has had far-reaching effects on civil liberties and
statutory regulations. It notably addressed potential
violations of fundamental rights and scrutinised specific
legal provisions affecting both the Information
Technology Act of 2000 and state laws like the Kerala
Police Act.

On Civil Liberties and the Chilling Effect

The judgement significantly strengthened civil liberties,
emphasising the importance of freedom of speech and
expression. By declaring Section 66A of the Information
https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 10/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

Technology Act of 2000 unconstitutional, the Court 

highlighted the misuse of vague and broad terms that
could suppress legitimate speech.

The term “grossly offensive” was criticised for being

subjective and arbitrary, contributing heavily to a
chilling effect, where individuals might refrain from
expressing themselves out of fear of legal
repercussions. This decision was a significant win for
advocates, including the People’s Union for Civil
Liberties, who argued that such laws infringed upon
fundamental rights.

On Other Statutes: The Kerala Police Act

Beyond Section 66A, the judgement also questioned the
constitutional validity of Section 118(d) of the Kerala
Police Act. This section, which governed actions
deemed to cause “annoyance” or ” inconvenience,” was
found to be ambiguous and vague.

By striking down this provision, the judgement set a

precedent for other statutes with similarly vague
language. This move prompted legislative bodies to re-
evaluate and amend laws that could be potentially
misused to curb freedom of speech. The decision
underscored the necessity for clarity and precision in
legal language, ensuring that laws were not
weaponised against citizens for expressing their views.

The Broader Context in National

and International Law
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India has significant
implications both within India and on a global stage.
This section explores key comparative aspects of

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 11/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

international human rights law and the role of public 

interest litigation in India.

Comparative Aspects with International

Human Rights Law
The judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is
closely aligned with principles enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR safeguards freedom of
expression, similar to Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution.

The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate Section 66A

of the IT Act, 2000, emphasises that restrictions on
speech must be reasonable and not vague or overly
broad. This move aligns with international standards
that caution against laws arbitrarily infringing individual
rights.

The case underscores India’s commitment to upholding

universal human rights norms, reinforcing the nation’s
role as a democratic state that values freedom of
speech and expression.

Role of Public Interest Litigation in India

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been a crucial
mechanism in India, empowering individuals and civil
society to seek judicial intervention in matters of public
interest. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution grants
citizens the right to approach the Supreme Court for
enforcement of fundamental rights.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the use of PIL allowed

ordinary citizens to challenge the constitutional validity

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 12/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

of a law that infringed on free speech. This case builds 

on earlier milestones like Romesh Thappar v. State of
Madras, which also defended freedom of expression.

The case demonstrates how judicial review can protect

civil liberties by employing PIL, setting a precedent for
future legal challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the Shreya Singhal v. Union of
India case about?
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India was a landmark 2015
Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The case addressed the balance between online free
speech and government regulation. It questioned
whether Section 66A, which criminalized sending
“offensive messages” through online communication
services, violated the right to freedom of speech and
expression guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India?
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT
Act as unconstitutional, deeming it vague and overly
broad. The Court ruled that Section 66A violated Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom
of speech and expression. The judgment emphasized
that restrictions on free speech must be narrowly
tailored and that vague laws can have a chilling effect
on legitimate speech.
How did Shreya Singhal v. Union of India Law Categories
impact free speech in India? Administrative Law
Case Briefs
Contract Law
https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 13/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India significantly Cyber Law 

strengthened online free speech protections in India. Indian Constitution

The ruling affirmed that the Internet is an essential IPC

Jurisprudence
medium for exercising the right to free speech. It set a
Law of Torts
precedent for scrutinizing laws restricting online
expression and emphasized the importance of
balancing free speech with legitimate state interests.
The judgment is considered a watershed moment for
digital rights and has been widely cited in subsequent
cases involving online speech and expression.

Priya
Hi, I’m Priya, a Creative
Educator.

You May Also Like

Indian Constitution Indian Constitution IPC

Case Briefs Case Briefs

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 14/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

Maneka Gandhi v. Case Summary: Theft Vs. Extortion:

Union of India: A Indian Young A Detailed
Landmark Case in Lawyers Analysis &
Indian Association v. Comparative
Constitutional Law State of Kerala Study
Explore the landmark 2018 Have you ever
case of Maneka The 2018 Indian wondered about the
Gandhi v. Union of Young Lawyers difference between
India (1978), which Association v. State of theft Vs. extortion? If
transformed the… Kerala case was a so, you're not…
pivotal moment…
Priya Priya April 28, 2024

December 29, 2024 11 min Priya April 23, 2024 9 min

12 min

Connect Other Pages

Download Quality YouTube Privacy Policy

Law Study Notes Instagram Terms

Telegram Sitemap

Free PDF Notes

© 2025 LegalFly |
Built with ❤️ in India

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 15/16
2/22/25, 10:13 PM Case Summary: Shreya Singhal V. Union Of India

https://legalfly.in/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india/ 16/16