Quick answer
No. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 March 2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety. The section made it a crime to send online messages that were "grossly offensive" or sent to cause "annoyance" or "inconvenience". The Court held that it violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and was not saved by the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2). In the same judgment the Court upheld the website-blocking power in Section 69A and read down (narrowed by interpretation) intermediary liability under Section 79.
The case
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523, (2015) 5 SCC 1, Supreme Court of India, 24 March 2015. Bench: J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman, JJ. (judgment by Nariman, J.). A batch of writ petitions challenged Section 66A, which had been added to the Information Technology Act by a 2009 amendment, along with Sections 69A and 79 and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act.
Why Section 66A failed
- No link with Article 19(2): the State tried to defend the section under public order, defamation, incitement to an offence, and decency or morality. The Court found that it had no proximate (close and direct) connection with any of these heads.
- Vagueness: words such as "annoyance", "inconvenience" and "grossly offensive" were open-ended and undefined. A citizen could not know which side of the line their speech fell on.
- Overbreadth and chilling effect: the section caught innocent and protected speech as well, and it would make people afraid to speak at all.
- Article 14 challenge rejected: the Court accepted that the internet is different enough from other media for Parliament to create separate internet offences. Section 66A fell under Article 19, not Article 14.
Discussion, advocacy and incitement
The Court explained that free speech has three levels: discussion, advocacy and incitement. Discussing an idea, or even advocating a cause however unpopular, is protected. Only when speech reaches the level of incitement can a restriction under Article 19(2) apply.
| Provision | Result in Shreya Singhal |
|---|---|
| Section 66A, IT Act | Struck down in its entirety |
| Section 69A, IT Act and the Blocking Rules, 2009 | Upheld: narrowly drawn, with written reasons, a committee hearing, and a hearing for the originator or intermediary where identified |
| Section 79(3)(b), IT Act | Upheld but read down: an intermediary must act on "actual knowledge" from a court order or a notification by the appropriate government or its agency, limited to Article 19(2) subjects |
| Rule 3(4), Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2011 | Upheld, subject to the same reading down |
| Section 118(d), Kerala Police Act | Struck down for the same defects as Section 66A |
Armaan posts a sharp online comment criticising a local official's handling of floods. The official finds it annoying and offensive. Before 2015, Section 66A could be invoked against Armaan. After Shreya Singhal, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 66A. His post can be punished only if it falls under a valid law that fits an Article 19(2) ground, for example if it incites violence.
Current-law note
Police continued to register cases under the struck-down section. In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (order of 12 October 2022), the Supreme Court directed that no citizen can be prosecuted for an alleged offence under Section 66A. References to Section 66A in pending criminal proceedings were to stand deleted, and the police were told not to register complaints under it. Other offences alleged in the same case can still proceed in accordance with law. For more on the case, see the Law Easy note on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
Exam point
Shreya Singhal (2015): Section 66A was struck down for vagueness, overbreadth and lack of nexus with Article 19(2). Section 69A blocking was upheld, and Section 79 was read down to court orders or government notifications. Only incitement, not discussion or advocacy, can be restricted.
