Shreya Singhal v Union of India

Facts

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act criminalised sending, through a computer or communication device, information that was 'grossly offensive', had 'menacing character', or caused 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', etc. The provision was widely abused to arrest people for online posts, including comments on political figures. Shreya Singhal and others challenged it as violating the freedom of speech and expression.

Issues

• Whether Section 66A violated Article 19(1)(a) and was saved by Article 19(2).
• Whether the terms used in Section 66A were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
• The validity of the blocking and intermediary-liability provisions (ss 69A and 79).

Arguments

The petitioners argued that Section 66A used vague, undefined terms not traceable to any Article 19(2) ground, sweeping in protected speech and chilling expression. The Union argued that the provision served legitimate interests and that vagueness alone was not a ground to strike down a statute in India.

Held

The Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety as violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2). It held that the terms were open-ended, vague and overbroad, capturing protected speech and producing a chilling effect, and that restrictions must rest only on the grounds expressly enumerated in Article 19(2), not on a general 'public interest'. Drawing a distinction between discussion, advocacy and incitement, it held that only incitement—speech with a proximate connection to disorder or to a listed harm—may be restricted; mere discussion or advocacy, however unpopular, lies at the heart of Article 19(1)(a). It read down Section 79 and upheld Section 69A with its procedural safeguards.

Ratio decidendi

A speech-restricting law is unconstitutional if it is vague or overbroad, or rests on grounds outside Article 19(2); speech can be curtailed only when it crosses from discussion or advocacy into incitement having a proximate nexus to a harm enumerated in Article 19(2).

Significance

The first decision in decades to strike down a statutory provision purely for violating free speech, and the leading authority on free speech in the Internet era. Its discussion–advocacy–incitement framework, rejection of 'public interest' as a freestanding ground, and treatment of vagueness, overbreadth and chilling effect have become central to Indian free-speech doctrine.

Related