Supreme Court Strikes Down Section 66A of IT Act, Upholds Right to Free Speech on Internet

Landmark Judgment Declares Section 66A Unconstitutional for Violating Freedom of Speech Under Article 19(1)(a); Validates Sections 69A and 79 With Safeguards

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, declaring it unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Section 66A, introduced through the 2009 amendment, criminalized sending “offensive” or “annoying” messages through communication devices, prescribing imprisonment up to three years and fines. The Court observed that the Section was vague, overbroad, and lacked clear definitions of key terms such as “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” “annoyance,” and “inconvenience.” The law cast an excessively wide net that could criminalize protected and innocent speech, leading to a chilling effect on free speech.

The Court held that Section 66A does not have a proximate relationship with any of the reasonable restrictions enumerated under Article 19(2), such as public order, decency, morality, defamation, or incitement to an offence. It noted the absence of any requirement in the Section for a direct or imminent threat to public order or security, rendering the provision unconstitutional.

Drawing upon domestic precedents as well as international jurisprudence, including U.S. Supreme Court decisions on free speech, the Court emphasized the importance of free speech in a democratic society and underscored that restrictions must be narrowly tailored and have clear standards to avoid arbitrary enforcement. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that the unique nature of the internet justified a relaxed standard, affirming that the medium of communication cannot justify disproportionate curbs on speech content.

Further, the Court struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act for similar reasons of vagueness and overbreadth.

However, the Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A of the IT Act, which empowers the government to block public access to information in the interest of sovereignty, security, and public order, subject to procedural safeguards under the Blocking Rules, 2009. The Court also upheld Section 79, which provides immunity to intermediaries like internet service providers and social media platforms, subject to a reading down of Section 79(3)(b) to require actual knowledge through court orders or government notifications before removal of unlawful content.

The judgment provides clarity on the constitutional limits of regulating online speech and balances the need to prevent abuse of the internet with the fundamental right of free expression. The Court’s detailed analysis sets important standards for future legislation and judicial review concerning internet governance and freedom of speech.

Statutory provisions

Information Technology Act, 2000 Sections 66A, 69A, 79; Kerala Police Act Section 118(d); Indian Penal Code Sections 268, 294, 510; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 95, 96, 196

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 659338