Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, decided on 24 March 2015, struck down Section 66A of the IT Act in its entirety because it was vague, overbroad and chilled l…
From 27 October 2009 it punished offensive or annoying electronic messages with up to three years in prison. Its key words were never defined.
A professor forwarded a cartoon, a cartoonist drew one and a businessman tweeted. All were booked or arrested under or alongside Section 66A.
Shaheen Dhada questioned a Mumbai shutdown on Facebook. Renu Srinivasan liked the post. Police arrested both.
A young law student challenged Section 66A as vague and a threat to free speech. The Palghar arrests prompted her petition.
The Court told states to follow the Centre advisory requiring senior-officer approval for arrests. It was a stopgap, not the final remedy.
Section 66A was struck down in its entirety. It was vague, overbroad and chilled speech, violating Article 19(1)(a).
No. Section 69A on blocking was upheld, and Section 79 was read down to need a court order or government notification.
Police still booked cases under it. The Court called this shocking and on 14 July 2021 the Home Ministry told states to stop.
No citizen can be prosecuted under Section 66A. References are to be deleted from pending cases and police must not register complaints.
Read the complete story, FAQs and key facts.