Section 66A, and Shreya Singhal

In one line

Section 66A punished sending information that was grossly offensive, menacing, or sent to cause annoyance, and it was struck down in its entirety in 2015 because every word in it was undefined and it caught almost every opinion anybody could hold.

The section as it stood

66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,

(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;

(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Inserted by the Amendment Act of 2008, in force from 27 October 2009. Note that the punishment is "three years and with fine", so the fine was mandatory, and that under section 77B a three-year offence is cognizable and bailable, so the police could arrest without a warrant.

What was done under it

The arrests are part of the answer, because they show what the words did in practice. A professor was arrested over a cartoon. Two young women were arrested, one for a post questioning a city shutdown and the other for liking it. A businessman was arrested over a post about a politician's son. A student was arrested over a post about a political leader. In each case the content was an opinion, and in each case the arrest was made under a cognizable provision carrying three years.

That pattern is what produced the petitions, and the Supreme Court described the reach of the section by reference to it.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, decided 24 March 2015.

The challenge was to section 66A, to section 69A with the Blocking Rules 2009, and to section 79 with the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011. Chapters 810 and 1360.

The framework the Court applied to section 66A. Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression; article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions only on eight grounds, namely the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. A restriction outside those grounds cannot be saved.