Section 66A, and Shreya Singhal

In one line

Section 66A punished sending grossly offensive, menacing, false or annoying messages, the Supreme Court struck it down in 2015 for vagueness and overbreadth while upholding the blocking power in section 69A, and Parliament finally removed it from the statute book with effect from 30 November 2023.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, by order dated 24 March 2015, and was omitted from the statute book by item (E) of serial number 32 of the Schedule to the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 with effect from 30 November 2023.

What the section said

The conduct, in three limbs. 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 communication device;

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

The punishment. Imprisonment up to three years and with fine. Note the conjunction: the fine was mandatory.

The Explanation defined "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" as a message or information created, transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device, including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record transmitted with the message.

It was inserted by Act 10 of 2009 with effect from 27 October 2009, in the same amendment that rebuilt Chapter XI.

The case, worked in full

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

Facts. Section 66A had been used to arrest people for ordinary speech: comments about a politician, a post questioning a shutdown, a message liked by a second person. Petitions were brought challenging section 66A, and also section 69A, which provides for blocking public access to information, and the rules made under it. The challenge to section 66A was under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 14.

Held. The Supreme Court struck down section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional, for vagueness and overbreadth. The expressions it used, grossly offensive, menacing, annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred and ill will, gave no standard by which a citizen could know what was forbidden or a court could decide what was proved, and they swept in speech that Article 19(2) does not permit to be restricted. The Court upheld section 69A and the blocking rules, on the footing that the blocking power is confined to the grounds in Article 19(2), is exercised by a reasoned order and is subject to procedural safeguards.