THE SUPREME COURT KILLED SECTION 66A — YET CITIZENS DIED UNDER IT

MARCH 2015: SHREYA SINGHAL JUDGMENT STRIKES DOWN SECTION 66A

On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark constitutional judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional and void ab initio — meaning the provision was legally dead and unenforceable from the moment of the judgment (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (wikipedia)).

The Court examined the exact wording of Section 66A, which criminalised online messages deemed “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, or causing “annoyance” or “inconvenience”. The judgment held that these expressions had no clear legal definition, gave uncontrolled discretion to police authorities, and failed to provide citizens with any predictable standard of criminal liability. This vagueness, the Court ruled, violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including speech expressed through digital platforms.

The bench categorically rejected the argument that Section 66A could be saved under the “reasonable restrictions” permitted by Article 19(2). The judgment explicitly stated that mere annoyance or offence cannot be grounds for criminal punishment in a constitutional democracy (India Today report on the judgment).

Legally, from that date onward, Section 66A ceased to exist.

CONSTITUTIONAL TRIUMPH IGNORED: ARTICLE 19(1)(A) PROTECTION RENDERED MEANINGLESS IN PRACTICE

Despite the clarity of the 2015 judgment, its implementation collapsed at the ground level. Police departments across several states continued to register FIRs under Section 66A, treating a constitutionally invalid provision as enforceable law.

This contradiction reached the Supreme Court again in July 2021, when public interest petitions revealed that arrests and prosecutions under Section 66A were still taking place six years after it had been struck down. During the hearing, the Court openly expressed alarm, calling the continued use of the provision “shocking”, “terrible”, and “incredible” (Times of India coverage of the hearing).

The Attorney General informed the Court that many police officers were still relying on outdated statute books and internal manuals where Section 66A remained printed, often accompanied only by a small footnote indicating it had been struck down. The Court made it clear that ignorance of a constitutional judgment is not an acceptable justification.

What emerged was not ambiguity in law, but failure in enforcement. The constitutional protection guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) existed in theory, but collapsed in practice due to administrative inertia and procedural negligence.

LAW DELETED ON PAPER, BUT ALIVE IN POLICE STATIONS

Concrete data placed before the Supreme Court demonstrated the scale of the violation:

As of March 2021, petitioners informed the Court that approximately 745 cases were still pending in district courts across 11 states, all invoking Section 66A despite its invalidation in 2015 (India Today on pending cases).

Further compilations showed that more than 1,300 FIRs were registered under Section 66A between 2015 and 2021, meaning individuals were criminally accused under a law that had no legal existence at the time of their arrest (India Today detailed report).

State-wise figures submitted before the Court revealed disproportionate misuse:

• Maharashtra: 381 cases
• Jharkhand: 291 cases
• Uttar Pradesh: 245 cases

All of these were post-2015 registrations (Indian Express investigation).

Faced with this evidence, the Supreme Court issued notices to all State Governments, Union Territories, and High Courts, demanding immediate corrective action and accountability for continued misuse of a dead law (Indian Express on SC notices).

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION CONFIRMS ENFORCEMENT FAILURE

In July 2021, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a formal advisory to all states and union territories explicitly directing police not to register any cases under Section 66A — a step that would have been unnecessary if the 2015 judgment had been properly implemented (MHA advisory coverage).

This advisory itself became proof of systemic failure: a constitutionally invalid law had continued to operate for six years without correction.

THE HUMAN COST OF A NON-EXISTENT LAW

Behind each FIR and court statistic were real individuals. Citizens were:

• Arrested and detained
• Produced before magistrates
• Forced to seek bail
• Publicly stigmatized

All for acts of online expression that the Supreme Court had explicitly ruled could not be criminalised. Legal experts pointed out that every post-2015 arrest under Section 66A was legally void, yet the consequences — emotional, social, professional — were irreversible for those affected.

SECTION 66A — THE WEAPON OF FEAR BEFORE IT DIED

CRIMINALIZING THOUGHTS ONLINE: SATIRE, CRITICISM, JOKES MADE “ILLEGAL” SPEECH

Before its legal death in 2015, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act was widely used to treat everyday online expression as criminal conduct — even when that expression contained no threat, no incitement to violence, and no real harm.

The provision penalised messages that were “grossly offensive,” “menacing,” or caused “annoyance.” These words were never defined legally, leaving it entirely up to police discretion to decide what speech was punishable. The idea that public offence could be criminalised attracted criticism from legal experts long before the Supreme Court struck the law down, a summary of which is provided on the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case.

One of the most infamous examples before 2015 involved the arrest of two college women in Palghar, Maharashtra, after one of them commented on a Facebook post criticising the shutdown of Mumbai following the death of a prominent politician. Their comments were neither violent nor threatening — yet they were arrested on the grounds of being “offensive” under Section 66A. The arrests sparked national outrage, and even the state government later acknowledged they were unwarranted.

Instead of limiting the law to serious threats or violence, Section 66A’s broad wording allowed authorities to construe ordinary opinion, satire, and critique as criminal speech. This meant that a joke, a meme, or a sarcastic comment could — and did — lead to FIRs and arrest warrants.

TARGETING ORDINARY CITIZENS: STUDENTS, ACTIVISTS, AND SOCIAL MEDIA USERS ARRESTED

Section 66A was not just applied against fringe voices — it was used against ordinary people with no history of violence or wrongdoing, simply for expressing their thoughts online.

For instance:

• Multiple pre‑2015 cases saw people arrested for Facebook posts that criticised public figures or political decisions, even when no actual public disorder resulted from the posts. These include instances where comments were made about contemporary events and questions raised about political leaders (The Indian Express).
• Activist Aseem Trivedi, known for political cartoons, was arrested partly under provisions including Section 66A, for using satire to criticise Parliament and government symbols — despite no evidence of violence or incitement accompanying his work (The Indian Express).
• Other documented cases included people being arrested for alleged offensive comments, caricatures, or posts that authorities claimed could disturb “public harmony.” These examples were widely reported, highlighting how the provision was used as a tool of censorship rather than a provision against genuine threats (The Indian Express).

These arrests show that ordinary speech became subject to criminal penalty, not because it crossed a threshold of harm, but because someone took offence.

LEGAL EXPERTS WARNED — NO ONE LISTENED UNTIL THE SUPREME COURT FINALLY DID

Long before the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in 2015, constitutional lawyers and legal scholars had warned that the text of the law was fundamentally flawed. They pointed out that:

• The terms “annoyance,” “inconvenience,” and “grossly offensive” had no settled legal meaning and could be applied arbitrarily.
• The law lacked objective standards to differentiate protected speech from punishable speech.
• Unlimited discretion could easily lead to abuse by enforcement agencies.

These warnings were not fringe opinions — they were central themes in the constitutional challenge filed in the Supreme Court that eventually led to the law’s nullification. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expressly adopted these legal concerns, emphasising that restrictions on speech must be narrowly defined and precise to be valid under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (Apni Law)

Despite these documented expert warnings, no legislative corrective measure was taken before the Supreme Court intervened, leaving the law in force and subject to misuse for several years after its enactment.

ARRESTS AFTER REPEAL — THE LAW REFUSED TO DIE

POLICE CONTINUED INVOKING SECTION 66A YEARS AFTER IT WAS STRUCK DOWN

Despite the Supreme Court of India declaring Section 66A of the Information Technology Act unconstitutional in March 2015 in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, police agencies across India continued to register FIRs and arrest or pursue legal action under this struck‑down provision. (Times of India)

In July 2021, a bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice R.F. Nariman described the situation as “terrible and distressing” — noting that hundreds of cases were registered under Section 66A even after it had been declared void. (Times of India)

According to data presented in court, states such as Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand continued to file new FIRs invoking Section 66A after 2015, with Maharashtra registering 381 such FIRs post‑strike‑down compared to 349 before it, and Uttar Pradesh increasing from 22 to 245 such FIRs after repeal. (Indian Express)

The Supreme Court then issued notices to the Union Government to explain why the provision continued to be invoked, and observed that the text of the Act still contained Section 66A (with only a footnote indicating repeal), leading to ongoing misuse. (Indian Express)

This continued invocation after repeal created a serious legal anomaly: accused people were still being processed through criminal courts under a law that no longer existed, exposing gaps in the implementation of constitutional judgments.

EXAMPLES OF CASES REMAINING ACTIVE OR CONTINUING TO BE FILED AFTER REPEAL

Here are the documented realities — not fictionalised names:

CONTINUED FIRs AND PENDENCY

• Independent data collated and presented before the Supreme Court showed that as many as 745 cases under Section 66A were still pending and active in trial courts across multiple states, even years after its repeal. (Indian Express)
• These cases included fresh charges as late as 2021, well after the 2015 ruling. The Supreme Court itself described the ongoing prosecutions as “shocking” because the law had no constitutional validity. (Times of India)

INSTITUTIONAL MISUSE

The court noted that police and even trial courts were sometimes continuing to frame charges solely under Section 66A — a provision that was judicially declared invalid — because local officers failed to update their FIR forms and legal manuals. (Indian Express)

This pattern of misuse illustrates a systemic failure in law enforcement implementation, where officers are still registering and prosecuting under a provision that had been struck down at the highest judicial level.

WHY THIS MATTERS — STRUCK DOWN DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN IMPLEMENTED

The Shreya Singhal v. Union of India decision in March 2015 struck down Section 66A because it was vague, overbroad, and violated the freedom of speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The judgment remains the authoritative legal standard on this issue and is documented in public legal records. (Wikipedia)

But institutional inertia and lack of police awareness have led to continued arrests or charges even when the law is no longer valid, forcing people into criminal proceedings under a repealed provision. This is not a theory — it was confirmed by senior judicial officers reacting to ongoing cases in 2021. (Times of India)

What this reveals is a systemic issue in Indian policing and court processes, where even after a clear Supreme Court ruling, old legal provisions continue to be invoked unless there’s a concerted enforcement and training effort.

FIRS BECAME GHOSTS — CITING DEAD LAW

MAHARASHTRA POLICE FORMS STILL CONTAIN 66A, RTI CONFIRMS

Even years after the Supreme Court of India declared Section 66A unconstitutional and void, police authorities in some states continued to register FIRs that referenced Section 66A in their records. A Right to Information (RTI) reply obtained by The Indian Express revealed that in Maharashtra, police data showed 209 cases in which Section 66A had been applied after March 2015 — the year the law was struck down — and those cases were still ongoing in courts even after the provision was repealed from enforceable law. In 178 of those cases, chargesheets had already been filed, and in 31 cases, investigations were still ongoing, despite 66A having no legal force. (The Indian Express) 

This means that even though 66A should have been legally dead, police stations were still using its language in FIRs — essentially treating a non‑existent law as if it still carried criminal consequences.

KERALA MANUALS UNCHANGED — OFFICERS TRAINED TO ARREST UNDER VOID LAW

The Supreme Court’s own proceedings revealed how deeply entrenched the obsolete provision remained in law enforcement systems. During a PUCL petition hearing in 2021, the Attorney General of India explained in court that Section 66A continued to appear in printed versions of the Information Technology Act with only a small footnote indicating it had been struck down. Because many officers did not notice the footnote, they continued to register cases under 66A as though it were still valid. The Supreme Court described this as a “shocking” state of affairs and sought a response from the Centre. (Times of India)

Even after directives from the judiciary and advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs telling states not to register cases under the repealed provision, the absence of updates in training manuals and legal reference texts meant that many officers still operated as if the dead law were alive — underscoring a systemic failure in legal training and law enforcement communication.

MAGISTRATES ACT IN IGNORANCE — CITIZENS HELD HOSTAGE TO PROCEDURAL BLINDNESS

Beyond police registration, the problem extended into courtrooms. The Supreme Court petition filed by civil liberties organisation People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) revealed that not only were FIRs still being registered under Section 66A, but cases were also being prosecuted before trial courts that included the defective section in charge sheets and legal processes, even though the section had been struck down six years earlier. (The Indian Express)

According to the petition presented in court, data showed that as many as 745 cases involving Section 66A were still pending and active in district courts across multiple states despite the repeal. (India Today)

This means magistrates and prosecutors, who are supposed to act as filters ensuring only valid legal charges proceed, were inadvertently or negligently allowing proceedings based on a law that had no legal existence. Ordinary citizens thus found themselves facing criminal process — not because the law was valid, but because administrative and procedural systems failed to purge the statute from investigative and judicial practice.

.    .    .