Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was a provision that criminalised the sending of "offensive" messages through a computer or communication device, punishable with up to three years imprisonment, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 for violating the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Under Indian law, this provision is void ab initio — it is treated as though it never existed — and any prosecution or conviction under Section 66A is legally invalid.
Legal definition
Section 66A, as it stood before being struck down, provided:
Section 66A: 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; or (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.
The provision was inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. It became the most frequently invoked cybercrime provision in India, with police across the country registering cases for social media posts, political criticism, religious commentary, and even jokes.
How courts have interpreted this term
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [(2015) 5 SCC 1]
A two-judge bench of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutional. The Court held that Section 66A was vague and overbroad — terms such as "grossly offensive," "menacing," "annoyance," "inconvenience," and "ill will" were undefined and subjective, giving law enforcement virtually unfettered discretion to criminalise any form of online expression. The Court held that Section 66A was not saved by the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) because it went far beyond what was necessary and proportionate. The petitioner, Shreya Singhal, was a 21-year-old law student who challenged the provision after two women were arrested in Mumbai for a Facebook post questioning the shutdown of the city following a politician's death.
People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India [(2019-2021) — Supreme Court]
Despite the 2015 judgment striking down Section 66A, police stations across India continued to register cases under the dead provision. PUCL brought this to the Supreme Court's attention, and the Court directed all state governments and police authorities to ensure that no person is prosecuted under Section 66A. In 2019, the Court directed all pending cases under Section 66A to be closed. A study by the Internet Freedom Foundation found that as of 2021, over 800 cases under Section 66A were still pending in various courts — demonstrating the persistence of the problem.
Faruk Khan v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) — Bombay High Court]
The Bombay High Court quashed proceedings under Section 66A, reiterating that the provision is void ab initio and any charge framed under it is a nullity. The Court directed the state government to issue fresh circulars to all police stations reminding them of the Shreya Singhal judgment.
Why this matters
Section 66A is one of the most significant casualties of free speech litigation in India and its story carries important lessons for digital rights. The provision was used to arrest individuals for Facebook posts criticising politicians, for sharing cartoons, for WhatsApp messages, and for tweets expressing political opinions. The absence of any objective standard in the section meant that whether speech was "offensive" or "annoying" depended entirely on the subjective perception of the complainant and the police officer.
For citizens, the Shreya Singhal judgment established that online speech enjoys the same constitutional protection as offline speech under Article 19(1)(a). The government cannot criminalise speech merely because it is offensive, annoying, or inconvenient — only speech that falls within the eight categories of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence) can be lawfully restricted.
For law enforcement and legal practitioners, the continuing registration of cases under Section 66A — years after it was struck down — highlights a systemic problem of legal awareness. The Supreme Court's 2019 directions and subsequent High Court orders have emphasised that any prosecution under Section 66A is legally void. Defence lawyers should immediately move for quashing of any charges framed under this provision.
For policymakers, the experience of Section 66A demonstrates the dangers of vague criminal provisions in the digital context. Any future legislation seeking to regulate online speech must meet the tests of clarity, proportionality, and necessity established in Shreya Singhal.
Related terms
Parent framework:
Related provisions:
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 66A still in force?
No. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, declaring it unconstitutional and void ab initio. Any prosecution or conviction under Section 66A is legally invalid. Despite the judgment, cases continued to be registered under this dead provision, prompting the Supreme Court in 2019 to direct all states to ensure compliance with its ruling.
Can the police still arrest me for an offensive social media post?
While Section 66A has been struck down, other provisions may apply depending on the content. Section 67 of the IT Act (obscene material), Section 153A of the BNS (promoting enmity between groups), Section 356 of the BNS (defamation), and Section 196 of the BNS (promoting enmity on grounds of religion) remain in force. However, merely "offensive" or "annoying" speech is constitutionally protected after Shreya Singhal.
What should I do if a case is registered against me under Section 66A?
Immediately file a petition under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) before the High Court or an application before the trial court for quashing of the FIR and charges. Cite Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 and the Supreme Court's 2019 directions in PUCL v. Union of India. The prosecution is legally void and must be quashed.
Why did the Court strike down Section 66A but uphold Section 69A?
The Court distinguished between the two provisions. Section 66A criminalised speech based on vague, subjective criteria without procedural safeguards. Section 69A, which empowers the government to block websites, has procedural safeguards — it requires a reasoned order by a competent authority, is limited to specific grounds (sovereignty, public order, etc.), and is subject to judicial review. The Court held that Section 69A meets the test of reasonableness under Article 19(2).
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.