LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Criminal) · Neutral citation not assigned (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012)Decided 24 Mar 2015
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012
Justice J. Chelameswar · Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman

Background

A batch of writ petitions under Article 32 challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which criminalised sending "grossly offensive," "menacing," or annoying electronic messages), along with Section 69A (power to block online content) and Section 79 and its Intermediary Guidelines Rules (intermediary liability for third-party content), plus a similar provision, Section 118(d), of the Kerala Police Act. The petitioners argued these provisions were vague, overbroad, and chilled free speech, pointing to several arrests of ordinary citizens for Facebook posts and similar online expression.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act in its entirety as unconstitutional, holding it violated the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and was not saved by any of the restrictions permitted under Article 19(2) because its terms were vague and overbroad and could criminalise even innocent, legitimate speech. It also struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act on the same ground. The Court upheld Section 69A and its blocking Rules as constitutionally valid (since they came with procedural safeguards), and upheld Section 79 (intermediary safe-harbour) and the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, but "read down" the actual-knowledge trigger for intermediaries to require either a court order or a government notification relatable to Article 19(2) grounds before an intermediary must take down content.

Lesson Learnt

A law that criminalises online speech in vague, subjective terms (like "grossly offensive" or "annoying") without objective standards is unconstitutional, even if intended to curb genuine abuse; and an internet intermediary (like a website or platform) cannot be forced to take down user content merely because someone complains, only a court order or a proper government notification citing a constitutionally valid ground can trigger that obligation.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case