What does Section 66A of the IT Act state?
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read as follows:
“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.”
This provision created a wide offence for sending so-called “offensive” or “annoying” messages through digital platforms. From the beginning, lawyers, activists, and scholars criticized its vague language. They argued that terms like “grossly offensive” and “annoyance” were subjective and gave police unchecked powers. The section soon became one of the most misused provisions in India’s cyber law.
Why did the Supreme Court strike down Section 66A?
In the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court declared Section 66A unconstitutional. The Court held that the law violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It reasoned that vague terms like “annoying” or “inconvenient” could not form the basis of a criminal offence. The judgment also stressed that a restriction on speech must be narrowly tailored and must fall under the grounds listed in Article 19(2). Section 66A, by contrast, gave the State arbitrary power to silence dissent, punish criticism, and chill free speech.
The Court said that liberty in a democracy depends on protecting the marketplace of ideas. It noted that political criticism, satire, and strong expression are all essential to democratic debate. Because Section 66A allowed criminal prosecution even for harsh opinions or unpleasant words, it failed the constitutional test. Since 2015, Section 66A has legally ceased to exist.
Why do authorities still invoke Section 66A?
Even after being struck down, police and lower courts have continued to cite Section 66A in FIRs, charge sheets, and prosecutions. Studies by NGOs and law institutes revealed hundreds of cases where citizens were booked under Section 66A between 2015 and 2022. Many police stations either remained unaware of the judgment or ignored it. Petitioners approached the Supreme Court again, pointing out that dead law was still being used to harass people.
In October 2022, the Supreme Court expressed shock that Section 66A remained alive in practice. It directed all authorities to ensure that no prosecution should continue under this section. The Court instructed state governments, union territories, police departments, and trial courts to delete any reference to Section 66A from pending proceedings.
How have courts enforced compliance since 2022?
From 2022 onwards, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ordered compliance. It has warned that prosecuting citizens under Section 66A amounts to contempt of court. They have directed the Union Government to issue circulars and advisories to every police station and prosecution office in India. It has also required compliance reports from states and high courts.
High Courts have echoed this stance. They have quashed proceedings where FIRs included Section 66A. They have reminded police that citing a dead law has no legal effect. For example, the Madras High Court and Delhi High Court have both reiterated that Section 66A has no existence and cannot be used even as an additional charge.
What are the legal consequences of invoking Section 66A now?
The law now treats Section 66A as a nullity. Any prosecution under it is void ab initio. Courts have clarified that continuing such cases is a direct violation of the Shreya Singhal ruling. The legal consequences are twofold. First, individuals wrongly prosecuted can seek immediate quashing of proceedings. Second, officials who continue to apply Section 66A may face contempt actions, departmental penalties, or disciplinary measures.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that “no citizen should be prosecuted under Section 66A.” It has placed responsibility on government agencies to train their officers and update legal databases so that no one mistakenly applies the section again.
What role do recent judgments play in reinforcing this position?
Recent cases in 2024 and 2025 reveal that mistaken references to Section 66A still occur in police actions. The Supreme Court has taken note of these lapses. It has pressed the Union Government to create a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance. Courts have stressed that outdated laws should be purged from case management systems.
For instance, in several petitions filed in 2024, individuals sought quashing of FIRs containing Section 66A. High Courts swiftly quashed those proceedings. They reminded investigating officers that ignorance of the law is no excuse. They also instructed Director Generals of Police in respective states to issue circulars reiterating that Section 66A is unconstitutional.
The persistence of Section 66A references also shows a deeper issue in India’s criminal justice administration: the failure to quickly implement Supreme Court judgments across all levels of the system.
How does Section 66A continue to affect digital rights discourse?
Although Section 66A is dead, its shadow remains. The section symbolizes the tension between free speech and state control over digital platforms. Critics argue that the misuse of Section 66A shows how vague criminal laws can silence dissent. The debate around Section 66A has inspired wider discussions on the limits of online regulation, intermediary liability, and the need for precision in cyber law.
The case also reinforced the role of judicial review in protecting civil liberties. By striking down Section 66A, the Supreme Court confirmed that constitutional guarantees cannot be overridden by vague statutory language.
What is the future approach of the judiciary and enforcement agencies?
Going forward, courts have emphasized the need for continuous sensitization of police and prosecutors. They have suggested that police training academies must include modules on constitutional judgments. They have also asked the Ministry of Home Affairs to update the digital platforms used for FIR registration, so that Section 66A is removed from drop-down menus or templates.
The judiciary has warned that failure to comply may invite contempt proceedings. Lawyers and activists continue to monitor the situation and bring violations to the Court’s notice. The expectation is that, with strict orders and monitoring, references to Section 66A will finally disappear from legal practice.
What does the continued misuse reveal about systemic challenges?
The repeated misuse highlights systemic inertia in updating criminal law practice. It reveals gaps in communication between higher courts and local enforcement agencies. It also shows how digital policing tools may retain outdated provisions, leading to wrongful charges.
This situation raises concerns about the effectiveness of the rule of law. If citizens can still be booked under a dead law, it undermines confidence in legal certainty. It also burdens courts with unnecessary petitions to quash proceedings.
How does the Shreya Singhal ruling remain significant today?
The Shreya Singhal judgment remains a cornerstone of Indian free speech jurisprudence. It clarified that freedom of expression includes the right to criticize, to offend, and to use strong language. It rejected the idea that vague notions of annoyance or inconvenience justify criminal prosecution.
The case also reinforced the doctrine of proportionality in free speech cases. Any restriction must be narrowly tailored, necessary, and fall within the constitutional framework. Section 66A failed this test on all counts. The judgment continues to guide courts in assessing new digital laws and policies.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 66A of the IT Act once symbolized the dangers of vague and overbroad criminal laws. The Supreme Court struck it down in 2015, but its ghost continues to haunt the legal system. Recent judgments from 2022 to 2025 confirm that courts remain vigilant. They have ordered strict compliance and warned against further misuse.
Today, Section 66A stands as a dead law. Courts treat any reference to it as a serious error. The persistence of its use reveals systemic flaws, but also underscores the strength of constitutional protections. The judiciary continues to safeguard free speech, ensuring that outdated and unconstitutional provisions cannot be used to suppress digital expression in India.
