Introduction
“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 sends for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will; or
(c) any electronic mail or message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or 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, once part of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for violating the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression. Yet, despite being declared void, it continues to be misused across India even a decade later.
Why Was Section 66A Declared Unconstitutional?
The Supreme Court found that Section 66A imposed unreasonable restrictions on free speech. It criminalized vague expressions like “annoyance” or “inconvenience,” which could include legitimate opinions. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Court held that the section was overbroad, vague, and unconstitutional.
The judgment clarified that only speech that incites violence or poses a clear threat to public order can be restricted, not mere expression of opinion online.
Why Is Section 66A Still Being Used After 2015?
Despite the ruling, police and investigating agencies across India continue to file cases under the scrapped provision. The reason lies in poor awareness, outdated manuals, and lack of legal training among enforcement authorities.
Many local police stations still rely on old software or printed materials that list Section 66A as valid law. This administrative inertia has caused the continued registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) even a decade after the section’s removal.
According to reports, over 1,300 cases were filed across India after 2015, with states like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and West Bengal showing the highest misuse. Even in 2025, media and legal reports confirm that several FIRs and arrests continue under this non-existent section.
What Has the Supreme Court Said About This Misuse?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed deep concern over the ongoing misuse. In 2022 and again in 2023, the Court directed all states and the central government to ensure complete compliance with the Shreya Singhal judgment.
It emphasized that Section 66A was “void ab initio,” meaning it was invalid from the very beginning and never legally existed after the 2015 ruling.
The bench described the continued filing of cases as a “serious violation of fundamental rights” and criticized the failure of authorities to update their legal systems. The Court also instructed governments to circulate official notifications to all police stations, removing Section 66A from all law enforcement databases and training materials.
What Are the Real-World Consequences of This Misuse?
For individuals, the misuse of Section 66A can lead to illegal arrests, harassment, and unjust prosecution for online speech. Victims often face social stigma and financial hardship while trying to quash baseless FIRs under a law that no longer exists.
Even after courts dismiss such cases, the trauma and cost of defending oneself can be significant.
This continued enforcement also undermines the rule of law, since it shows that police authorities are acting under repealed provisions. It erodes public faith in judicial authority and weakens constitutional governance.
Who Is Responsible for Implementing the Supreme Court’s Directions?
Both state governments and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) bear responsibility. The MHA has issued multiple circulars asking state police departments to remove Section 66A of the IT act from practice. However, compliance remains uneven.
Many police officers at the ground level are unaware of these directives due to poor communication chains and lack of periodic legal training.
Civil society organizations such as the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) have repeatedly approached the Supreme Court, demanding enforcement of the judgment. They have also sought monitoring mechanisms to ensure states follow the Court’s directions in full.
What Does “Void Ab Initio” Mean for Section 66A?
The term “void ab initio” means that a law is considered invalid from the outset—as if it never existed. Once the Supreme Court declared Section 66A unconstitutional, it ceased to have any legal force or applicability.
Therefore, any FIRs or prosecutions filed under this provision after 2015 are automatically invalid. However, unless such cases are formally quashed, they remain part of the record, leading to continued harassment of citizens.
What Has Been the Response from the Centre and States?
After repeated nudges from the judiciary, the Centre has issued advisories instructing police authorities not to apply Section 66A.
Some states, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Delhi, have introduced awareness programs and training sessions to update police personnel. However, several others have failed to act decisively.
The absence of uniform national compliance remains a major challenge.
The Supreme Court has recently suggested creating a centralized database that automatically blocks registration of FIRs under unconstitutional laws like Section 66A. This could prevent future misuse through technology-based enforcement.
Why Does Section 66A’s Misuse Threaten Free Speech?
The persistence of Section 66A offences strikes at the heart of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Citizens continue to fear expressing opinions online, especially on social media, due to the risk of wrongful arrest. The chilling effect on free expression remains a major concern even ten years after the section’s repeal.
Legal scholars note that this issue exposes a larger problem: judicial decisions in India often face slow or incomplete implementation, especially at lower administrative levels. Without continuous monitoring and accountability, similar instances may recur with other struck-down provisions.
What Can Be Done to Stop Future Misuse?
Experts suggest a multi-pronged approach:
- Automated filtering systems that flag FIRs citing unconstitutional sections.
- Mandatory legal training for police officials on updated laws.
- Regular audits of law enforcement databases.
- Public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about their rights.
Courts also need to strengthen follow-up mechanisms and hold accountable those who continue to apply void laws. A dedicated compliance monitoring cell could ensure that Supreme Court judgments reach every police station and are reflected in practice.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, remains a ghost in India’s cyber law landscape. Despite being struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), its afterlife in police practices exposes the gap between law and implementation.
Citizens continue to suffer under this void provision due to ignorance, outdated systems, and lack of training.
True justice will only be achieved when all authorities recognize that Section 66A is no longer part of Indian law. The continued misuse of this “dead law” is not just a procedural failure, it is a constitutional crisis that demands urgent and systemic reform.
