Introduction: The Genesis of Digital Constitutionalism in India
The trajectory of Indian constitutional jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and expression has historically been defined by a dynamic tension between the liberties guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2).
However, the advent of the digital age precipitated a unique legal crisis, necessitating a re-evaluation of these traditional boundaries. This crisis culminated on 24 March 2015, when the Supreme Court of India delivered its epochal judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India. By striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court not only invalidated a draconian statutory provision but also established a foundational charter for digital rights in the world’s largest democracy.
The judgment, authored by Justice R.F. Nariman on behalf of a Division Bench that included Justice J. Chelameswar, was widely celebrated as a watershed moment for civil liberties. It represented a robust judicial assertion that the fundamental right to free expression applies with equal vigor to the virtual realm as it does to the physical world.
The Court’s invocation of the “chilling effect” doctrine and its strict application of the test of “vagueness” provided a potent shield against arbitrary state action.
However, more than a decade after the initial filing of the writ petition, the legacy of Shreya Singhal stands at a precarious crossroads. The Indian legal landscape has undergone a seismic transformation, characterised by the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, the Telecommunications Act, 2023, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023. These legislative instruments, framed as exercises “decolonising” Indian law, have paradoxically reintroduced many of the vices: ambiguity, overbreadth, and executive discretion, that the Supreme Court sought to excise in 2015.
This report provides an exhaustive examination of the Shreya Singhal legacy, tracing its jurisprudential roots, its imperfect implementation through the phenomenon of “legal zombies”, and its current confrontation with a new statutory regime that threatens to render its protections nugatory.
Through a detailed analysis of case law, including the recent Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan (2024) and Kunal Kamra v Union of India (2024), alongside a granular dissection of the BNS, this report argues that while Shreya Singhal remains good law in theory, its practical efficacy is being systematically eroded by a “Hydra-headed” regulatory framework.
The Jurisprudence of Vagueness: Deconstructing Shreya Singhal v Union of India
To understand the present crisis, it is imperative to revisit the precise legal mechanisms employed by the Supreme Court in 2015. The challenge in Shreya Singhal arose from a series of arrests that highlighted the misuse of Section 66A of the IT Act, a provision introduced by the 2008 Amendment.
A. The Factual Matrix and the Provocation
The immediate catalyst for the litigation was the arrest of two women, Shaheen Dhada and Renu Srinivasan, in Palghar, Maharashtra, in 2012. Their “crime” was posting a comment on Facebook questioning the city-wide shutdown for the funeral of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, and merely “liking” that comment, respectively. Although the police subsequently dropped the charges, the incident exposed the vulnerability of ordinary citizens to arrest for online speech that was neither incitement to violence nor defamation, but simply “annoying” or “offensive” to political sensibilities. This was not an isolated incident, it was part of a pattern where cartoonists like Aseem Trivedi and critics of various political dispensations were targeted using the wide net cast by Section 66A.
B. The Doctrine of Vagueness and Overbreadth
The Supreme Court’s primary constitutional objection to Section 66A lay in its terminology. The Section criminalized sending information that was “grossly offensive”, “menacing”, or caused “annoyance”, “inconvenience”, “danger”, “obstruction”, “insult”, “injury”, “criminal intimidation”, “enmity”, “hatred”, or “ill will”.
In a masterful exposition of the “void for vagueness” doctrine, the Court held that these terms were incapable of precise definition. What is “annoying” to one person may be “pleasing” to another; what is “grossly offensive” to a conservative sensibility may be robust political satire to a liberal one. The Court observed that a penal statute must define the prohibited conduct with sufficient, objective precision to allow a citizen to regulate their behaviour. A law that fails to do so violates the fundamental right to free speech because it leaves the determination of criminality to the subjective whim of the law enforcement officer.
The Court cited the US Supreme Court decision in Grayned v. City of Rockford, noting that vague laws offend several important values: they trap the innocent by failing to give fair warning, and they encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
In the Indian context, the Court held that Section 66A cast a net so wide that “a very large amount of protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed.
C. The Chilling Effect
Crucially, the judgment incorporated the doctrine of the “chilling effect” into Indian constitutional law. Justice Nariman reasoned that when a statute is vague, citizens will tend to steer far wider of the unlawful zone than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked. To avoid the risk of prosecution, individuals engage in self-censorship, restricting their own speech even when it is constitutionally protected.
Consequently, the Court found that Section 66A did not fall within the “reasonable restrictions” enumerated in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The restrictions in Article 19(2) are exhaustive, and “annoyance” or “inconvenience” are not grounds listed therein.
D. Intermediary Liability and Section 79
Beyond Section 66A, the judgment fundamentally altered the liability regime for online intermediaries (social media platforms, ISPs). Prior to the judgment, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act stripped intermediaries of their “safe harbor” immunity if they failed to remove unlawful content upon receiving “actual knowledge”.
The petitioners argued that allowing private parties or police officers to dictate “actual knowledge” would turn intermediaries into private censors.
The Supreme Court agreed, “reading down” Section 79(3)(b). It held that “actual knowledge” must be interpreted to mean knowledge derived from a court order or a notification from a government agency. This ensured that the adjudication of what constitutes unlawful speech remained a judicial or sovereign function, rather than a private determination by corporate entities fearful of liability. This specific holding is currently under severe strain, as discussed later in this report regarding the Fact Check Unit.
The Institutional Failure: The Phenomenon of the Legal Zombie
The pronouncement of a Supreme Court judgment is theoretically the law of the land, binding on all courts and authorities under Article 141. However, the aftermath of Shreya Singhal revealed a disturbing dissonance between judicial dicta and executive practice, leading to the phenomenon of the “Legal Zombie” - a statutory provision that is dead in the eyes of the Constitution but continues to haunt the citizenry through police action.
A. The Persistence of Section 66A
Despite being struck down in March 2015, Section 66A continued to be invoked in First Information Reports (FIRs) across India. Research conducted by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) and the “Zombie Tracker” project revealed a startling reality: thousands of cases were registered under the void section years after the judgment. As of March 2021, data indicated that 745 cases under Section 66A were still pending and active before District Courts in 11 States.
This necessitated a second wave of litigation.
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), one of the original petitioners, approached the Supreme Court again in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2019). The petitioner argued that the continued use of the provision was a violation of the fundamental rights of citizens and a contempt of the Supreme Court’s order.
B. Signal Failure and Legislative Lethargy
The persistence of Section 66A can be attributed to a “major signal failure” within the Indian state. The primary causes identified include:
In the PUCL proceedings, the Supreme Court termed the situation “shocking” and “terrible”. On 15 February 2019, and in subsequent orders, the Court issued directions to the Union Government to disseminate copies of the Shreya Singhal judgment to all Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territories, and to all High Courts for transmission to District Courts.
The Court also directed the Union to publish advertisements in leading newspapers informing the public that Section 66A was no longer valid.
In 2022, a bench led by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit finally directed that no citizen could be prosecuted under Section 66A, and all pending proceedings under the provision must be dropped. The Court ordered that reference to Section 66A be deleted from all FIRs, ensuring that while the case might proceed on other charges (e.g., under the IPC), the unconstitutional provision could not be the basis for prosecution. This saga underscores the “gap between judicial decisions and real-life outcomes”, a gap that is likely to widen with the introduction of new, complex criminal codes.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Decolonization or Re-Criminalisation?
On 1 July 2024, India replaced its colonial-era penal code, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. While the government heralded this as a move to shed colonial baggage, a critical analysis reveals that the BNS retains and even expands the scope of restrictions on speech, effectively resurrecting the ghosts of Section 66A and the sedition law under new guises.
A. Section 152: The Metamorphosis of Sedition
Section 124A of the IPC, which criminalised “Sedition”, was historically used to suppress dissent. In 2022, the Supreme Court had put the sedition law in abeyance. The BNS omits the word “sedition” but introduces Section 152, titled “Act endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India”.
Judicial Intervention: Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan (2024)
The potential for misuse of Section 152 was realised almost immediately, leading to the landmark ruling in Tejender Pal Singh v State of Rajasthan by the Rajasthan High Court in late 2024. Facts: The petitioner, a Sikh preacher, was charged under Section 152 and Section 197 of the BNS for a Facebook video where he expressed sympathy for Amritpal Singh, a pro-Khalistan MP, and criticised the government’s handling of Sikh prisoners. The prosecution alleged this endangered national integrity.
Judgment: Justice Arun Monga quashed the FIR. The Court held that Section 152 cannot be used to “cripple legitimate dissent”. It observed that the video, while perhaps using strong language (“Punjabi language’s expressive and direct nature”), did not contain any incitement to violence or call for armed rebellion.
Significance: This judgment is the first major judicial check on the BNS, effectively reading the Shreya Singhal “incitement to violence” standard into the new Section 152 to prevent it from becoming a tool of oppression.
B. Section 353: The “Fake News” Provisions and Public Mischief
Section 353 of the BNS replaces Section 505 of the IPC (“Statements conducing to public mischief”). It criminalises making, publishing, or circulating any statement or report, including through electronic means, which is likely to cause fear or alarm to the public.
The explicit inclusion of “electronic means” signals a legislative intent to police online content rigorously. The danger, as highlighted in Shreya Singhal, lies in the determination of “truth”.
Section 353 penalises “false information” that causes alarm. However, in political discourse, the line between “false information” and “contested narrative” is often blurred. If a citizen reports on a shortage of hospital beds during a crisis, and the government denies it, could the citizen be prosecuted for spreading “false information” causing “alarm”? Under the strict text of Section 353, the answer is potentially yes, resurrecting the spectre of Section 66A’s ban on “annoyance”.
C. Section 69: Privacy, Deceit, and the “Love Jihad” Context
Section 69 of the BNS criminalises sexual intercourse by employing “deceitful means”, defined to include false promises of employment or promotion, or marrying after suppressing one’s identity.
While framed as a measure to protect women, legal analysts view this through the lens of the “Love Jihad” political narrative. The provision allows the state to scrutinize the “truthfulness” of identity and intent within private consensual relationships.
In the context of Shreya Singhal and the Puttaswamy (Right to Privacy) judgment, this represents a significant intrusion. It empowers the state to criminalise intimate conduct based on a subjective assessment of “deceit”, potentially chilling inter-faith or inter-caste relationships where identity might be a complex factor. The ambiguity of “deceitful means” parallels the vagueness of Section 66A, allowing for selective application against specific communities.
The Battle for Truth: Intermediaries, the Fact Check Unit, and the Erosion of Safe Harbor
If the BNS attacks the speaker, the amendments to the Information Technology Rules attack the platform, attempting to dismantle the “Safe Harbor” protections reinforced by Shreya Singhal.
A. The Fact Check Unit (FCU) Amendment
In 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) was amended to require intermediaries to make “reasonable efforts” to ensure users do not host, display, or publish information regarding the “business of the Central Government” that is identified as “fake, false or misleading” by a Fact Check Unit (FCU) of the Central Government.
B. The Constitutional Conflict with Shreya Singhal
C. Judicial Pushback: Kunal Kamra v Union of India (2024)
The constitutional validity of the FCU was challenged before the Bombay High Court by political satirist Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, and others.
This judgment is a resounding affirmation of the Shreya Singhal doctrine. It reaffirms that the executive cannot bypass judicial oversight to regulate speech, especially when the speech concerns the government itself.
The Architecture of Access: Internet Shutdowns and the Telecommunications Act
While Shreya Singhal secured the right to post content, Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020) secured the right to access the medium itself. However, the implementation of this right remains deeply flawed.
A. The Anuradha Bhasin Mandate
In Anuradha Bhasin, decided in the context of the communication blockade in Jammu & Kashmir, the Supreme Court held that:
B. The Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the 2024 Rules
The Telecommunications Act, 2023 replaces the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It grants the government broad powers to take over or suspend telecommunication services in the interest of public safety or during a public emergency.
The Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024 were notified to operationalise these powers.
C. The Reality of Shutdowns
Despite the legal safeguards, India remains the “internet shutdown capital of the world”.
State governments frequently resort to shutdowns for trivial reasons, such as preventing cheating in examinations, violating the “public emergency” threshold. A report by the Internet Freedom Foundation noted that majority of shutdown orders are still not published in practice, rendering the Anuradha Bhasin protection illusory. This non-compliance mirrors the “Zombie” nature of Section 66A, the law on paper differs radically from the law on the ground.
Data, Privacy, and the Erosion of Transparency
The Shreya Singhal judgment was premised on the empowerment of the digital citizen. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act), 2023, fundamentally alters this by prioritising a specific conception of “privacy” that may conflict with transparency and free speech.
A. Impact on Journalism
The DPDP Act defines “personal data” broadly. Unlike previous drafts, the final Act does not contain a broad exemption for “journalistic purposes”. This implies that journalists may technically be required to obtain “consent” from the subjects of their stories before processing their personal data (e.g., investigating the assets of a politician or the criminal record of a public figure).
The Editors Guild of India has raised alarms that this could bring journalistic activity to a standstill. If a journalist investigates a scam, they process the “personal data” of the accused. Requiring consent is antithetical to investigative journalism. While the Act allows for exemptions for “prevention of offences”, the lack of a specific journalistic shield creates a new avenue for harassment (SLAPP suits) against the media.
B. The RTI Amendment
Section 44 of the DPDP Act amends the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Previously, Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempted personal information from disclosure unless a “larger public interest” justified it. The DPDP Act removes this “public interest” override for personal information. This absolute exclusion weakens the transparency framework, making it harder for citizens and journalists to access information about government beneficiaries, officials, and decision-making processes, thereby undermining the informed citizenry envisioned in Shreya Singhal.
Conclusion: The Constitutional Cat and Mouse Game
The decade following Shreya Singhal v Union of India has witnessed a relentless game of constitutional cat and mouse between the Indian judiciary and the legislative-executive complex.
On one side stands the Jurisprudence of Liberty, anchored by Shreya Singhal, Anuradha Bhasin, and the recent High Court rulings in Tejender Pal Singh and Kunal Kamra. These judgments consistently affirm that vagueness is a vice, that overbreadth is unconstitutional, that the “chilling effect” is a real danger, and that the state cannot be the sole arbiter of truth.
On the other side stands the Statute of Control, embodied by the “Zombie” Section 66A, the new BNS Section 152, the Fact Check Unit, and the internet shutdown regime. These instruments seek to expand state discretion, lower the threshold for criminal liability (e.g., “knowingly” in BNS 152), and bypass judicial oversight (e.g., FCU).
The research arm of LITT, publishing deep dives on Indian regulatory intelligence, constitutional law, digital rights, and the architecture of trustworthy legal systems.