Q.Why was Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 declared unconstitutional? Name the case in which this was decided. (Additional practice question.)

The problem with Section 66A was not that it targeted genuine wrongdoing, but that its wording was so broad it could be used against ordinary, lawful speech as well.

Section 66A, inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, punished sending information through a computer resource or communication device that was 'grossly offensive', had a 'menacing character', or was known to be false and sent to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, or ill will, with imprisonment of up to three years and a fine.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ((2015) 5 SCC 1), decided on 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A in its entirety. The Court's reasoning had two connected strands: first, that the section's key terms were open-ended and unconstitutionally vague — an ordinary person reading them could not reliably tell what speech was, and was not, criminal — and second, that this vagueness gave the provision a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, since people would reasonably avoid even lawful speech for fear of falling foul of an unclear law. The Court held that Section 66A could not be justified …

A common error is to state or imply that Section 66A is still valid law simply because it remains printed in some editions of the Act or is still named in a syllabus. It was struck down in full by the Supreme Court in 2015 and has no legal effect today — …