BACK TO IT ACT
IT Act 2000STRUCK DOWN

Section 66A

Punishment for Sending Offensive Messages through Communication Service

THE STATUTE

Original Text

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; or (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. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, terms 'electronic mail' and 'electronic mail message' means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message. [Section declared unconstitutional and void by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, with effect from 24 March 2015.]

Simplified

Section 66A is the most constitutionally significant provision ever enacted under the IT Act — and its most famous casualty. Inserted by the 2008 Amendment, it criminalised three categories of online communication: (a) sending 'grossly offensive or menacing' information; (b) persistently sending false information to cause annoyance, insult, enmity, or hatred; and (c) sending deceptive emails about their origin. The section was struck down in its entirety by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), declared void ab initio. The Court's reasoning was devastating and multilayered. First, the terms 'grossly offensive', 'menacing', 'annoyance', 'inconvenience', and 'ill will' were constitutionally vague — no person of ordinary intelligence could know in advance whether their speech would constitute an offence. This vagueness had a profound chilling effect on legitimate speech. Second, the section failed the reasonable restriction test under Article 19(2): it did not limit speech only in relation to the grounds permitted by the Constitution (security of state, public order, defamation, etc.) — instead, it swept up protected speech that merely 'annoyed' or 'inconvenienced' some people. Third, the Court found that Section 66A made no distinction between advocacy and incitement — a protected distinction in free speech jurisprudence. The practical abuse that precipitated the challenge was stark: police across India arrested people for Facebook posts critical of politicians, cartoonists, satirists, and even users who merely 'liked' allegedly offensive posts. The Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan arrest in Mumbai (2012) — for a Facebook post about a political bandh — became the trigger for the PIL by Shreya Singhal. Despite being struck down, police continued making Section 66A arrests for years after 2015 — a phenomenon the Supreme Court addressed again in 2021 in Faheem Ahmad v. State of UP, directing states to ensure police are informed of the provision's death.

Common Queries

No. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), holding it unconstitutional for violating freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that Section 66A's terms — 'grossly offensive', 'menacing', 'causing annoyance or inconvenience' — were vague and overbroad, with no nexus to public order, incitement to offence, or defamation. The chilling effect on free speech was fatal.
No. Police cannot charge or arrest anyone under Section 66A — it is a dead letter following the 2015 Supreme Court judgment. Any ongoing prosecution under Section 66A must be dropped. However, arrests continued to be made under Section 66A after 2015, prompting the Supreme Court to issue fresh directions in Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) directing police to stop.

Legal Evolution

Section 66A was inserted by the 2008 Amendment. It quickly became the most abused provision in Indian cyber law history. Between 2010 and 2015, over 100 documented arrests were made under Section 66A for social media posts, tweets, and online commentary — the majority against political critics, journalists, and activists. The provision was modelled loosely on the UK's Communications Act 2003 Section 127, but without the procedural safeguards that limited its UK application. The Shreya Singhal judgment remains India's most important internet freedom decision.

Key Amendments

Inserted by IT (Amendment) Act 2008.

Struck down entirely by Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 — void ab initio.

Supreme Court directed in 2021 (Faheem Ahmad v. State of UP) that states ensure police do not make arrests under 66A.

No replacement provision enacted — free speech online governed by IPC/BNS sections on defamation, sedition (now modified), and public order.

Landmark Precedents

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

(2015) 5 SCC 1
RELEVANCE

Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional — found it vague, overbroad, and violative of Article 19(1)(a) without justification under Article 19(2). The foundational internet free speech judgment of India.

Faheem Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

SLP (Crl.) No. 2861/2021
RELEVANCE

Supreme Court expressed grave concern that police across India continued to register FIRs and make arrests under Section 66A despite it being declared void in 2015 — directed immediate corrective action.