Shreya Singhal v Union of India
Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1: struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, with lasting influence on online intermediary liability relevant to IP enforcement.
Finin2min Summary — in 2 Minutes
Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1: struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, with lasting influence on online intermediary liability relevant to IP enforcement.
Official source and legal ownership
Facts and background
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act criminalised sending "grossly offensive" or menacing information via a computer resource, a vague and broadly worded provision used in several controversial arrests over online speech.
The issue
Whether Section 66A's vague and overbroad language violated the constitutional guarantee of free speech under Article 19(1)(a), and separately, how intermediary liability provisions under Section 79 of the IT Act should be interpreted.
Holding and ratio
Decided 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety as unconstitutionally vague and having a chilling effect on free speech, and read down Section 79's intermediary safe-harbour provision to require actual court or government orders (rather than mere private complaint) before an intermediary must take down content to retain safe-harbour protection.
Why this case matters
Although not an intellectual-property case itself, this ruling's treatment of intermediary safe harbour under Section 79 is regularly invoked in IP-related online-enforcement disputes (website blocking, take-down requests) given the same statutory intermediary framework applies across both online speech and online IP infringement contexts.