IT Act and Freedom of Speech: Sections 66A, 69A and Shreya Singhal

The internet has made every citizen a publisher. That power brings the State's interest in preventing harm into direct contact with the most valued freedom in a democracy. The IT Act sits at this meeting point: it gives the State powers to block content, to require platforms to remove it, and to punish certain online speech, while the Constitution limits those powers to the grounds in Article 19(2). This note explains the constitutional framework, the fall of Section 66A, the survival of Section 69A, the law on intermediary takedowns, internet shutdowns and obscenity, and the latest cases.

1. The Town Square with a Gatekeeper

Picture a vast town square where anyone may climb a box and speak. The government can remove a speaker who incites a riot, but not one who is merely rude or unpopular. Now imagine the square is privately owned, and the government can also ask the owner to switch off a microphone. The questions become: on what grounds, by whose decision, with what reasons, and with what chance to object? Those are exactly the questions courts ask of the IT Act's powers over online speech.

The constitutional framework for online speech

Figure 1: The constitutional framework for online speech

2. The Constitutional Framework

Article 19(1)(a). Guarantees freedom of speech and expression to citizens, and the Supreme Court has held that it applies fully to speech on the internet.
Article 19(2). Permits reasonable restrictions only on the grounds listed; any restriction must fall within one of them.
Exhaustive grounds. In Kaushal Kishor v. State of U.P., (2023) 4 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench held that the grounds in Article 19(2) are exhaustive; no additional restrictions can be imposed on grounds not listed there.
Tests of validity. A restriction must be clear rather than vague, narrow rather than overbroad, proportionate to its aim, and accompanied by procedural safeguards.

The eight grounds of restriction in Article 19(2)

Figure 2: The eight grounds of restriction in Article 19(2)

3. Section 66A and Shreya Singhal

📖 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1

Background: Section 66A, added in 2008, punished sending information that was 'grossly offensive' or 'menacing', or false information sent to cause 'annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will'. Arrests for social media posts, including of two young women in Palghar in 2012 over a Facebook post, led to a batch of petitions.

Held on Section 66A: Struck down in its entirety. The Court distinguished discussion, advocacy and incitement: only incitement may be curbed. The terms of Section 66A were vague and overbroad, swept in protected speech, had a chilling effect, and did not fall within public order, defamation, incitement or any other Article 19(2) ground. It was not saved by being limited to the internet.

Held on Sections 69A and 79: Section 69A and the Blocking Rules were upheld because of their narrow grounds and safeguards. Section 79(3)(b) was read down: actual knowledge means a court order or government notification relating to Article 19(2) grounds.

Significance: The foundational judgment on online speech in India.

Why Section 66A fell and Section 69A survived

Figure 3: Why Section 66A fell and Section 69A survived

Zombie prosecutions. Police continued to register cases under Section 66A after 2015. In People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, the Supreme Court in 2021 called this shocking and in 2022 directed that no one be prosecuted under Section 66A and that references to it be deleted from pending cases. The Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 formally omits the section.

4. Blocking under Section 69A

Grounds. The Central Government may block public access to information in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to a cognizable offence relating to these.
Procedure (Blocking Rules, 2009). Requests go through nodal officers to a designated officer; a committee examines them; the originator or intermediary may be heard; reasons are recorded; emergency blocking must be placed before the committee within 48 hours; and a review committee examines orders periodically.
Confidentiality. Rule 16 requires confidentiality of requests and actions, which critics say prevents affected users from knowing why content was blocked.
X Corp v. Union of India (Karnataka High Court, 2023). X's challenge to blocking orders for accounts and posts was dismissed, with costs of ₹50 lakh; the Court held that the orders complied with Section 69A and the Rules.

5. Intermediary Takedowns and the Sahyog Portal

Section 79(3)(b). An intermediary loses safe harbour if, on actual knowledge or government notification, it fails to remove unlawful content expeditiously.
Rule 3(1)(d), IT Rules 2021. Content must be removed on a court order or a reasoned intimation from an authorised officer of the appropriate Government; since February 2026, within three hours.
The Sahyog portal. A government portal through which many authorised agencies send takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) to intermediaries.

📖 X Corp v. Union of India (Karnataka High Court, 24 September 2025)

Issue: X argued that takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) and the Sahyog portal bypassed the safeguards of Section 69A and Shreya Singhal.

Held: The petition was dismissed. Rule 3(1)(d) was held neither ultra vires nor arbitrary, the Sahyog portal was a facilitation mechanism rather than censorship, and the 2021 Rules were treated as a changed framework from the 2011 Rules considered in Shreya Singhal. The Court also held that a foreign company cannot invoke Article 19, which protects citizens.

Significance: It affirms a second route to content removal, alongside Section 69A, and remains debated for its reading of Shreya Singhal.

Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (Bombay High Court, 2024). The 2023 amendment enabling a government fact check unit to flag 'fake, false or misleading' information about the Central Government's business was struck down by a third judge after a split verdict, as vague and beyond Article 19(2)
Digital media ethics code. Part III of the IT Rules, 2021 imposes a code of ethics and a three-tier grievance system on digital news publishers and streaming platforms. In 2021 the Bombay High Court stayed Rule 9(1) and (3), which required adherence to the code, pending challenge.

State tools affecting online speech

Figure 4: State tools affecting online speech

6. Internet Shutdowns

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637. Freedom of speech and freedom of trade over the internet are protected. Suspension of internet services must be temporary, necessary and proportionate, orders must be published, and they are subject to periodic review and judicial scrutiny.
Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union Territory of J&K, (2020) 5 SCC 746. The Court directed a special committee to review restrictions on mobile internet speeds in Jammu and Kashmir.
Current law. Suspension now rests on Section 20 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunications (Temporary Suspension of Services) Rules, 2024, notified in November 2024, which replaced the 2017 Rules under the Telegraph Act.

7. Obscenity Online

The evolution of the obscenity test

Figure 5: The evolution of the obscenity test

Sections 67 and 67A. Punish publishing or transmitting obscene or sexually explicit material in electronic form; Section 67B, on child sexual abuse material, is a separate and stricter offence.
Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, (2014) 4 SCC 257. Replaced the Hicklin test with the community standards test: whether the work, taken as a whole and judged by contemporary standards, is lascivious or appeals to prurient interest.
Apoorva Arora v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court, 2024). Criminal proceedings under Sections 67 and 67A against makers of a web series were quashed. Vulgarity and profanity are not in themselves obscene; the test is whether the content arouses sexual or lustful thoughts in the ordinary reasonable person, not whether it is distasteful.

8. Other Online Speech Offences

Defamation. Criminal defamation, upheld in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, applies to online statements under the BNS.
Hate speech and threats. Promoting enmity between groups, criminal intimidation and similar offences under the BNS apply fully online.
Synthetic content. The 2026 amendment to the IT Rules requires labelling of AI-generated content and fast removal of deepfakes, raising new questions of proportionality.

⚠ Exam trap

Distinguish the two removal routes. Section 69A is a blocking power of the Central Government with its own rules and safeguards, upheld in Shreya Singhal. Section 79(3)(b) with Rule 3(1)(d) is a condition of safe harbour that makes platforms remove content on notice; the Karnataka High Court upheld its use through the Sahyog portal in 2025. And never cite Section 66A as a live offence.

9. Quick Revision and Memory Aids

'Discussion, advocacy, incitement'. Only incitement may be curbed (Shreya Singhal)
'Vague, overbroad, chilling'. Why Section 66A fell.
'Grounds, reasons, hearing, review'. Why Section 69A survived.
'Kaushal Kishor: 19(2) is exhaustive'. No new grounds.
'Kamra: fact check unit out'. Bombay High Court, 2024.
'Hicklin, community, Apoorva'. The obscenity tests.

10. Frequently Asked Questions

Why was Section 66A struck down?

Because its terms, such as 'grossly offensive' and 'annoyance', were vague and overbroad, covered protected speech, had a chilling effect, and did not fall within any ground in Article 19(2) (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015).

Is the blocking power under Section 69A constitutional?

Yes. It was upheld in Shreya Singhal because it is limited to grounds in Article 19(2), requires reasons in writing, provides for a hearing and review, and is subject to writ jurisdiction.

Is vulgar content online an offence under Section 67?

Not merely because it is vulgar or profane. The content must be lascivious or appeal to prurient interest judged by the standards of the ordinary reasonable person (Apoorva Arora, 2024).

11. Related Topics

Topic 7: Intermediary Liability. Section 79 and the IT Rules.
Topic 18: IT Act and Right to Privacy. The other great constitutional interface.