---
layout: default
title: "Shreya Singhal and 66A: A Cup Half Full and Half Empty"
description: "An analytical commentary on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), examining its implications for free speech and intermediary liability in India."
categories: [Publications]
date: 2015-04-11
authors: ["Sunil Abraham"]
source: "Economic & Political Weekly, Vol L, No 15"
permalink: /publications/shreya-singhal-and-66a/
pdf: /publications/files/shreya-singhal-and-66a.pdf
created: 2025-11-04
---

**Shreya Singhal and 66A: A Cup Half Full and Half Empty** is a detailed commentary by Sunil Abraham, published in the *Economic & Political Weekly* on 11 April 2015. The article critically examines the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015)* — a landmark case that struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It analyses how the judgment reshapes the contours of free speech online, the limits of state regulation, and the legal responsibilities of intermediaries in India’s digital ecosystem.

## Contents

1. [Publication Details](#publication-details)
2. [Abstract](#abstract)
3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background)
4. [Key Themes or Findings](#key-themes-or-findings)
5. [Full Text](#full-text)
6. [Citation](#citation)

## Publication Details

<dl class="pub-details">
  <dt>👤 Author:</dt>
  <dd>Sunil Abraham</dd>

  <dt>🏛️ Published in:</dt>
  <dd><em>Economic & Political Weekly</em>, Vol L, No 15</dd>

  <dt>📅 Date:</dt>
  <dd>11 April 2015</dd>

  <dt>📘 Type:</dt>
  <dd>Commentary</dd>

  <dt>📄 Access:</dt>
  <dd><a class="btn" href="/publications/files/shreya-singhal-and-66a.pdf" download>Download PDF</a></dd>
</dl>

<style>
.pub-details {
  background: #f9fbfe;
  border: 1px solid #d8e2f0;
  border-radius: 10px;
  padding: 1.2rem 1.4rem;
  max-width: 700px;
  margin: 1.2rem auto;
  font-size: 0.96rem;
  line-height: 1.5;
  color: #333;
  box-shadow: 0 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.04);
}
.pub-details dt {
  font-weight: 600;
  color: #1b2a49;
  margin-top: 0.7rem;
}
.pub-details dd {
  margin: 0 0 0.3rem 0.3rem;
  color: #555;
}
.pub-details a.btn {
  display: inline-block;
  background: #3278d6;
  color: #fff;
  text-decoration: none;
  padding: 0.4rem 0.8rem;
  border-radius: 5px;
  font-size: 0.9rem;
  transition: background 0.2s ease;
}
.pub-details a.btn:hover {
  background: #255ea9;
}
</style>

## Abstract

The *Shreya Singhal* judgment marked a turning point in India’s free speech jurisprudence. The Supreme Court struck down **Section 66A** of the Information Technology Act, declaring it unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and incompatible with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Sunil Abraham’s commentary analyses how this decision strengthens constitutional protection for online expression, while simultaneously identifying gaps in intermediary liability and censorship transparency. The article celebrates the judgment’s progressive stance but warns against complacency, emphasising the need for vigilance as new forms of regulation emerge.

{% include back-to-top.html %}

## Context and Background

The commentary situates the *Shreya Singhal* decision within the wider history of speech regulation in India and its uneasy relationship with imported jurisprudence. Abraham argues that Section 66A was drafted hastily, drawing from outdated foreign laws and implemented without sufficient deliberation. Its vague language criminalised subjective notions of "offensive" or "annoying" speech, leading to arbitrary arrests and a culture of self-censorship.

Through references to earlier cases such as *Ramjilal Modi vs State of UP*, *Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar*, and *S Rangarajan vs P Jagjivan Ram*, the article explains how *Shreya Singhal* bridges two strands of legal reasoning — moving from a "tendency" test to an "imminence" test in judging incitement. The piece also explores how this ruling harmonises Indian constitutional interpretation with global norms while retaining a distinct local balance between freedom and restraint.

## Key Themes or Findings

- **Free Speech Jurisprudence Rebalanced:** The judgment clarified that only speech leading directly to incitement can be restricted, marking a doctrinal shift towards stronger protection of expression.
- **Medium-Specific Regulation:** While acknowledging that online speech spreads faster, the Court held that regulation must be justified by medium-specific harms, such as phishing or cyberbullying, not by the medium’s reach alone.
- **Intermediary Liability Reforms:** Section 79 was read down to limit private censorship. Intermediaries now risk liability only when ignoring government or court orders, reducing the chilling effect of arbitrary takedowns.
- **Opacity of Website Blocking:** Section 69A, which governs blocking orders, was upheld but criticised for lacking transparency and accountability. Abraham highlights how confidentiality under Rule 16 undermines due process and public oversight.
- **Need for Vigilance:** The author concludes that the ruling offers "great news" for free speech but only "half the solution" for intermediary accountability. Without structural reforms, the potential for overreach remains.

{% include back-to-top.html %}

## Full Text
<div class="pdf-container">
  <iframe
    src="https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https://sunilabraham.in/publications/files/shreya-singhal-and-66a.pdf&embedded=true"
    frameborder="0"
    class="pdf-frame"
    title="Embedded PDF Viewer"
    loading="lazy"
  ></iframe>

  <p class="pdf-download">
    <a class="btn" href="/publications/files/shreya-singhal-and-66a.pdf" download>
      📄 Download Full Text (PDF)
    </a>
  </p>
</div>

<style>
.pdf-container {
  margin: 1.2rem 0;
  text-align: center;
}
.pdf-frame {
  width: 100%;
  height: 80vh;
  border: 1px solid #ccc;
  border-radius: 8px;
}
.pdf-download {
  margin-top: 0.6rem;
  font-size: 1rem;
}
@media (max-width: 768px) {
  .pdf-frame {
    height: 65vh;
  }
}
</style>

{% include back-to-top.html %}

## Citation

If you wish to reference or cite this publication, please use one of the following formats:

**APA style:**

```
Abraham, S. (2015). 
Shreya Singhal and 66A: A Cup Half Full and Half Empty. 
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol L, No 15. 
https://sunilabraham.in/publications/shreya-singhal-and-66a/
```

**BibTeX style**
```
@article{abraham2015shreya,
author = {Abraham, Sunil},
title = {Shreya Singhal and 66A: A Cup Half Full and Half Empty},
journal = {Economic & Political Weekly},
year = {2015},
volume = {L},
number = {15},
url = {https://sunilabraham.in/publications/shreya-singhal-and-66a/}
}
```

**MLA style**
```
Abraham, Sunil. "Shreya Singhal and 66A: A Cup Half Full and Half Empty." 
Economic & Political Weekly, Vol L, No 15, 11 Apr. 2015. 
https://sunilabraham.in/publications/shreya-singhal-and-66a/
```

<style>
.pdf-container {
  margin: 1.2rem 0;
  text-align: center;
}

.pdf-frame {
  display: block;
  width: 100%;
  max-width: 100%;
  height: 80vh;
  border: none;
  border-radius: 8px;
  margin: 0 auto;
}

.pdf-download {
  margin-top: 0.6rem;
  font-size: 1rem;
}

@media (max-width: 768px) {
  .pdf-frame {
    height: 65vh;
  }
}

/* =============================
   Responsive Citation Blocks
   ============================= */
pre, code {
  white-space: pre-wrap;
  word-break: break-word;
  overflow-x: auto;
}

pre {
  background-color: #f9f9f9;
  border: 1px solid #ddd;
  padding: 0.75rem;
  border-radius: 6px;
  font-size: 0.9rem;
  line-height: 1.4;
  max-width: 100%;
  box-sizing: border-box;
}

@media (max-width: 768px) {
  pre {
    font-size: 0.85rem;
    padding: 0.6rem;
  }
}
</style>

<script>
document.querySelectorAll('pre > code').forEach(block => {
  const button = document.createElement('button');
  button.textContent = 'Copy';
  button.className = 'copy-btn';
  block.parentNode.style.position = 'relative';
  block.parentNode.appendChild(button);

  button.addEventListener('click', async () => {
    await navigator.clipboard.writeText(block.innerText);
    button.textContent = 'Copied!';
    setTimeout(() => (button.textContent = 'Copy'), 1500);
  });
});
</script>

<style>
.copy-btn {
  position: absolute;
  top: 6px;
  right: 6px;
  background: #f1f1f1;
  border: 1px solid #ccc;
  font-size: 0.8rem;
  padding: 0.25rem 0.6rem;
  border-radius: 5px;
  cursor: pointer;
}
.copy-btn:hover {
  background: #e5e5e5;
}
</style>


{% include back-to-top.html %}