Parties and roles: Shreya Singhal is the petitioner who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Union of India is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is a constitutional writ proceeding. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act criminalized sending online information described by vague expressions such as grossly offensive, annoying or inconvenient. Arrests over political comments and social-media posts showed that ordinary criticism could attract police action. The challenge concerned whether speech on the internet could receive weaker protection than other speech and how lawful blocking and intermediary takedowns should work. Procedural and real-world context: 2012: Arrests over online posts triggered constitutional petitions. | 2013-2014: Court examined Section 66A and intermediary blocking/takedown rules. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve was Section 66A a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)? Were its terms impermissibly vague and overbroad? Were Section 69A blocking and Section 79 intermediary-liability mechanisms valid? The outcome mattered immediately because section 66A was struck down in full for vagueness, overbreadth and chilling protected speech. The Court distinguished discussion, advocacy and incitement; only incitement closely connected to Article 19(2) grounds may be restricted. Procedural setting: 2012: Arrests over online posts triggered constitutional petitions. | 2013-2014: Court examined Section 66A and intermediary blocking/takedown rules. | 24 Mar 2015: Section 66A struck down. The central problem before the Court was was Section 66A a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2)? Were its terms impermissibly vague and overbroad? Were Section 69A blocking and Section 79 intermediary-liability mechanisms valid? The controversy was considered in the framework of Information Technology Act, 2000, ss.66A, 69A, 79; IT Blocking Rules 2009; Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011, together with Constitution arts.14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in vagueness; overbreadth; chilling effect; discussion-advocacy-incitement distinction; procedural safeguards.

Petitioners: Section 66A was vague, overbroad and chilling; it punished discussion and advocacy beyond Article 19(2). | Union: courts could interpret the terms narrowly; internet speech has exceptional reach and requires regulation to prevent harm. Competing positions in context: Shreya Singhal's position: as the petitioner, Shreya Singhal sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Vagueness; overbreadth; chilling effect; discussion-advocacy-incitement distinction; procedural safeguards. Union of India's position: as respondent, Union of India resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Information Technology Act, 2000, ss.66A, 69A, 79; IT Blocking Rules 2009; Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and Constitution arts.14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

Section 66A was struck down in full for vagueness, overbreadth and chilling protected speech. The Court distinguished discussion, advocacy and incitement; only incitement closely connected to Article 19(2) grounds may be restricted. Section 69A and its rules were upheld because of procedural safeguards. Section 79 was read down so intermediaries need act on a court order or valid government notification, not merely private complaints. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Vagueness; overbreadth; chilling effect; discussion-advocacy-incitement distinction; procedural safeguards and binds the parties to the operative directions made in W.P.(Crl.) No. 167/2012 and connected matters. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Information Technology Act, 2000, ss.66A, 69A, 79; IT Blocking Rules 2009; Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Information Technology Act, 2000, ss.66A, 69A, 79; IT Blocking Rules 2009; Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011

Constitution arts.14, 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21

Vagueness; overbreadth; chilling effect; discussion-advocacy-incitement distinction; procedural safeguards