CASE COMMENTARY: SHREYA SINGHAL V. UNION OF INDIA

A number of arrests under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000—a clause added by the IT (Amendment) Act of 2008—led to the case. Sending electronic messages that were "grossly offensive," "menacing in character," or known to be false and intended to create annoyance, discomfort, danger, obstruction, insult, harm, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill-will was made illegal by Section 66A. The clause quickly gained notoriety for being abused. Public opinion was sparked by three occurrences in particular, which led to an influx of writ petitions: - Two young ladies were arrested in Palghar, Maharashtra, in 2012; one had posted a Facebook comment criticising Mumbai's closure after Bal Thackeray's death, while the other had only "liked" the post. - For sending a political cartoon via email, a lecturer from Jadavpur University in West Bengal was taken into custody. - For allegedly criticising a politician in a tweet, a businessman in Chennai was taken into custody. These incidents exposed the vast potential for misuse of the provision. Shreya Singhal, a law student, petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ under Article 32. A group of related petitions were combined and presented before a two-judge panel, who considered the case to raise significant constitutional law issues.