Most 21-year-olds are busy attending classes, preparing for exams or finding their first job. Shreya Singhal was preparing to argue against a law before the Supreme Court of India.He was not a senior lawyer. It was not supported by a political party or a powerful organization. She was a law student who believed that a law that allowed people to be arrested for what they posted online had no place in a democracy.Three years later, the Supreme Court agreed with her.On March 24, 2015, the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, calling it unconstitutional. With that single ruling, a law that had been used to arrest people over Facebook posts, tweets, cartoons and online criticism ceased to exist.For millions of Indians, it became one of the most significant freedom of expression judgments in the country’s history. And it all started because a student decided to ask a simple question: can a law that is so vague be allowed to exist?
Two Facebook posts changed everything
The story begins in 2012.After the death of a prominent political leader in Maharashtra, Mumbai has come to a standstill. In the midst of the shutdown, a young woman questioned on Facebook why an entire city had to stop.His friend simply clicks the “Like” button.Both were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.The law made it a criminal offense to send electronic messages that were “grossly offensive” or caused “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “ill will”.The problem, Shreya noted, was that none of those terms had been clearly defined.What qualifies as “annoying”? What was considered “offensive”? The answers depend almost entirely on interpretation.As reports of arrests for jokes, cartoons, comments and criticism appeared from different parts of the country, she felt that the law had crossed a dangerous line.Instead of accepting, he decided to challenge.
A law student took the battle to the Supreme Court
In December 2012, while still a student, Shreya Singhal filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A.It was an extraordinary step.The petition argued that the provision violated Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.The legal battle continued for almost three years.Meanwhile, arrests under Section 66A continued to be reported across the country. The provision has often been added to complaints whenever social media posts or online messages have become controversial.Finally, on March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment.The court struck down Section 66A in its entirety, holding that its vague wording allowed for arbitrary action and created a chilling effect on freedom of speech.The verdict became a defining moment in India’s constitutional history, reinforcing that citizens cannot be prosecuted just because someone finds their views offensive.
His journey did not end with a landmark judgment
Winning the case brought Shreya Singhal national recognition, but it did not keep her away from legal debates.After completing his LLB from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, he started practicing as an advocate at the Delhi High Court.In the years that followed, he continued to speak publicly about constitutional rights, digital freedom and the importance of protecting free expression online.As discussions emerged around the introduction of new legal provisions dealing with hate speech online, he warned against creating laws that could repeat the same problems that led to Section 66A being struck down.In articles and public comments, he argued that, while real hate speech and incitement to violence should be addressed, the laws that regulate online speech should be precise, constitutional and should not suppress legitimate criticism or dissent.His position remained consistent: protecting citizens from harm should never come at the cost of undermining fundamental freedoms.
One student’s courage changed India’s digital landscape
Shreya Singhal’s story is remarkable not because she became a famous lawyer overnight.It is remarkable because he acted long before he became one.At an age when many students hesitate to ask questions in a classroom, he questioned a law before the highest court in the country.His journey is also a reminder that legal education is much more than memorizing statutes or court rulings. At its heart, it is about understanding the Constitution, recognizing injustice and having the courage to challenge it legally.Today, millions of Indians express themselves online without the shadow of Section 66A hanging over them.This freedom exists, in part, because a 21-year-old law student believed that an unconstitutional law should not survive simply because no one challenged it.Sometimes, history is not changed by those in power.Sometimes, it is changed by a student who refuses to be silent.Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information, court records and reported accounts related to the Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). It is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
