Most 21-year-olds are busy attending lectures, preparing for exams or figuring out their first job. Shreya Singhal was preparing to argue against a law before the Supreme Court of India.She wasn’t a senior advocate. She wasn’t backed by a political party or a powerful organisation. She was a law student who believed that a law allowing 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 judgment, 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 free speech judgments in the country’s history. And it all began because one 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 began in 2012.After the death of a prominent political leader in Maharashtra, Mumbai came to a standstill. Amid the shutdown, a young woman questioned on Facebook why an entire city had to come to a halt.Her friend simply clicked the “Like” button.Both were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.The law made it a criminal offence to send electronic messages that were “grossly offensive” or caused “annoyance”, “inconvenience” or “ill will”.The problem, Shreya noticed, was that none of those terms had been clearly defined.What qualified as “annoyance”? What was considered “offensive”? The answers depended almost entirely on interpretation.As reports of arrests over jokes, cartoons, comments and criticism surfaced from different parts of the country, she felt the law had crossed a dangerous line.Instead of accepting it, she decided to challenge it.
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 nearly three years.Meanwhile, arrests under Section 66A continued to be reported across the country. The provision was frequently added to complaints whenever social media posts or online messages became controversial.Finally, on March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment.The court struck down Section 66A in its entirety, holding that its vague wording allowed arbitrary action and created a chilling effect on free speech.The verdict became a defining moment in India’s constitutional history, reinforcing that citizens cannot be prosecuted simply because someone finds their opinions offensive.
Her journey didn’t end with one landmark judgment
Winning the case brought Shreya Singhal national recognition, but she didn’t step away from legal debates.After completing her LLB from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, she began practising as an advocate at the Delhi High Court.In the years that followed, she continued speaking publicly about constitutional rights, digital freedoms and the importance of protecting free expression online.When discussions emerged around introducing new legal provisions dealing with online hate speech, she cautioned against creating laws that might repeat the same problems that had led to Section 66A being struck down.In articles and public commentary, she argued that while genuine hate speech and incitement to violence must be addressed, laws regulating online speech should be precise, constitutional and should not suppress legitimate criticism or dissent.Her 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’s remarkable because she acted long before she became one.At an age when many students hesitate to ask questions in a classroom, she questioned a law before the country’s highest court.Her journey is also a reminder that legal education is about much more than memorising statutes or court judgments. At its heart, it is about understanding the Constitution, recognising injustice and having the courage to challenge it through lawful means.Today, millions of Indians express themselves online without the shadow of Section 66A hanging over them.That freedom exists, in part, because a 21-year-old law student believed that one unconstitutional law should not survive simply because nobody challenged it.Sometimes, history isn’t changed by those in power.Sometimes, it is changed by a student who refuses to stay silent.Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information, court records and reported accounts relating to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). It is intended for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
