Omitted
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with omitted. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; The Act came into force on 17 Oct 2000.
1 [66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.--Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
(b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device;
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, terms "electronic mail" and "electronic mail message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.]
Section 66A, The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and chills protected speech under Article 19(1)(a); it is struck down in its entirety. Section 69A blocking procedure and the intermediary safe-harbour in section 79 (read with the 2011 Rules, read down to require an actual court or government order) were upheld.
-
Rajeev Chandrasekhar vs U. O. I.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The substantive issues concerning the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its compatibility with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution were addressed through interim relief and directions issued in the main petition, making the pressing of the procedural application unnecessary. The court's earlier interim relief appears to have adequately addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the application of Section 66A.
On this section: Central provision being challenged for alleged unconstitutionality; concerns the punishment of anyone who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has the effect of harassing another person, or knowingly transmits false information that endangers human life or safety, or creates menace to public order
-
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U. O. I.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where statutory provisions provide comprehensive remedies for addressing hate speeches, and the existing legal regime is sufficiently developed to address the menace through enforcement by law enforcing agencies and executive bodies, courts should not issue new judicial directions that go beyond their separation of powers authority or create judicially unmanageable orders. Instead, courts should emphasize effective execution of existing law and request appropriate bodies like the Law Commission to undertake legislative study and make recommendations for strengthening the legal framework. Judicial activism, while legitimate for addressing legal vacuums or preventing fraud upon statutes, must yield to separation of powers principles and the primacy of legislative action when the legislature has already expressed its will through comprehensive statutory schemes.
On this section: Provisions dealing with offensive content online and intermediary guidelines; relevant to regulating hate speeches in digital media
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 66A
What have the courts held on Section 66A of the Information Technology Act?
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 Mar 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and chills protected speech under Article 19(1)(a); Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2014 to 2015.
How do I find court cases under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IT Act 66A, section 66A IT Act, section 66A of the Information Technology Act. People searching for it also type it act 66a case and it act 66a punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 Mar 2015).
When did Section 66A of the Information Technology Act come into force?
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, cited as IT Act 66A, came into force on 17 Oct 2000, having been enacted on 09 Jun 2000. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1304 words
- 87. Power of Central Government to make rules877 words
- 43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc506 words
- 46. Power to adjudicate370 words
- 89. Power of Controller to make regulations345 words
- 70B. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team to serve as national agency for incident response326 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.