Government may seek 2015 Shreya Singhal order review

The Karnataka High Court ruled that the 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment can't apply to the new 2021 IT rules, emphasizing the evolved digital landscape and regulatory needs.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India addressed a bygone regime and cannot be “mechanically applied” to the 2021 Information Technology rules that demand their own interpretative regime, the Karnataka high court has held, noting the vastly changed digital landscape since the milestone verdict.

Government may seek 2015 Shreya Singhal order review

In his 350-page judgment passed last week but made public on Monday, justice M Nagaprasanna also noted that during the arguments in X Corp’s petition challenging the Union government’s Sahyog portal—the judge dismissed the American social media giant’s plea—the Centre also hinted that it will seek review of the 2015 verdict.

“The learned solicitor general for the Union of India has submitted that...the Union is contemplating to seek a review of Shreya Singhal,” the order said.

Justice M Nagaprasanna also said the top court’s 2015 ruling, delivered when India had only 250 million internet subscribers, compared to 980 million now, cannot be “mechanically applied” to the 2021 IT Rules, given the “complete change” in intermediary regulation and the near fourfold jump in internet penetration.

In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down the controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000—which made it a punishable offence to send “grossly offensive” or “menacing” messages through digital means, or to send false information intended to cause annoyance or inconvenience—as unconstitutional. It also read down Section 79, holding that intermediaries could be asked to remove content only after a court order or lawful government directive.

That case arose under the 2011 IT Rules, which required platforms to act on user complaints or “actual knowledge” of unlawful content, a vague standard open to misuse. Since then, Shreya Singhal has been hailed as a cornerstone of free expression in India and a key lever in tempering prosecutorial excesses in policing online speech.

But the high court took note of the Union government’s submissions on the “dramatic transformation of the internet landscape since 2015.” The court observed that the “scale, reach, and influence of social media platforms have expanded manifold,” making the context of the 2015 judgment “substantially different from the current digital environment.”

Justice Nagaprasanna also highlighted that the 2021 Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules were different. Rule 3(1)(d) now directed intermediaries to act only on a court order or an authorised agency notification, with removal grounds tied to constitutional limits on free speech.

The HC also made it clear that foreign companies cannot claim the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19. Such rights were reserved exclusively for Indian citizens, and intermediaries like X Corp must comply with India’s regulatory framework if they wish to operate in the country.

“The petitioner is not a company incorporated under any of the laws of the nation nor has a face in the nation. It is a faceless company, with not even a legally established office anywhere, in the nation. Article 19 of the Constitution undoubtedly gives its protective umbrella only to citizens… The petitioner being a company, on the face of it, cannot contend that there is violation of fundamental rights,” the HC said.

The Court also stressed that free speech cannot be absolute or unchecked; it is regulated by the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2). “A balance must be struck – a delicate equipoise between the sacred liberty of free expression and the corrosive menace of misuse. In the guise of free speech, menace cannot be allowed to fester and allowed to spread,” it said.

X Corp, in its petition, had cited takedown orders from the ministry of railways, state governments, and even individual police officers from states ranging from Jharkhand and Bihar to Sikkim and Nagaland. It had sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorise content blocking. The high court, however, upheld Section 79(3)(b) as the statutory basis for the 2021 Rules.