Most 21-year-olds are busy attending lectures, studying for exams, or looking for their first job. Shreya Singhal is preparing to fight a law in court Supreme Court of India.She is not a senior advocate. She has no support from political parties or powerful organizations. She is a law student who believes laws that allow people to be arrested for posting content online have 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 the ruling, a law used to arrest people for Facebook posts, tweets, cartoons and online criticism ceased to exist.For millions of Indians, it became one of the most important free speech judgments in the country’s history. It all started when one student decided to ask a simple question: Could such a vague law be allowed to exist?
Two Facebook posts changed everything
The story begins in 2012.Mumbai has come to a standstill after the death of a prominent political leader from Maharashtra. During the lockdown, a young woman took to Facebook to ask why the entire city had to stop.Each friend just needs to click the “Like” button.Both were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.The law criminalizes sending electronic messages that are “seriously offensive” or cause “annoyance,” “inconvenience” or “malice.”The problem, Shreya notes, is that none of these terms are clearly defined.What counts as “troubles”? What is considered “offensive”? The answer depends almost entirely on interpretation.As reports of arrests for jokes, cartoons, comments and criticism continued to emerge across the country, she felt the law had crossed a dangerous line.Instead of accepting, she decided to challenge.
A law student files suit in Supreme Court
In December 2012, while still a student, Shreya Singhal filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of Article 66A.This is 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 lasted nearly three years.Meanwhile, arrests under Section 66A continue to be reported across the country. This clause is often added to complaints when a social media post or online message causes controversy.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 had a chilling effect on freedom of expression.The judgment became a defining moment in India’s constitutional history, emphasizing that citizens cannot be prosecuted simply because their views are considered offensive.
Her journey didn’t end with a landmark verdict
The victory gave Shreya Singhal national recognition, but she has not given up on the legal argument.After completing her LLB from Delhi University Law School, she started working as an advocate in the Delhi High Court.In the years that followed, she continued to speak publicly about constitutional rights, digital freedoms, and the importance of protecting free speech online.As discussions swirl around the introduction of new legal provisions to deal with online hate speech, she warned against creating laws that could repeat the same issues that led to the repeal of Section 66A.She argued in articles and public comments that while genuine hate speech and incitement to violence must be addressed, laws regulating online speech should be accurate and constitutional and should not stifle legitimate criticism or dissent.Her position remains consistent: protecting citizens from harm should never come at the expense of basic freedoms.
One student’s courage changed India’s digital landscape
What makes Shreya Singhal’s story compelling is not that she became a famous lawyer overnight.This is remarkable because she started acting long before she became an actress.While many students were hesitant to ask questions in class, she challenged a law to the country’s highest court.Her journey is also a reminder that legal education is more than just memorizing statutes or court decisions. At its core, it is about understanding the Constitution, recognizing injustice and having the courage to challenge it through legal means.Today, millions of Indians express their opinions online without the shadow of Section 66A.This freedom exists in part because a 21-year-old law student believes that an unconstitutional law should not continue to exist simply because no one questions it.Sometimes history is not changed by those in power.Sometimes it is changed by a student who refuses to remain silent.Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information, court records and reporting records related to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). It is provided for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
