Most 21-year-olds are busy going to school, preparing for exams or looking for their first job. Shreya Singhal was preparing to argue with the law before Supreme Court of India.He was not a great advocate. He was not supported by a political party or a powerful group. He was a law student who believed that the law allowing people to be arrested for what they posted on the Internet had no place in a democracy.Three years later, the Supreme Court agreed with him.On March 24, 2015, the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, saying it was unconstitutional. With that one decision, the law used to arrest people for Facebook posts, tweets, art and online criticism ceased to exist.For millions of Indians, it became one of the most visible freedom decisions in the country’s history. And it all started because a student decided to ask a simple question: Can a very vague law be allowed to exist?
Two Facebook posts changed everything
This story started in 2012.After the death of a popular politician in Maharashtra, Mumbai came to a standstill. To shut it down, a girl asked on Facebook why the whole city stopped.The friend just clicked the “Like” button.Both were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act.The law made sending electronic messages that are “grossly obscene” or “offensive”, “disturbing” or “offensive” a crime.The problem, Shreya saw, was that none of the words were well defined.What is called “annoying”? What is considered “offensive”? His answers depended almost entirely on interpretation.While reports of arrests for jokes, cartoons, comments and criticism are coming out in different parts of the country, he felt that the law has crossed a dangerous path.Instead of agreeing, he decided to protest.
The law student took the fight to the Supreme Court
In December 2012, still a student, Shreya Singhal filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of Section 66A.It was a surprising step.The petition said that the law violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, which provides for freedom of speech and expression.The legal battle continued for almost three years.Meanwhile, arrests under Section 66A continue to be reported across the country. This provision was added to complaints whenever social media posts or online messages became controversial.Finally, on March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an unforgettable decision.The court struck down Section 66A in its entirety, saying that its vague wording allowed for oppressive practices and interference with free speech.This judgment became a landmark moment in Indian legal history, proving that citizens cannot be discriminated against because someone finds their views offensive.
His journey did not end with just one judgment
Winning the case made Shreya Singhal nationally known, but she did not stay away from legal disputes.After completing his LLB from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, he started practicing as an advocate in the Delhi High Court.In the years that followed, he continued to speak publicly about constitutional rights, digital rights and the need to protect free speech online.As discussions began to enact new laws on online hate speech, he cautioned against making laws that could repeat the problems that led to the repeal of Section 66A.In articles and public comments, he said that while real hate speech and incitement to violence should be banned, rules governing online speech should be fair, consistent with the law and should not suppress legitimate criticism or dissent.The situation has not changed: protecting citizens from harm should not be at the expense of fundamental rights.
One student’s bravery changed the digital landscape in India
Shreya Singhal’s story is amazing not because she became a famous lawyer overnight.It is interesting because he did this long before he became one.At an age when most students hesitate to ask questions in class, he asked a case in the country’s supreme court.His visit is also a reminder that legal education is about more than memorizing laws or court decisions. At its heart, it is understanding the constitution, recognizing injustice and having the courage to challenge it through legitimate means.Today, millions of Indians present themselves online without the shadow of Section 66A hanging over them.That right exists, in part, because the 21-year-old law student believed that an unconstitutional law should not exist because no one challenged it.Sometimes, history is not changed by those in power.Sometimes, it is replaced by a student who refuses to be quiet.Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available information, court records and accounts related to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). It is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.