11 years on, Maharashtra panel suggests return of law to police social media
A Maharashtra government panel has recommended the return of Section 66A of the IT Act, a provision that criminalised sending of 'defamatory' messages online and which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2011.
4 min readMumbaiUpdated: Aug 21, 2026 03:56 PM IST
The Law and Judiciary Department will now give its opinion, after which the proposal goes to the state government. Even if the state legislature clears the amendment, it cannot come into force until the Centre examines it and the President gives assent. (Image generated using AI)
Eleven years ago the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, decrying the provision as ‘unconstitutional’, ‘vague in its entirety’, and an infringement of the ‘public’s right to know’.
Fast-forward to today, and a panel set up by the Maharashtra government has recommended a change to the country’s criminal code, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to specifically cover ‘defamatory social media posts’.
The panel has also recommended safeguards against misuse of the provision, The Indian Express has been told.
But the larger recommendation – reinstating the spirit of Section 66A – has raised eyebrows.
That it came as the government faces criticism on social media – over student-led protests against the integrity of the exam system and quality of schools – means those eyebrows have been raised further.
What is Maharashtra’s Section 66A plan
Set up in May, the Maharashtra government committee was supposed to examine legal options for dealing with defamatory content online. Sources have told the Express it has settled on a state-level change to the BNS.
That change can be effected since the law sits in the Concurrent List. This route requires the state legislature to pass the amendment, after which it goes to the Centre and then the President for assent before it takes effect.
Story continues below this ad
Amending the Maharashtra Police Act or seeking a change to the IT Act was considered and dropped.
The source said the BNS route was preferred because ‘it will be vetted at multiple levels and have a stronger footing if challenged in court, as compared to just amending the state law’.
The BNS already defines defamation as ‘making or publishing any imputation about a person, by words spoken or intended to be read, by signs or by visible representations, intending or knowing it will harm that person’s reputation’. It has no specific mention of online content.
What was Section 66A
Section 66A criminalised sending messages through a computer or electronic communication device that were considered grossly offensive or menacing, among other categories.
Story continues below this ad
It was invoked in cases involving comments, shared information, and opinions posted online, and became the centre of a long argument over how far the state could police internet speech.
The Shreya Singhal case
On March 24, 2015, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional for violating the right to free speech.
The court held the provision vague and overbroad, and said it did not require the communication to have a tendency to cause an immediate threat to public safety or tranquility.
It also did not distinguish between information sent to a large audience and a message sent to one person. Terms such as ‘grossly offensive’, ‘annoying’ and ‘inconvenient’ could cover speech that neither affected a person’s reputation nor amounted to an offence under penal law.
Story continues below this ad
Maharashtra’s workaround
The drafting of Maharashtra’s amendment, therefore, will take into account concerns raised by the top court, a government official told The Express.
Also, the ‘safeguards’ that will be included will consider similar attempts by other states – to legislate on social media content – and learn from each instance, sources said.
In 2020, for example, Kerala amended its Police Act through an ordinance to criminalise communication deemed threatening, abusive, humiliating or defamatory, and made it punishable with a three-year jail term.
But it was withdrawn after opposition and petitions in court.
Mohamed Thaver is a highly specialized journalist with the Expertise and Authority required to report on complex law enforcement and legal issues. With a career dedicated to the crime beat for over a decade, his work provides readers with informed and trustworthy insights into Maharashtra's security and justice systems.
Experience & Authority
Core Focus: Has been exclusively covering the crime beat for over a decade, building deep, specialized knowledge in the field.
Geographical Authority: Currently focuses heavily on law enforcement and policy in Maharashtra, providing authoritative coverage of the state's security apparatus.
Key Beats:
Law Enforcement: Reports on the operations of the Maharashtra Police and the Mumbai Crime Branch.
Policy & Administration: Covers the Maharashtra Home Department, focusing on policy matters related to handling law and order and the evolution of the police force.
Judiciary: Has significant past experience covering the courts, giving him a comprehensive understanding of the entire criminal justice process from investigation to verdict.
Specialized Interest (Cyber & Forensics): Demonstrates Expertise in modern investigative techniques, with a keen focus on cyber crime and forensics, reporting on how these technologies assist complex crime investigations.
Content Focus: His reports revolve around police probes, the evolution of the force, and state policy, ensuring his content is highly relevant and detailed.
Credentials & Trustworthiness
Mohamed Thaver’s long-standing specialization in the crime beat—combined with his focus on technological aspects like cyber crime and his direct coverage of major institutions like the Mumbai Crime Branch and the Maharashtra Home Department—underscores his Trustworthiness and status as an expert source for detailed and reliable journalism on law and order.
He tweets @thaver_mohamed ... Read More
