Law Gratis

#	Case	Facts & Issues	Judgment / Key Holdings	Significance / Policy Implications
1	Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)	A challenge to Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, which criminalised sending “offensive” messages via communication services. The section was used to arrest people for social media posts, etc. Issues included: whether 66A was vague, overbroad, violating free speech.	The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional. It held that the provision was vague and overbroad, violating Article 19(1)(a) (free speech), and not saved by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Also, the Court reaffirmed/interpreted intermediary liability and safe harbour under Section 79 of the I	This case is a cornerstone in ensuring that cybersecurity / cyber‐speech laws do not curtail fundamental freedoms arbitrarily. It set limits on government overreach, demanded precision in drafting of laws regulating online speech, and reinforced safe harbour protections for intermediaries. Many later challenges to media/social media rules refer to this precedent.
2	Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union of India (2017) & Aadhaar Judgments	Challenges to Aadhaar scheme’s mandatory usage in certain services, collection and storage of biometric data, privacy concerns. Fundamental issue: Is “privacy” a fundamental right? What are the limits on data collection / requirement for use of identity data by state/non‐state actors?	The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19, and 21. In later Aadhaar judgments (2018), upheld constitutionality of Aadhaar for public welfare schemes but struck down mandatory use by private entities (Section 57), among other restrictions.	This has had huge implications for data protection policy, pushing India toward stronger regulation of personal data, consent, purpose limitation, restricting private use of identity systems, influencing drafting of Data Protection / Digital Personal Data Protection Act etc. It also influences how cybersecurity policies treat identity, misuse, data breach etc.
3	Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu	In 2004, the case involved obscene, defamatory, harassing electronic communications via email / Yahoo groups. The accused also created fake accounts, impersonation. Also the question of electronic evidence (from Yahoo server) under Evidence Act’s Section 65B was central.	The Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 67 IT Act (obscene content), IPC sections (defamation, etc.), forgery. Critically, admitted certified copy of electronic records under Section 65B (from private consultant) as valid evidence.	Important because early recognition of electronic evidence, admissibility of non‐government forensic lab certified records, contributed to evidence law reform, and showed how IT Act's content‐based offences work in practice. Also set precedent in harassment/defamation via internet.
4	Kunal Kamra v. Union of India & Ors. (2024)	Challenge to the 2023 amendments to the Intermediary Guidelines & Digital Media Ethics Code (IT Rules 2021) that created a government‐established fact‐checking unit to flag or remove content related to government affairs considered false, misleading. Issues: constitutional validity, vagueness, overbroad definitions, violation of Articles 14, 19, etc.	The Bombay High Court delivered a split verdict: one judge finding the rules unconstitutional, the other upholding. The tie was referred to a third judge; eventually the rules were found to violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as exceeding authority under the IT Act.	This marks a further instance where courts check government rules under the IT Act / IT Rules for overreach/chill on speech. It adds pressure on the state to ensure rules are clear, proportionate, grounded in statutory authority.
5	LiveLaw Media Pvt. Ltd. & Others v. Union of India (LiveLaw case / High Courts 2021)	When the IT Rules, 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) were notified (Feb 2021), many entities challenged particularly Part III of these Rules (which regulate digital news media, online curated content) as being unconstitutional. LiveLaw (legal news portal) filed a writ petition in Kerala HC, arguing that Part III imposes undue restrictions, is vague / disproportionate, beyond the mandate under the IT Act.	The Kerala High Court granted an interim stay / restrained the government from taking coercive action under Part III of the Rules against LiveLaw. It issued notice on constitutionality.	The case is significant in testing how far the government can regulate digital news and online content. It also relates back to safe harbour, free speech, and balancing regulation with journalistic freedom. It pressures clearer delineation between intermediaries, digital media, news publishers, etc.
6	Other cases related to Aadhaar / identity fraud cases high courts	There are several petitions and judgment aspects in Aadhaar litigation, e.g. usage of Aadhaar by private entities, mandatory Aadhaar linking to services, etc. Also, cases of Aadhaar fraud / identity misuse have come before courts. For instance, the High Court quashing actions taken against a party due to Aadhaar fraud / identity impersonation. (Though many of these are more recent and incremental.)	Courts have in some instances intervened to protect persons mis‐identified, identity fraud victims, ordering deletion of Aadhaar or PAN details wrongly associated, etc. These decisions highlight gaps in implementation / security of identity databases, and pressures for reform in Aadhaar regulation, data breach responses, redressal mechanisms.