Sending Offensive Messages in India: Section 66A Explained

By Advocate Panchanand Shaw, Bar Council of West Bengal · Published 4 Nov 2026 · Cyber law

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 once made it a criminal offence to send offensive messages through a computer or a communication device. That provision is no longer in force. In 2015 the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, holding that it violated the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. No one can be prosecuted under Section 66A today, and any complaint that relies on it is built on a provision that does not exist. Understanding this is the starting point for anyone asking what can be done about abusive or threatening messages online.

The provision falling away does not mean that offensive messages are lawful or beyond remedy. It means the remedy lies in other provisions, which are narrower and require specific ingredients to be proved. Criminal intimidation, intentional insult, defamation, obscenity and the invasion of privacy each have their own section. This guide explains what Section 66A said and why it fell, what the law uses instead, and how a victim of abusive online messaging can actually proceed.

What Section 66A said, and why it fell

Section 66A punished the sending, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, of information that was grossly offensive or of a menacing character; of information known to be false but sent for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will; and of electronic mail or messages sent for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience, or to deceive or mislead the recipient. The words were broad and undefined. The Supreme Court found that terms such as grossly offensive, annoyance, inconvenience and ill will had no clear limits, that the provision was drafted so widely that it covered legitimate speech, and that its very existence chilled expression. Because it failed the test of a reasonable restriction on free speech, it was struck down, and the related rules that depended on it were read down as well. The consequence is simple: Section 66A is not a valid basis for an arrest, a notice, or a charge.

Why offensive could not be the test for a criminal offence

The core difficulty with Section 66A was that it made a state of mind, rather than a defined act, the offence. What is grossly offensive to one person may be ordinary comment to another, and the section offered no line that a citizen could see in advance and stay on the right side of. A criminal provision must tell a person what conduct is prohibited and what is permitted, and Section 66A did not. The provisions that replaced it work differently: they define a threat, an insult, an imputation or obscene material, and each ingredient can be tested against the facts. That is why the law now asks which specific section applies, rather than whether a message was objectionable in the abstract. For a complainant, the practical lesson is to identify the ingredient, and for an accused, to test whether that ingredient is actually met.

What the law uses instead

With Section 66A gone, the law that governs offensive, threatening or obscene messages is the general penal law of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 together with the surviving provisions of the IT Act. Each provision has its own ingredient, and a complaint must fit one of them.

It is worth noticing how much narrower these provisions are. Criminal intimidation is not a response to rudeness; it requires a threat with intent to cause alarm or to compel a person to do, or refrain from doing, something. Intentional insult requires an intention or knowledge that the provocation will cause a breach of the peace. Defamation is a matter of a false imputation that harms reputation, and it carries exceptions for truth, fair comment and good faith. Obscenity under the IT Act turns on the nature of the material, not on whether it is merely unpleasant.

The practical difference between a threat and an insult

Because the replacement provisions are distinct, a single message can fit one and miss another, and the choice decides whether the case is cognizable, whether it is bailable, and how it is tried. A threat under Section 351 looks to the future and to coercion: it asks whether the sender threatened injury in order to alarm the recipient or to make the recipient act against their will. An insult under Section 352 looks to provocation: it asks whether the sender intended or knew that the insult would provoke a breach of the peace. A defamatory imputation under Section 356 looks to reputation and to the harm done in the estimation of others. An obscenity charge under Sections 67 or 67A looks to the character of the material itself. A complainant who can say plainly which of these is met, and why, gets a case moving; one who simply calls the message offensive does not.

Is a merely offensive message still an offence?

There is no general offence of being offensive. After Section 66A fell, an abusive or rude message is not criminal merely because it is unpleasant. It becomes criminal only when it satisfies one of the specific sections: a threat under Section 351, an insult intended to provoke a breach of the peace under Section 352, a defamatory imputation under Section 356, obscene material under Section 67, sexually explicit material under Section 67A, or a non-consensual private image under Section 66E. A complaint that describes the message as offensive in general terms, without identifying which of these is met and how, tends to fail at the first hurdle. Courts are alert to the difference between speech that is objectionable and speech that is criminal, precisely because the provision that blurred that line was struck down.

How to complain about abusive or threatening messages

1. Preserve the message before doing anything else. Take screenshots that show the sender, the date and the time, keep the original on the device, and note the platform and the account or number involved. Do not delete the thread.
2. If the messages are to be proved in court, arrange the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 for the electronic record, so the record is admissible.
3. Block or mute the sender to stop further contact, but keep the preserved copy safe and separate.
4. If there is a threat or sustained harassment, report at the jurisdictional police station, or on the portal cybercrime.gov.in or the helpline 1930. Name the specific provision the facts fit.
5. If the police do not register the case, apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS to direct an investigation, or pursue a private complaint before the Magistrate.
6. Where the grievance is defamation, the remedy is a complaint before the Magistrate, because defamation is generally tried as a complaint case. Preserve the imputation, the audience and the harm to reputation.
7. Where the material is obscene, sexually explicit, or a non-consensual image, bring it under the IT Act obscenity provisions and Section 66E as applicable, and report through the dedicated channels at once.
8. Keep the account consistent across the platform complaint, the police complaint and any bank complaint, because inconsistency is the easiest answer for the other side.

What decides the outcome of an abusive-message case

The first factor is the exact words and the context. A court reads the message as a whole, looks at what preceded it, and asks whether a reasonable recipient would read a threat into it. The second is intention: Sections 351, 352 and 356 each turn on intent or knowledge, so the complainant must show more than an unpleasant result. The third is identity: a message from an anonymous account must be traced to a person, which generally requires the platform's logs, obtained through the lawful process rather than by informal means. The fourth is proportionality, because courts are reluctant to bring the criminal law to bear on private quarrels that could be resolved otherwise. The fifth is the quality of the preserved record, because a screenshot without its context, or a message whose authenticity is disputed, can be weaker than it appears.

Common mistakes after abusive online messages

• Filing a complaint under Section 66A, which no longer exists and invites summary dismissal.
• Deleting the messages or the account history, which destroys the evidence.
• Treating mere rudeness or criticism as a criminal offence, when the law requires a specific ingredient.
• Complaining only to the platform, so no police record is created.
• Quoting a screenshot without the surrounding context, which lets the other side dispute its meaning.
• Waiting, when the trail from an anonymous account is easiest to trace while the platform's logs are fresh.
• Overlooking the civil and platform-based remedies, which can supplement the criminal route and are dealt with in civil litigation.

The defensive side: what an accused should know under the present law

A person facing a complaint about messages should check, first, that the complaint does not rely on Section 66A, because a complaint on that footing is bad from the start. Second, the accused should examine whether the facts actually satisfy the ingredient of the section invoked: a threat under Section 351 requires a threat, not a rude opinion; intent to insult under Section 352 requires an intention to provoke a breach of the peace. Third, the accused should test identity, because attribution of a message to a person is a matter the prosecution must prove, not assume. Where the complaint is really about reputation, the accused may rely on the statutory exceptions, including truth and good faith. A carefully drafted reply, pointing to the correct provision and the missing ingredient, often resolves a matter before it hardens into a prosecution.

When to involve a cyber crime lawyer

Complaints about online messages succeed or fail on the fit between the facts and a specific section, on the quality of the preserved record, and on the ability to trace an anonymous sender through lawful means. A lawyer can tell a victim which provision actually applies now that Section 66A is gone, and can help a person who is wrongly accused identify the missing ingredient. For a range of cyber matters, a cyber crime lawyer can advise on reporting, on the certificate needed to prove an electronic record, and on the choice between a police complaint and a private complaint before the Magistrate. To discuss a specific matter, use the contact page.

Frequently asked questions

Information for general guidance only and not legal advice. Provisions cited follow the Information Technology Act 2000, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023.

Related articles

• Voyeurism in India: Section 77 BNS Punishment and Defences
• Violation of Privacy in India: Section 66E IT Act Explained
• Unauthorised Access in India: Section 66 IT Act Explained
• Tampering with Computer Source Documents: Section 65 IT Act
• Stalking Online: Section 78 BNS Punishment and Defences
• Sexual Harassment Online: Section 75 BNS and Punishment

Cyber crime lawyer in your city · Bank account freeze help · Contact