Maharashtra Considers New Criminal Rules For Social-Media Posts Years After Section 66A Was Scrapped

Could certain social-media posts in Maharashtra soon face a new criminal-law route? The debate has moved further than it had in March. As of August 21, 2026, the DGP-led committee set up by the state has recommended a state amendment with safeguards against misuse, and the proposal is now with the Law and Judiciary Department. Section 66A itself, however, has not returned. The Supreme Court struck it down in 2015.

The review began after Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis told the Maharashtra Assembly that online defamation without evidence, including attacks through fake accounts, needed a closer legal response. The March Indian Express report on the Assembly announcement detailed how the DGP-led review first took shape.

What Maharashtra’s Committee Has Recommended

In March, Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar suggested examining whether a provision similar to Section 66A could be introduced in some form. Fadnavis then announced a committee headed by DGP Sadanand Date to review the available legal routes. The Home Department later formalised the panel, bringing in officials from Law and Judiciary, Information Technology, Women and Child Development, and Maharashtra Cyber.

The latest Indian Express report published on August 21, 2026 says the committee has now recommended a state amendment with safeguards against misuse. The proposal has reached the Law and Judiciary Department for examination. A final law has not yet been enacted, so the exact wording will decide how wide or narrow any new offence becomes.

The debate now turns on four questions:

• Which categories of defamatory or fabricated social-media content should attract a specific criminal provision?
• How should fake accounts, impersonation and deliberately manipulated posts be treated?
• What checks should prevent a complaint from becoming an automatic FIR merely because speech is offensive?
• How can the law protect reputation without criminalising criticism, satire, reporting or political disagreement?

Fadnavis also announced the review publicly on X in March. News18 Marathi’s report embeds the verified @Dev_Fadnavis post carrying that announcement from his official account.

Why Section 66A Cannot Simply Come Back

Section 66A used broad expressions such as “grossly offensive” and “menacing” for electronic messages. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India, the Supreme Court found the provision unconstitutional. Later Supreme Court judgments have repeated why: the wording was vague, overbroad and capable of chilling lawful speech. The Supreme Court’s discussion of Section 66A’s vagueness remains central to any new attempt at regulating online speech.

That creates a hard drafting limit for Maharashtra. Calling a new provision something else would not save it if ordinary users still cannot tell what conduct is prohibited. A criminal speech law needs clear ingredients, not a loose test based on whether somebody dislikes a post.

Online defamation is not presently a law-free zone either. Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita covers defamation, while other BNS and Information Technology Act provisions can apply to threats, impersonation, obscene material or other specific conduct.

Courts have recently added another guardrail. In February 2026, the Supreme Court declined to disturb Telangana High Court guidelines aimed at preventing mechanical criminal cases over social-media posts, particularly harsh political criticism. Any Maharashtra amendment would operate against that free-speech backdrop.

Deepfakes And Platform Rules Are Adding Pressure

The timing is notable because AI-generated political content is already reaching courts. On August 6, the Bombay High Court directed Meta, X, Google and other platforms to remove allegedly defamatory posts and AI-generated deepfake videos linking Union minister Nitin Gadkari and his family to the E20 ethanol-blended petrol programme. The case is separate from Maharashtra’s proposed amendment, but it shows how quickly fabricated media can produce legal action. The Bombay High Court deepfake case involving Gadkari has added a current example to the wider debate.

National rules have tightened too. MeitY’s August 2026 deepfake framework says the 2026 IT Rules amendments require clearer labelling and traceable metadata for permissible synthetically generated content. The government also reduced the specified timeline for removal of unlawful content from 36 hours to three hours.

Those platform duties are different from creating a criminal offence for the person who posts something. Takedown rules govern intermediaries and content handling. Criminal prosecution can involve investigation, court proceedings and possible punishment, so the legal threshold has to be much more precise.

What Could Change For Users And Creators

Nothing in the current proposal makes ordinary criticism newly illegal today. The next stage is legal scrutiny of the committee recommendation, followed by the text of any amendment the Maharashtra government chooses to introduce.

For users, journalists, creators and political accounts, the key words will be the definitions. “False”, “defamatory”, “fabricated”, “impersonation” and “harm” can cover very different situations unless legislation draws firm boundaries. A knowingly fabricated accusation is not the same as a wrong opinion, parody, disputed report or genuine error.

If the final draft uses narrow offences and procedural safeguards, Maharashtra may argue that it addresses digital abuse without repeating Section 66A. If it recreates vague ideas such as offensiveness without a clear test, a constitutional challenge is highly likely.

FAQs