<P> The vague and arbitrary terms used in the Section led to much misuse of both personal and political nature, with several criminal cases being instituted against innocuous instances of online speech, including political commentary and humour . Furthermore, Section 79 of the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder, which created an onerous liability regime for internet Intermediaries were also challenged in a series of writ petitions before the Supreme Court, which were clubbed together and heard by a bench consisting of Justices Chelameswar and Nariman . </P> <P> In a 123 - page long judgement, which extensively discussed Indian, English and US jurisprudence on free speech, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66 - A of the Information Technology Act, read down Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the related rules, and affirmed the constitutionality of Section 69A of the Act . </P> <P> Speaking for the Court, Justice Nariman discussed the various standards which are applicable to adjudge when restrictions on speech can be deemed reasonable, under Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution . The Court held that Section 66 - A was vague and over-broad, and therefore fell foul of Article 19 (1) (a), since the statute was not narrowly tailored to specific instances of speech which it sought to curb . Importantly, the Court also considered the' chilling effect' on speech caused by vague and over-broad statutory language as a rationale for striking down the provision . Further, the Court held that the' public order' restriction under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution would not apply to cases of' advocacy', but only to' incitement', specifically incitement which has a proximate relation to public disorder . </P> <P> Of the challenge on the grounds under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Court held that "we are unable to agree with counsel for the petitioners that there is no intelligible differentia between the medium of print, broadcast and real live speech as opposed to speech on the internet . The intelligible differentia is clear--the internet gives any individual a platform which requires very little or no payment through which to air his views ." </P>

Supreme court on section 66a of information technology act