Answer: 

Introduction:

Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 of India was enacted with the intent of combating cybercrimes, particularly those involving communication services. This provision criminalized sending offensive messages through communication services, which included any information that was grossly offensive, false and meant for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.

Body:

However, the provision was often criticized for its vaguely defined terms like ‘annoyance’, ‘inconvenience’, or ‘offensive’, which were open to subjective interpretations, thus potentially leading to abuse and misuse of the law.

• Critics contended that this section impinged on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all Indian citizens. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
• The critics of Section 66A argued that the wide and ambiguous terms used in the provision led to restrictions that were not reasonable and thus violated Article 19(1)(a). The argument was that Section 66A could be, and was, used to suppress dissent, critique, and free expression on the internet.
• In 2015, the Supreme Court of India, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, agreed with these criticisms and struck down Section 66A of the IT Act.
• The court held that the provision was unconstitutional as it was vague and overbroad, and it did not fall within the reasonable restrictions specified under Article 19(2).
• The court noted that a law which is vague, which is not clearly defined, can cause a ‘chilling effect’ on freedom of speech and expression, and thus, it is not permissible under the Constitution.

Conclusion:

Therefore, while Section 66A of the IT Act was intended to protect individuals and society from cybercrimes, its lack of clear definitions and potential for misuse led to its downfall as it was seen as a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution of India.