The original Section 66 of the IT Act 2000 was only limited to the

hacking of the websites which proved to be ineffective in tackling the

problems of wrongful emails, messages and campaigns on the social
media like Facebook. The amendment was brought in and Section 66A
of the IT Act was inserted in the statute book to tackle all such kinds of
problems on the internet. By its simple definition the Section 66 A of the
IT Act gives widest powers to stop any kind of objectionable email,
messages on the social media, SMS etc.

1. Nand Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 2097; 2100, A.K. Roy v. Union
of India, AIR 1982 SC 711, 737
The Supreme Court has observed in that no enactment can be struck down
by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some constitutional
infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. It cannot be
declared invalid on the ground that it contains vague or
uncertain or ambiguous or mutually inconsistent provisions.
2. AP Coop All Seeds growers Federation Ltd. V. D. Achyuta Rao, (2007) 13 SCC
320

Mere factor that some hardship or injustice is caused to someone is no
ground to strike down the rule altogether if otherwise the rule appears to
be just, fair and reasonable and not constitutional

3. 78 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mandavar, AIR 1955 SC 493; Bar Council,
Uttar Pradesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 231

When a statute is impugned under Article 14, it is the function of the court
to decide whether the statute is so arbitrary or unreasonable that it has to be
struck down. At best, a statute upona similar subject deriving its authority
from another source can be referred to, if its provisions have to be held to
be unreasonable, or have stood the test of time, only for the purpose of
indicating what may be said to be reasonable in the context



4. Akashi Padhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1963 SC 1047; Hamdard Dawakhana
v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 554

If the legislation indirectly or incidentally affects a citizens right under
Art. 19(1) it will not introduce any infirmity to the validity of the
legislation

5.

Narendra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 430

Article 66 A of the I.T. Act lays down mere regulatory measures for
control of vices such as threatening e-mails, threatening messages,
messages causing criminal intimidation etc.
Hence, there is no extinction of the Freedom of Speech and Expression.
If at all, it is just regulation. Also, the word restriction includes
prohibition. Under certain circumstances, therefore, a law depriving a
citizen of his Fundamental Right may be regarded as reasonable. Hence, it
is submitted that the restriction imposed by Article 66 A is a reasonable
restriction under Article 19(2).

6. In Municipal Committee v. State of Punjab, it was held that a law cannot be
struck down as violative of a Fundamental Right merely on the ground that
it is vague.109 It is humbly submitted, therefore, that Article 66 A of the
I.T. Act cannot be held to be unreasonable for the aforementioned reasons

7. kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569

Liberty is the right of doing an act which the law permits. Liberty is confined
and controlled by law as it is regulated freedom. It is not an abstract or absolute
freedom.