New Delhi, Mar 24 (Agencies): In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, struck down one of the provisions of the IT Act as unconstitutional, which gives power to arrest a person for posting offensive contents on web.

The verdict came in the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging constitutional validity of certain sections of the cyber law including a provision under which a person can be arrested for allegedly posting "offensive" contents on websites.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, introduced in 2000, has been declared unconstitutional. Describing the law as "vague in its entirety," the judges said, it encroaches upon "the public's right to know."

The law had been challenged first by a law student named Shreya Singhal after two young women were arrested in 2012 for posting comments critical of the total shutdown in Mumbai after the death of Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena chief. The group that challenged the law in the Supreme Court expanded to include the NGO Common Cause and Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen.

The contention by most of the petitioners was that Section 66A is vague and allows the police arbitrary interpretation and misuse of the law. The previous government, headed by the Congress, said that the law was necessary to combat abuse and defamation on the Internet. The new BJP government also defended the law in court.

Critics of the law said it was misused by political parties to target their opponents and dissidence. A professor in West Bengal was arrested in 2012 for posting a cartoon of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, for example.

A bench of justices J Chelameswar and R F Nariman had on February 26 reserved its judgement after Government concluded its arguments contending that section 66A of the Information Technology Act cannot be "quashed" merely because of the possibility of its "abuse".

Section 66A reads: "Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine."

With NDTV Inputs

Victory of common man: Section 66A victims

Kolkata, Mar 24 (IANS): Victims and legal experts on Tuesday hailed the Supreme Court's verdict striking down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and termed it a victory for the common man's free speech.

Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra who was arrested under the section in 2012 for circulating emails mocking West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, said the verdict will help in removing the fear psychosis that had gradually developed over the "draconian" law.

"This is a victory of the common man's freedom of speech. This verdict will surely remove the fear psychosis that has been developing among a large section of internet users that they may get arrested for even innocuous of acts," Mahapatra told IANS.

The chemistry professor, however, expressed his reservation over the judgement having an effect on preserving freedom of speech in the state.

"It surely is a welcome judgement and has come as a relief to many like me who have been subject to regular harassment due to the legal procedures, but I don't think, this will have any role in protecting freedom of speech in Bengal," said Mahapatra a fierce critic of the Banerjee led Trinamool Congress government.

Apex court bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman on Tuesday said: "Section 66A of the IT Act is struck down in its entirety."

The judgement came in a petition that was moved one Shreya Singhal in 2012 and was later joined by NGOs Common Cause, People Union for Civil Liberty (PUCL) Aand individuals including self-exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen

Cartoonist and free speech activist Aseem Trivedi who too was booked under the law in 2012, called the judgement a landmark for the social media.

"This is a landmark judgement against a very evil law that has been widely misused by political parties and the administration to curb freedom of speech," Trivedi told IANS.

The cartoonist was arrested in 2012 allegedly poking fun at the Constitution and the national emblem by drawing cartoons which were circulated at Anna Hazare's anti-corruption rally in Mumbai in 2011.

"Social networks are now an important part of the society and play a very vital role bringing forth the evils that besiege it. This judgement will ensure that social media continues to play an important role in shaping up the society," said Trivedi.

"There have been countless people who have fallen victim to this draconian law, perhaps this is a victory for all those," added Trivedi who was recently absolved of sedition charges by a Mumbai court.

Former Supreme Court judge A.K. Ganguly said the law was violative of India's democratic principles and the court's decision will play a big part in preserving freedom of speech.

"It's a bold judgement and I wholeheartedly welcome it. The section was not only vague but provided for individual discrimination and was against the democratic principle which is essence of our constitution," Ganguly told IANS.

"This judgement will go to play a large role in restoring freedom of speech which has often been curbed by powers that be by using this section which was against the constitutional rights and freedoms enshrined in articles 14, 19 and 21," said Ganguly who has formed Save Democracy Forum - an apolitical platform that has been vocal against the "deterioration of democracy in the state".

Kavita Srivastava of PUCL told IANS: "It's a major achievement for crusaders of freedom of speech and confirms our belief that in democracy you cannot continue to crush the voice of dissent. With this judgement more and more people, now will fearlessly use the social media to highlight the tyrannical ways of our politicians especially those now in power."