article_snippet: The two-judge bench headed by the son of legendary jurist Fali S. Nariman had struck down as “unconstitutional” and “vague” the draconian provision which gave “sweeping and unbridled power” to the police to arrest anyone for offensive posts on social networking websites or sending messages through mobile phones and tablets.
article_snippet: The law was blatantly being misused.
article_snippet: The provision was extremely vague in The law definition of what should go on the Internet,” her said.
article_snippet: Supreme Court found merit in Shreya’s argument that the language used in Section 66A is so vague that the accused would not know what the offence was, and nor would the authorities be clear on the charges.
article_snippet: What is worse is that none of these expressions had been defined. 
article_snippet: This went against the principles of criminal law which require each and every term to be well-defined, leaving no scope for misinterpretation and possible misuse.
article_snippet: Supreme Court noted that the vagueness could be misused by governments with an agenda.
article_snippet: The right of viewers is also infringed as The right of viewers would not give viewers the benefit of the many shades of grey in terms of various points of view that could be viewed over the Internet,” the bench said in The right of viewers 122-page judgment.