https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257880 Speech-restrictive laws must have a proximate nexus with the grounds in Article 19(2); vague and overbroad penal wording that chills protected discussion and advocacy cannot be saved by interpretation or severability. On that basis, section 66A of the Information Technology Act and section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act were struck down. By contrast, section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the blocking rules were upheld because they were narrowly confined to Article 19(2) interests and contained procedural safeguards. Section 79 and the intermediary guidelines were also sustained, but only after reading down "actual knowledge" and the takedown obligation to valid court or governmental directions. en-us Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Mar 2025 16:48:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257880 Speech-restrictive laws must have a proximate nexus with the grounds in Article 19(2); vague and overbroad penal wording that chills protected discussion and advocacy cannot be saved by interpretation or severability. On that basis, section 66A of the Information Technology Act and section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act were struck down. By contrast, section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the blocking rules were upheld because they were narrowly confined to Article 19(2) interests and contained procedural safeguards. Section 79 and the intermediary guidelines were also sustained, but only after reading down "actual knowledge" and the takedown obligation to valid court or governmental directions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257880