Section 66A of IT Act must know for all ias aspirant

Section 66A deals with punishment for sending offensive
messages through a communication service. Under the
provision, any person who sends, by means of a computer
resource or a communication device,
(a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing
character; or
(b) any information, which he knows to be false, but for the
purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger,
obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity,
hatred or ill-will, persistently by making use of such
computer resource or a communication device; or
(c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the
purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive
or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of
such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term, which may extend to three years and with fine.

Ironically, neither the committee nor the department appears
to have understood the inherent inconsistency between the
phraseology of Section 66A and Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and
expression to every citizen. Under Article 19(2), restrictions
on freedom of speech are reasonable if they pertain to any
of the listed grounds, such as 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.
Although Section 66A was intended to be an anti-spam
provision, its careless phrasing does not help achieve its
objective. The use of “or” instead of “and” makes the
provision very loose, making it easier for the police to decide
whether an alleged offence attracts it. Experts have pointed
out many other anomalies in the provision, which are
inconsistent with free speech requirements. Words like
“grossly offensive”, “menacing character”, “annoyance”,
“danger”, “obstruction”, “insult” and “injury” found in the
provision are too general and incapable of precise definition.
Even authors of innocent communication through e-mail
could be accused of having violated the law.

PIL by 21 year old Shreya Singhal challenging sections constitutionality ..

Phraseology of sec 66a was so wide and vague