1. The court clearly explained why Section 66A cannot continue as law in a democracy in which the freedom of expression is a cardinal value. 2. Nongovernmental actors will now have to obtain court orders to remove content - and won't be able to force intermediaries to remove content by sending them legal notices. 3. Its reasoning is logical and well-constructed. 4. But its real value lies in making clear that the right to free expression under Article 19(1)(a) applies to the internet just as it does to speech that is conveyedthrough other media. 5. While there was its affirmation of freedom of speech online in equal terms to offline - the court importantly acknowledged that the nature of the digital environment could justify the application of laws specific to the internet.