18 86. Ultimately, applying the tests referred to in Chintaman Rao6 and V.G. Row7 case, referred to earlier in the judgment, it is clear that Section 66-A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech and upsets the balance between such right and the reasonable restrictions that may be imposed on such right.” 20. Thereafter the Court referred to Kameshwar Prasad State of Bihar8 and Central Prison v. Ram Manohar Lohia9 and came to hold as follows:“94. These two Constitution Bench decisions bind us and would apply directly on Section 66-A. We, therefore, hold that the section is unconstitutional also on the ground that it takes within its sweep protected speech and speech that is innocent in nature and is liable therefore to be used in such a way as to have a chilling effect on free speech and would, therefore, have to be struck down on the ground of overbreadth.” 21. While dealing with obscenity, the Curt referred to Ranjit D. Udeshi (supra) and other decisions and opined thus:“48. This Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (supra) took a rather restrictive view of what would pass muster as not being obscene. The Court followed the test laid down in the old English judgment in Hicklin case10 which was whether the 6 Chintaman Rao v. State of M.P., AIR 1951 SC 118 7 State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 8 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 369 : AIR 1962 SC 1166 9 AIR 1960 SC 633 10 R v. Hicklin, (1868) LR 3 QB 360 Page 18