If nothing else, the reaction to this 66A verdict exposes the hypocrisy of politicians.

Who knew that India had so many brave soldiers in our political class in the fight for Freedom of Expression? They have been crawling out of the woodwork since the Supreme Court verdict striking down Section 66A.

Their quotes in the media would have you believe that the Supreme Court verdict came about because of their relentless advocacy rather than in spite of their roadblocks.

If nothing else, the reaction to this 66A verdict exposes the hypocrisy of politicians. Make no mistake, the Supreme Court gave them a thappad. The BJP’s supporters want to take cold comfort in the fact that the court said while the current government might not abuse the act and even institute safeguards, there was no way to ensure future governments would not. “It’s not about us,” the BJP can say in consolation. But the future government could also be a BJP sarkar. And what the court was expressing was an utter lack of confidence in a political class which has abused 66A from the get go.

Of course, the original sin of 66A rests on the Congress’ shoulders. But other parties have their finger prints on it as well, even as they rush to cover their tracks. There’s plenty of blame to go around.

While Kapil Sibal of the Congress is often portrayed as the godfather of Section 66A he was not its real architect. When the bill was first shaped in 2006, Dayanidhi Maran of the DMK was the IT minister. It was introduced by his junior IT minister Shakeel Ahmad Khan. When the bill was finally moved in the Lok Sabha in 2008, A Raja was the minister for communications and IT.

At that time the country was still reeling from the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. And just as the US rushed through the PATRIOT Act without much debate or dissent, the Indian parliament also rubber stamped the bill, passing it less than half an hour along with three other bills reports Indian Express.

There was a 31-member parliamentary standing committee that went through the bill. It too raised no concerns over misuse and abuse. (One of the members of that committee is the current telecom and IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.)

But now they are all remembering the holes and flaws in the bill they passed without debate. The Aam Aadmi Party was not around then so it can happily claim “The Aam Aadmi Party feels proud that it was the only party that stood on the right side in court against the government.”

Now Kapil Sibal tells The Telegraph it’s “a welcome judgement.” Once he had said “there is nothing unconstitutional about the section” and only blamed police “misuse.” In matter of fact, the court called the section “unconstitutional”.

P. Chidambaram now thinks that “the section was poorly drafted and was vulnerable.” He adds that “it was capable of being misused, and, in fact, it was misused.” He does not clarify whether he thinks his own son Karti was one of the misusers for using 66A to go after a businessman who had accused him of corruption.

Politicians obviously think public memory is so short they can change their tune at will. The Congress’ Sachin Jha tweets out that he is “Delighted that #Sec66A has been scrapped by the Supreme Court; it had an implicit threat of criminal intimidation. Free speech reigns supreme.” No thanks to him since in 2012 he had said that 66A-related “arrests on FB posts regrettable but we need laws and social media regulation.”

Instead of admitting that the Supreme Court just administered a stinging blow to the whole lot, politicians are busy doing what they do best – pointing fingers at each other.

So the Congress claims in a statement that it is the “champion and torchbearer of freedom of expression” and Manish Tewari, himself a former I&B minister coolly says “66A was an antithesis of Freedom and Expression guaranteed by Article 19(2)” and “put too much of arbitrary power in law-enforcing agencies, notwithstanding the safeguards we attempted to build into it” as if his party was not the one that created it in the first place.

Now in the Opposition, the Congress gleefully wants to haul the BJP’s Arun Jaitley over the coals for calling the law an “online emergency” while in the Opposition and then justifying the need for 66A while in government. Meanwhile the BJP’s Ram Madhav tweets “A UPA inserted draconian Section 66A in IT Act struck down by SC. A welcome decision. Grossly unnecessary section done away with.” As if the government led by his own party had not been defending Section 66A in court until that day.

The BJP which could have made a mark for itself by sticking to its principles on 66A is now a stakeholder in what should have been the Congress’ ignominy. Whatever its spin doctors say even some of its supporters are smarting. “The affidavit was a missed opportunity,” says Prasanna Viswanathan, CEO of Swarajya magazine who had been among the earliest to canvass on the internet for Modi. “The BJP-led government had a chance to take an unambiguous position that was consistent with the statements it had put out when it was in the Opposition.”

The BJP can claim it wanted only to fix Section 66A and that the “core thinking “ of the Narendra Modi government is that “freedom of expression is something the government is not willing to curtail” but in the final count it was seen as loath to let 66A out of its grasp. Ravi Shankar Prasad can now say he always knew the bill was “unacceptable in its current form” but only a few days ago he had told opponents of 66A “We should not overreact on Section 66A.” No word on whether he thinks the Supreme Court “overreacted”.

The CPI(M)’s Brinda Karat welcomed the ruling saying that even previously the party had demanded the act be scrapped. And took the opportunity to take a potshot at Mamata Banerjee whose government was one of the early offenders. “We just expect leaders like Mamata Banerjee get the message,” said Karat.

Mamata Banerjee, busy congratulating the Bengal winners at the National Film Awards, has not reacted. Karat might not be aware but as The Telegraph points out her party’s hero Jyoti Basu ordered the arrest of a Calcutta resident who had set up a website with a Bengali expletive as its name and criticized Basu and his son. And this was in 1999 in the days before 66A. Perhaps that’s what Karat was thinking of when she said “There are already some restrictions given in the constitution so there was no need of this clause.”

Ironically in all of this scurrying for cover, the one voice of consistency has been Azam Khan. His office filed the complaint that led a teenager to be taken into lock-up for a Facebook post. Unfazed by the Supreme Court ruling, Khan at least has refused to change his tune. “Aap log aparadhiyon ki himayat kartey hain (you support criminals)” he told the media when asked about the court ruling.

In a world of flip-flopping politicians, Azam Khan might be on the wrong side of history but at least he can claim credit for sticking to his guns till the cows come home.