First of all, freedom of speech is the right we all have since we were born. This means that you can freely express your ideas, which you believe to be true. This of course does not includes call to action, what I mean by this is that you are able and free to say "I wish his car gets crashed." But, you are unable to say "Please go and crash his car." The difference between one and the other is that one is calling to action and the other one is not.
When we talk about regulating freedom of speech, just as Article 66A defines that all "offensive" language which is being sent through a mobile device should be punished by a maximum of 3 year jail time and a fine. By doing this, what we are actually doing is giving away our freedom of speech right to someone who will determine what we can say, and what we can't say, on the same way we are also taking away the right itself. According to the Oxford Dictionary, offensive means "Causing someone to feel restful, upset or annoyed." Once this term is defined we can understand why trying to regulate it just based on what a person feels to be "offensive" is not a good solution, since this has a brought definition. What the Indian government is trying to do is almost impossible and if this is approved, then the right will just vanish and it will become a country were the government regulates what you can and can't say.
For me freedom of speech is essential, since thanks to that we can express our ideals freely, without fearing someone to shut us down, if instead of free speech what you are actually doing is a call to action, then you must be punished. Regulating your freedom of speech just because someone somewhere on the planet felt your comments offensive is a crazy idea, and it will not longer be considered as free speech, since someone is regulating it. To end my idea, I will leave you with a question. Are you willing to give one of your birth rights away to someone else?