Case Law On Convictions Under The Ict Act
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Background:
The case challenged the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, which penalized sending “offensive messages” through electronic communication.
Arrests had been made under Section 66A for allegedly posting messages on social media critical of government policies.
Issues:
Whether Section 66A violates freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Scope of IT Act in regulating online speech.
Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Emphasized that:
The law was vague and overbroad.
Online speech enjoys the same constitutional protection as offline speech.
Significance:
Though not a case resulting in conviction, it set guidelines for prosecutions under the IT Act.
Courts highlighted that arbitrary arrests under ICT laws are illegal.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – First Conviction Under IT Act
Background:
Suhas Katti was the first person in India convicted under Section 66 of the IT Act.
He had sent obscene messages through email to a woman and misrepresented her identity online.
Issues:
Application of Section 66 (hacking, identity theft, cyber harassment).
Determination of intent and mens rea for cybercrime.
Court’s Findings:
The court convicted Katti under Section 66 (hacking/identity theft) and Section 67 (obscene content).
Emphasized that sending obscene messages and defaming someone online is punishable.
Significance:
Landmark as first conviction under IT Act in India.
Set precedent for cyber harassment and identity theft cases.
3. Shubham Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010)
Background:
The accused posted defamatory content on a social networking site about a government official.
The victim filed a complaint under Sections 66 and 66D of the IT Act.
Issues:
Liability for online defamation and impersonation.
Proving criminal intent in digital communications.
Court’s Findings:
Conviction under Section 66D (cheating by impersonation).
Court held that:
Posting false information to defame or cheat constitutes an IT Act offense.
Even online acts have legal consequences similar to offline acts.
Significance:
Strengthened application of Sections 66 and 66D for online impersonation.
Emphasized that cybercrime is treated equally as traditional crime.
4. Avnish Bajaj v. State (Delhi Cyber Cell, 2005)
Background:
Avnish Bajaj, CEO of Bharatmatrimony.com, was charged under Section 66A for allegedly allowing objectionable content uploaded by users on his platform.
Issues:
Liability of intermediaries for user-generated content.
Whether IT Act Section 66A applied to platform operators.
Court’s Findings:
Delhi High Court initially convicted under Section 66A but later Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgment nullified convictions under Section 66A.
However, Section 79 (safe harbor) was clarified:
Intermediaries are not liable if they follow due diligence.
Hosting platforms must remove content when directed by authorities.
Significance:
Clarified intermediary liability under IT Act.
Set precedent for safe harbor provisions and platform accountability.
5. Mohit Malhotra v. State of Haryana (2016) – Online Cheating and Fraud
Background:
Accused created fake online profiles to deceive multiple victims and extort money.
Complaints were filed under Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (cheating by electronic means).
Issues:
Applicability of IT Act for online fraud and impersonation.
Proof of online identity theft and financial gain.
Court’s Findings:
Convicted under Sections 66C and 66D.
Sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine.
Court held that ICT Act penalizes fraud conducted through electronic devices and communications.
Significance:
Reinforced that cyber fraud is punishable like offline fraud.
Established legal remedies for victims of online cheating.
6. State of Maharashtra v. Prajwala & Ors (2018) – Online Child Pornography
Background:
Accused were running websites distributing obscene material involving minors.
Complaints filed under Section 67 (publishing obscene content online) and IT Act amendments related to child exploitation.
Issues:
Prosecution under IT Act for offensive and illegal online content.
Role of IT Act in protecting children online.
Court’s Findings:
Conviction under Section 67 and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Court emphasized:
IT Act is effective in punishing distribution of obscene material digitally.
Evidence from digital devices admissible under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Significance:
Showed IT Act’s application in child protection online.
Strengthened digital evidence standards in court.
7. State of Kerala v. Rakesh Kumar (2019) – Cyberstalking
Background:
Accused repeatedly stalked and harassed a woman via social media messages and emails.
Complaints filed under Section 66A (pre-Shreya Singhal), Section 66E (privacy violation), and Section 67.
Court’s Findings:
Convicted under Section 66E (violation of privacy).
Court ruled:
Sending repeated unsolicited messages online constitutes harassment.
IT Act protects individuals’ privacy and dignity in cyberspace.
Significance:
Expanded IT Act’s use for personal protection and cyber harassment cases.
Strengthened judicial recognition of digital privacy rights.
Key Legal Principles from IT Act Conviction Cases:
Sections 66, 66C, 66D, 66E, 67: Cover hacking, identity theft, cheating by impersonation, privacy violations, and obscene content.
Digital Evidence Admissibility: Section 65B of the Evidence Act is crucial for IT Act prosecutions.
Intermediary Liability: Section 79 protects platforms if due diligence is followed.
Online Fraud and Cheating: Courts treat online fraud like offline fraud.
Child Protection and Harassment: IT Act collaborates with POCSO and IPC for cyber harassment and obscene content.
Constitutional Safeguards: Arbitrary arrests under vague provisions (e.g., Section 66A) are unconstitutional.
These cases illustrate that convictions under the IT Act are increasingly common, covering cybercrime, online harassment, fraud, identity theft, privacy violations, and obscene content, with courts carefully balancing technology, law, and constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments