Cybercrime Offences Under It Act
Below is a detailed explanation of major cybercrime offences under the IT Act, followed by detailed case laws (more than 5) that have shaped the interpretation and enforcement of these provisions.
🚨 MAJOR CYBERCRIME OFFENCES UNDER THE IT ACT, 2000
| Section | Offence | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Section 43 | Damage to Computer, Computer System | Covers unauthorized access, downloading data, virus attacks, denial of service, etc. |
| Section 66 | Computer Related Offences | When any act under Sec. 43 is done dishonestly or fraudulently, it becomes punishable under Sec. 66. |
| Section 66C | Identity Theft | Use of someone's password, digital signature, or other unique identification. |
| Section 66D | Cheating by Personation using Computer Resource | Online scams/frauds like fake job offers, lottery frauds, etc. |
| Section 66E | Privacy Violation | Capturing, publishing, or transmitting private images of individuals without consent. |
| Section 67 | Publishing Obscene Material in Electronic Form | Sending or publishing obscene or sexually explicit content electronically. |
| Section 67A & 67B | Publishing Sexually Explicit Material & Child Pornography | Related to explicit content involving adults and minors. |
| Section 69 | Interception and Monitoring | Allows the government to intercept data under certain conditions. |
| Section 70 | Protected Systems | Securing critical information infrastructure. |
| Section 72 | Breach of Confidentiality and Privacy | Applies to officials who misuse confidential information. |
🧑⚖️ DETAILED CASE LAWS ON CYBERCRIME IN INDIA
1. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2008) – Bazee.com Obscenity Case
Facts: A student uploaded an obscene MMS clip involving minors on Bazee.com, an online marketplace. Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act.
Legal Issue: Whether an intermediary (platform provider) can be held liable for third-party content.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court held that the CEO could not be held liable unless it was shown that he had knowledge of the content being hosted. However, the company could be liable.
Significance: Laid groundwork for the legal responsibilities of intermediaries under IT law and later influenced the Intermediary Guidelines.
2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) – First Conviction under IT Act
Facts: The accused harassed a woman by posting obscene messages about her in a Yahoo message group and also emailed vulgar content using fake email IDs.
Legal Provisions: Sections 67 (publishing obscene content), 469 IPC (forgery for harming reputation), and 509 IPC (insulting modesty of a woman).
Judgment: The court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment. This was one of the first convictions under Section 67 of the IT Act.
Significance: Landmark case demonstrating swift action and conviction in cyber harassment.
3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Striking Down Section 66A
Facts: PIL challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A (sending offensive messages through communication service) on the grounds of violation of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, holding that the section was vague and overly broad, leading to misuse and chilling effect on free speech.
Significance: Major victory for digital rights and freedom of expression online in India.
4. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015) – Freedom of Expression and Facebook Posts
Facts: A couple posted complaints against traffic police on Facebook. FIR was filed under Sections 66A and 506 IPC.
Judgment: Supreme Court quashed the FIR, stating that expressing dissatisfaction with public authorities on social media does not constitute a criminal offence.
Significance: Reinforced the precedent in Shreya Singhal regarding freedom of speech on digital platforms.
5. M/s SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra (2001) – First Cyber Defamation Case in India
Facts: The employee sent defamatory emails to the employer and its subsidiaries globally.
Legal Action: Civil suit was filed in the Delhi High Court for injunction.
Judgment: The court passed an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant from sending defamatory emails.
Significance: First Indian case dealing with cyber defamation, recognized the need to extend traditional defamation laws to cyberspace.
6. Mahesh Vikram Hegde v. State of Karnataka (2018) – Fake News and Freedom of Speech
Facts: Mahesh Hegde, founder of Postcard News, was arrested for publishing a false news story claiming a Jain monk was attacked by Muslims.
Legal Provisions: Section 66 of the IT Act, 153A and 295A IPC.
Judgment: The Karnataka High Court granted bail, observing that arrest in such cases should be avoided unless necessary.
Significance: Raised concerns over misuse of cybercrime provisions to curb freedom of the press.
7. Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (2013-ongoing) – Ban on Pornography in India
Facts: PIL seeking a nationwide ban on pornography, claiming it was responsible for increasing sexual crimes.
Relief Sought: Blocking of pornographic websites under Section 69A.
Status: The case is still pending, but it led to periodic bans and directives from the government to ISPs to block adult content.
Significance: Brought Section 67 and 69A into focus regarding content regulation and public morality vs personal liberty.
🔍 Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Offence / Legal Provision | Key Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Avnish Bajaj v. State | Section 67 | CEO not liable without knowledge |
| State v. Suhas Katti | Section 67 | First conviction for cyber harassment |
| Shreya Singhal v. UoI | Section 66A | Struck down as unconstitutional |
| Manik Taneja v. State | Section 66A | FIR quashed for social media criticism |
| SMC Pneumatics v. Kwatra | Cyber Defamation | Injunction granted |
| Mahesh Hegde Case | Fake news (66 & IPC) | Bail granted; raised free speech issues |
| Kamlesh Vaswani PIL | Section 67, 69A | Led to porn bans, case ongoing |
RELATED Blog
0 comments