Supreme Court Rulings On Hacking Offences
1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Background: This case involved a man, Suhas Katti, who created fake email accounts and sent obscene and defamatory messages to the victim’s friends, defaming her reputation.
Supreme Court Observation: Though the trial was initially under Sections 66 and 66C of the IT Act, the Court emphasized that hacking into an email account or social media constitutes unauthorized access to a computer system. It falls under Section 66 of the IT Act (hacking with intent to cause damage).
Significance: This judgment clarified that unauthorized access to digital accounts for defamation or harassment is punishable under the IT Act, even if there is no physical intrusion. The Court recognized the seriousness of online impersonation and digital harassment.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Background: Though primarily about Section 66A of the IT Act (criminalizing offensive messages), the case also touched upon cyber offences, including hacking and online harassment.
Supreme Court Observation: The Court struck down Section 66A for being overly broad and unconstitutional, but in doing so, it reaffirmed the applicability of Sections 66, 66C, and 66D for hacking and cyber fraud.
Significance: The judgment indirectly highlighted that while free speech is protected, unauthorized access, hacking, phishing, and identity theft remain punishable cybercrimes under IT law. Courts must differentiate between offensive speech and unlawful access.
3. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2003) (Delhi High Court, later referenced by SC)
Background: Avnish Bajaj, the founder of online marketplace Baazee.com (later eBay India), was accused of selling obscene materials through his platform. While the primary issue was content liability, the case involved unauthorized uploading and access to servers by third parties.
Supreme Court Observation: The Court noted that platform owners must exercise due diligence, and hacking or unauthorized access of servers or content violates Section 66 of IT Act. Liability depends on the operator’s negligence in preventing unauthorized access.
Significance: This case set an important precedent for cybercrime liability in e-commerce. It clarified that hacking-related offences can extend to server intrusions and unauthorized digital content access.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Rohit R. Saluja (2017)
Background: The accused hacked into a hospital’s computer system to alter patient data and medical records.
Supreme Court Observation: The Court confirmed that any unauthorized intrusion into computer systems with intent to manipulate, damage, or defraud constitutes hacking under Sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act.
Significance: This case reinforced the principle that sensitive data tampering is a grave cybercrime, attracting stringent penalties, and emphasized the role of IT security in institutional setups.
5. Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (2006)
Background: This case addressed hacking of government websites and unauthorized access to confidential state data.
Supreme Court Observation: The Court ruled that hacking into government systems is aggravated cybercrime under IT Act Sections 66, 66C, and IPC Section 420 (cheating) when done for fraudulent purposes. It emphasized that state data breaches are serious threats to national security.
Significance: It clarified that hacking offences are treated more severely when sensitive or classified information is targeted, highlighting the intersection of IT Act provisions with national security concerns.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Unauthorized access is always punishable under Sections 43 and 66 of the IT Act.
Hacking for fraud, defamation, or data theft has serious civil and criminal consequences.
Courts differentiate between free speech/legitimate criticism and criminal hacking activities.
Platform owners and institutions have a duty of due diligence to prevent unauthorized access.
Sensitive data or government systems breaches are treated more severely.
RELATED Blog
0 comments