Cyber Law, as the name suggests, deals with statutory provisions that regulate Cyberspace.
With the advent of digitalization and AI (Artificial Intelligence), there is a significant rise in
Cyber Crimes being registered. Around 44, 546 cases were registered under the Cyber Crime
head in 2019 as compared to 27, 248 cases in 2018. Therefore, a spike of 63.5% was
observed in Cyber Crimes[1].
The legislative framework concerning Cyber Law in India comprises the Information
Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “IT Act”) and the Rules made
thereunder. The IT Act is the parent legislation that provides for various forms of Cyber
Crimes, punishments to be inflicted thereby, compliances for intermediaries, and so on.
1. Shreya Singhal v. UOI[2]
In the instant case, the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged before the
Supreme Court.
Facts: Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act after they posted allegedly
offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook concerning the complete shutdown of
Mumbai after the demise of a political leader. Section 66A of the IT Act provides punishment
if any person using a computer resource or communication, such information which is
offensive, false, or causes annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, hatred, injury, or ill will.
The women, in response to the arrest, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of
Section 66A of the IT Act on the ground that it is violative of the freedom of speech and
expression.
Decision: The Supreme Court based its decision on three concepts namely: discussion,
advocacy, and incitement. It observed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, no
matter how unpopular, is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression. It was found
that Section 66A was capable of restricting all forms of communication and it contained no
distinction between mere advocacy or discussion on a particular cause which is offensive to
some and incitement by such words leading to a causal connection to public disorder,
security, health, and so on.
2. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi[7]
Facts: Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of [Link] was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act for
the broadcasting of cyber pornography. Someone else had sold copies of a CD containing
pornographic material through the [Link] website.
Decision: The Court noted that Mr. Bajaj was nowhere involved in the broadcasting of
pornographic material. Also, the pornographic material could not be viewed on the
[Link] website. But [Link] receives a commission from the sales and earns revenue
for advertisements carried on via its web pages.
The Court further observed that the evidence collected indicates that the offence of cyber
pornography cannot be attributed to [Link] but to some other person. The Court granted
bail to Mr. Bajaj subject to the furnishing of 2 sureties Rs. 1 lakh each. However, the burden
lies on the accused that he was merely the service provider and does not provide content.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti[8]
The instant case is a landmark case in the Cyber Law regime for its efficient handling made
the conviction possible within 7 months from the date of filing the FIR.
Facts: The accused was a family friend of the victim and wanted to marry her but she married
another man which resulted in a Divorce. After her divorce, the accused persuaded her again
and on her reluctance to marrying him, he took the course of harassment through the Internet.
The accused opened a false e-mail account in the name of the victim and posted defamatory,
obscene, and annoying information about the victim.
A charge-sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 67 of the IT Act and
Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Decision: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore convicted the accused
person under Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the IT
Act. The accused was subjected to the Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of
Rs. 500 under Section 469 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs.
500 under Section 509 of the IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of
Rs. 4,000 under Section 67 of the IT Act.
4. CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)
A website called [Link] enabled NRIs to send Sony products to their
Indian friends and relatives after online payment for the same.
In May 2002, someone logged into the website under the name of Barbara Campa and
ordered a Sony Colour TV set along with a cordless telephone for one Arif Azim in Noida.
She paid through her credit card and the said order was delivered to Arif Azim. However, the
credit card agency informed the company that it was an unauthorized payment as the real
owner denied any such purchase.
A complaint was therefore lodged with CBI and further, a case under Sections 418, 419, and
420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. The investigations concluded that Arif
Azim while working at a call center in Noida, got access to the credit card details of Barbara
Campa which he misused.
The Court convicted Arif Azim but being a young boy and a first-time convict, the Court’s
approach was lenient towards him. The Court released the convicted person on probation for
1 year. This was one among the landmark cases of Cyber Law because it displayed that the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be an effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not
exhaustive.
