In the present technological environment, technically competent criminals engage in a variety of unlawful operations using the internet. It has snowballed into a menace that stems from the misapplication of modern society’s growing reliance on technology. The IT Rules and the Information Technology Act are the governing legislation. When the IT Act turns insufficient regarding any offence, the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are looked into.
This article studies twenty cyber law cases that everyone must be aware of where the courts have played a major role in evolution of cyber laws:
- CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh Case)[1]
Facts: Sony India ltd was operating a website called www.sony.sambandh.com, which allowed NRIs to make online payments and have Sony products delivered to anyone in India. The payment was made with a credit card that was used by an American citizen to deliver a television and headphones to Arif Azim, a resident of Noida. After all of the legalities and delivery were completed, the credit card company informed Sony that the card owner was disputing the payment, and Sony filed a fraud complaint with the CBI. It was found that Arif Azim, a call centre employee, to have obtained the card user’s information and utilised it to order goods using that information.
Issue: Whether IPC, 1860 can be reliable and effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not exhaustive?
Decision: Arif Azim was found guilty, although the judge was merciful because he was a young boy and a first-time offender. A one-year probationary period was imposed on the convicted person. The court mentioned the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as an effective piece of legislation to rely on when the IT Act was insufficient.
- M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Mr Rajendera Prasad Yadav v. Union of India[2]
Facts: Petitioners had requested to direct the Respondent to designate a Chairperson to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT) in order to make sure that the tribunal’s proceedings were conducted on a regular basis. It was submitted in court that the department must take all necessary procedures to fill the position of chairperson within the six-month time limit, and that attempts would be taken to appoint the chairperson even before that time limit expired, in the public interest.
Decision: No instructions were issued since the respondent agreed to take the appropriate measures. However, it is expected that, after the expiry of more than two years, the respondent will take up the matter of appointing a Chairperson to the CAT with urgency and complete the necessary steps as soon as possible, taking into account the provisions of Section 53 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India[3]
Facts: The petitioners were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act for allegedly posting offensive comments on Facebook about Mumbai’s entire shutdown following the death of a political leader. On the basis that it violates freedom of speech and expression, a petition was filed contesting the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act.
Decision: The court discussed three principles while making its decision: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. The court held that just discussing or even advocating for a subject, no matter how unpopular, is at the heart of freedom of speech and expression. The court determined that section 66A is vague, infringes on the right to freedom of expression, and encompasses both criminal and civil speech. It overturned an arbitrary section of the Information Technology Act of 2000 and upheld Indian people’ fundamental right to free speech. It was of the opinion that, even if section 66A is repealed, sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, will continue to apply, outlawing racist speech, communication that offends a woman’s modesty, speech encouraging enmity, abusive language, criminal intimidation, racism, and so on.
4. Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana[4]
Facts: An appeal was filed against a decision by the High Court dismissing the accused’s motion to have the compact disc filed in his defence exhibited and proven by the Forensic Science Laboratory.
Issue: Whether under Section 294 (1) of the CrPC, the complainant or witness must make a personal admission or denial about a document (Compact Disc)?
Decision: The Supreme Court opined that the lower courts made a legal error in dismissing the application to play the compact disc in question. The court decided that a Compact Disc is a document and is admissible, and that the accused, complainant, or witness does not have to individually admit or deny a document under Section 294 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhaskatti[5]
Facts: The perpetrator was a close friend of the victim’s family. He desired to marry the victim, but she rejected and married someone else. The marriage ended in divorce. When the accused saw this, he saw an opportunity and proposed marriage to her. The victim rejected once again. When the accused was turned down, he sent filthy and defamatory comments about the victim to Yahoo chat groups, damaging her reputation and insulting her modesty.
In addition, the accused forwarded emails received in a fictitious account he created in the victim’s name. The victim received unwanted calls as a result of the publishing of texts. The calls were made on the impression that the victim was looking for employment of a sexual nature. When the victim became tired of the harassment, he took action and filed a complaint against him. The accused got arrested.
Decision: The accused was held accountable for the accusations brought against him by the court. Under section 469 IPC, a fine of Rs 500 and a sentence of 1 year of simple imprisonment; under section 509 IPC, a fine of Rs 4000 and a sentence of 2 years of rigorous imprisonment; and under section 67 of the IT Act 2000, a fine of Rs 4000 and a sentence of 2 years of rigorous imprisonment.
6. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt Ltd v. Jogesh Kwatra[6]
Facts: An employee of the plaintiff company defamed the company’s reputation by sending disparaging, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, filthy, and abusive emails to the company’s employers and various subsidiaries throughout the world with the intent of defaming the company and its Managing Director.
Decision: The defendant was barred from sending disparaging, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, humiliating, or abusive emails to the plaintiffs or its sister businesses around the world, including their Managing Directors and Sales and Marketing departments, by the Delhi High Court. Furthermore, the defendant was barred from publishing, sending, or causing to be published any information that is disparaging, defamatory, or abusive to the plaintiffs, both in the real world and in cyberspace.
7. Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud
Facts: In 2005, an amount of $ 3,50,000 was transferred fraudulently via the internet from four Citibank accounts in the United States to a few fake accounts. Call Center staff gained trust of the US customers. By acquiring the trust of those clients, they were able to collect their PIN while posing as a helpful hand to those customers who were in distress. These numbers were afterwards utilised to commit the fraud.
Decision: The court found that the staff had memorised the numbers. The money was transferred using SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The offence was committed through gaining unauthorised access to the consumers’ electronic accounts. The court determined that Sections 43(a) & 66 of the IT Act, 2000 applied in this case because of the kind of unauthorised access that is involved in committing transactions. Sections 420, 465, 467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, were used to charge the defendants.
8. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar v. State of Maharashtra[7]
Facts: The case involves an appeal filed by Devidas Tuljapurkar, editorial manager and publisher of a magazine. He contested his conviction for publishing a poem by Marathi artist Vasant Dattatray Gujjar in 1994. A poem with the title “Gandhi mala Bhetala (I met Gandhi)” was allegedly found to contain filthy and unpleasant expletives directed at Mahatma Gandhi. The poet, publisher, and editor were charged for violating Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code.
Decision: The Court used a conditional application of the contemporary community standards test to determine that the poem is an obscenity offence. The appellant, however, was released since it had been two decades since the offence and because the publisher had unconditionally apologised after hearing certain audience members’ emotions. The Supreme Court stated that because the author was not a party to the lawsuit, the judgement would not apply to him.
9. Syed Asifuddin and Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.[8]
Facts: The second respondent, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., launched a new offer under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Scheme, in which the business would sell a digital handset of the third generation model with various eye-catching pricing plans in the market. This technique enticed a large number of customers to purchase the phone, resulting in losses for other service providers. As a result, they began to use unlawful methods to increase their profits.
The petitioners’ staff had interfered with and hacked into the CDMA digital phones of the second respondent’s subscribers. This was done when the phone was delivered to their store, and they also used deception to entice the second respondent’s clients by contacting them and proposing them better tariff plans. An FIR was filed by the respondent against the petitioner for violating Sections 409, 120B, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, and Section 63 of the Copyright Act. The petitioner prayed the court to quash the charges against them.
Decision: The high court denied the petition and directed the investigation report to be presented to the Metropolitan Magistrate within three months of receipt of the ruling. When a phone operator has utilised a computer source code, the court stated that the computer source code should be utilised as verification. As a result, the respondent may utilise the machine’s source code as evidence. The court decided that the criminal inquiry cannot be cancelled unless and until the police complaint is found to be illegal or would result in a miscarriage of justice.
10. Shankar v. State Rep[9]
Facts: The petitioner brought an action to dismiss the charge sheet filed against him under Section 482, CrPC. The petitioner was charged under Sections 66, 70, and 72 of the IT Act for gaining unauthorised entry to a shielded system of the Legal Advisor of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
Decision: The charge sheet submitted against the petitioner cannot be annulled as per law of non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act, according to the Court.
11. Bhim Sen Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others[10]
Facts: The petitioner broadcast slanderous news content about the minister on his channel. The minister was found not to be engaged in such activity after a police investigation. The petitioner was asked to give the original CD that served as the source for the news that he published. The petitioner produced a copy of the CD, which was discovered to be altered after examination. On January 27, 2006, the petitioner was charged with posting false information and forgery. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner for quashing the charges.
Decision: The court concluded that the petitioner’s counsel was unable to establish that the minister had any malicious intent, as simple accusation would not suffice. As a result, the petitioner’s case cannot be dismissed. The court ruled that under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, this case cannot be deemed the rarest of rare occurrences. The writ petition was rejected.
12. Poona Auto Anillaries Pvt. Ltd. Pune v. Punjab National Bank, HO New Delhi
Facts: According to the prosecution, Rs 80,10,000 was supposedly unlawfully transferred from the account of Poona Auto Ancillaries Private Limited with PNB, Pune on August 23, 2011. Manmohan singh Matharu, the company’s managing director, had his account purportedly hacked. He discovered that 40 transactions totaling Rs 2 lakh, plus additional Rs 10,000, were conducted without his permission from his account to the accounts of unknown people. Matharu notified the PNB in Pune and filed a police case in Pune. He also filed a complaint with the state government’s IT department, requesting damages, as per the rules of the IT Act, 2000.
Decision: The Punjab National Bank (PNB), Pune, was ordered by the Delhi High Court to pay Rs. 45 lakh to a customer who suffered losses in a phishing scam, a type of cybercrime. However, the judgement states that the complainant bears some responsibility because he reacted to a phishing email and did not sign up for the bank’s SMS notifications. The ruling also stated that PNB offers more stringent and effective security services for corporate accounts, however the claimant did not use these services.
13. Sreekanth C. Nair v. Licensee/Developer[11]
Facts: When the complainant clicked on the website “www.incometaxpune.com,” he was led to a pornographic site, causing him to submit a court complaint to have the site blocked. The website in question was undoubtedly pornographic and must be shut down in the public interest, as well as in contravention of Section 67 of the 2000 Information Technology Act.
Decision: The identity of the actual criminal could not be discovered. The court ordered the Director of CERT-In to remove the content. Furthermore, clauses (i) to (vii) indicate the designated authorities to whom a complaint may be sent, and only if these authorities are unwilling or unable to do so, the court may send the complaint to the Director, CERT-In, as per clause (viii).
14. Microsoft Cooperation v. Yogesh Papat and Anr.[12]
Facts: Plaintiff sought damages and a permanent injunction to prevent violation of Plaintiff’s copyright and trademarks in this lawsuit. The Defendant company had been engaging in copyright piracy in relation to the Plaintiff’s numerous softwares (“original literary works”).
Decision: The court noted that the Defendant continued to infringe despite the legal notice given by the Plaintiff, demonstrating deliberate, blatant, and purposeful breach on the side of the Defendant. After examining the evidence, “It stands established that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff’s copyright by making illicit copies of the operating systems software by openly copying whatever operating system is currently saleable.” The Court found the plaintiff liable for damages.
15. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi[13]
Facts: Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, was arrested in this case for screening obscene video clips in violation of Section 67 of the IT Act. The reality was that one of the users of the platform was using the Bazee.com website to sell copies of a pornographic CD.
Decision: According to the court, Mr. Bajaj was not involved in the broadcasting of pornographic content. On the Bazee.com website, which earns a commission and makes money from sales and advertisements made on its pages, such material could not be read. The evidence acquired shows that the cyber pornographic offence was perpetrated by someone other than Bazee.com, according to the court. The CEO was granted bail on the condition that two sureties each give Rs. 1 lakh in cash. The court also held that the accused must prove that he was merely a service provider and not a content creator.
16. Nasscom v. Ajay Sood & Others[14]
Facts: The National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom), India’s top software association, was the plaintiff in this lawsuit. The defendants ran a placement firm that engaged in headhunting and recruitment. The defendants created and sent e-mails to third parties in the identity of Nasscom in order to collect personal information that they could utilise for head-hunting reasons.
Decision: In order to set a precedent in India, the court defined phishing as a type of computer fraud in which a person impersonates a genuine organisation, such as a bank or an insurance company, in order to steal personal data from a customer, such as access codes, passwords, and so on. Personal data obtained by misleading the identity of the lawful party is frequently exploited for the benefit of the collecting party. As an example, the court stated that common phishing schemes involve people impersonating online banks and collecting money from e-banking accounts after duping customers into passing over private financial information.
The Delhi HC stated that “even though there is no specific legislation in India to penalise phishing, it is an illegal act. It brings the act of ‘phishing’ into the ambit of Indian laws even in the absence of specific legislation; It clears the misconception that there is no penalty for violation of IP rights; This case reaffirms IP owners’ faith in the Indian judicial system’s ability and willingness to protect intangible property rights and send a strong message to IP owners that they can do business in India without sacrificing their IP rights.”
17. Christian Louboutin SAS v Nakul Bajaj & Ors[15]
Facts: The case began when the Petitioner, Christian Louboutin, a luxury goods brand, claimed that the defendant company, Darveys.com, was engaging in illegal sales of its items, in violation of the Trademarks Act of 1999. The website charged visitors a membership fee to join the platform, hosted an article on Christian Louboutin products, used meta-tags, and displayed the firms’ logos and product photos, among other things.
Issue: Whether the defendant is eligible as an intermediary to use Section 79 of the IT Act as a safe harbour?
Decision: The defendant actively participated in the trading process, according to the Court, as evidenced by the fact that it did not reveal information about the overseas vendors, guaranteed the products’ validity, and charged a membership fee. As a result, under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of 1999, it was not entitled to safe harbour protection.
18. Jayesh S. Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra[16]
Facts: The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, protesting about pornographic websites on the internet.
Decision: The Bombay High Court’s Division Bench issued an order appointing a committee to suggest and recommend precautionary measures for guarding against obscene and filthy material on the internet in response to this appeal. Then, the Bombay High Court’s Special Committee issued many recommendations relating to Safeguarding Minors from Inappropriate Internet-Material based on public comments on the internet.
19. The Air Force Bal Bharti School v. Delhi School Tribunal[17]
The accused in order to take revenge for being teased by his fellow classmates made a website comprising of text material that was dedicated to the Air Force Bal Bharti School. On this website, clear, explicit sexual details about numerous “sexy” females and teachers at the school were provided. Physical characteristics and reported sexual inclinations were also used to categorize girls and teachers.
This went on for a while until one of the boys notified a female who was depicted on the site about it. The victim’s parent, filed a complaint with the Delhi Police Cyber Crime Cell under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He was subsequently expelled from school and arrested by the police under the IPC and IT Act, though he was later released on bail by the Juvenile Court.
20. Ritu Kohli Case
In India, the first occurrence of internet stalking was reported in 2001. Manish Kathuria was stalking an Indian lady, Ms. Ritu Kohli, by fraudulently communicating on the web site www.mirc.com under her name and using vulgar and unpleasant language, as well as disseminating her house telephone number and inviting people to call her. As a result, Ms. Ritu Kohli began receiving obscene calls from all around India and the world, and people began pursuing her with vulgar texts. She reported the incident to the Delhi police.
The police charged Manish for outraging Ritu Kohli’s modesty under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, Section 509 only pertains to a phrase, a gesture, or an act designed to offend a woman’s modesty. When the same action is done over the Internet, however, it is not included in the relevant section. The Indian government was alarmed by this occurrence, which highlighted the necessity to reform legislation relating to the aforementioned crime and the protection of victims. As a result, in 2008, the Indian Congress modified the Information Technology Act of 2000 to include penalties for cyber stalking. The IT Act of 2008 makes no mention of stalking. However, the problem is treated as a “invasion of an individual’s privacy,” rather than the normal cyber offences described in the IT Act of 2008. As a result, Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 is the most commonly invoked law in India for regulating cyberstalking.
[1] (2008) 105 DLT 769.
[2] 2014 (1) Kar LJ 121.
[3] AIR 2015 SC 1523.
[4] 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242.
[5] CC No. 4680 of 2004.
[6] Suit No. 1279/2001.
[7] (2015) 6 SCC 1.
[8] 2005 CriLJ 4314.
[9] Crl O.P. No. 6628 of 2010.
[10] 2006 CriLJ 3643.
[11] Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 2900 of 2008.
[12] 118 (2005) DLT 580.
[13] (2008) 150 DLT 769.
[14] 119 (2005) DLT 596.
[15] (2018) 253 DLT 728.
[16] Writ Petition No. 1611 of 2001.
[17] LPA 48/2005.
YLCC would like to thank Mili Kanoujiya for her valuable inputs in this article.
