Case Brief: Avinash v. State
Case Brief: Avnish Bajaj v. State (2005)
Court:
Delhi High Court
Citation:
2005 (1) Crimes 449 (Del)
Facts:
Avnish Bajaj was the CEO of the online marketplace “Bazee.com” (later acquired by eBay).
A seller posted obscene and defamatory content on the website.
The complainant lodged a police report alleging that Avnish Bajaj, as the intermediary (website operator), was responsible for hosting this offensive content.
The question arose whether Avnish Bajaj could be held liable for content posted by third parties on his website.
Issues:
Whether the intermediary (Bazee.com) can be held liable for third-party content posted on its platform under the IT Act, 2000.
Whether Avnish Bajaj had the knowledge or control over the obscene content.
Interpretation of the liability of intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court held Avnish Bajaj liable under Section 67 (publishing obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act.
The court reasoned that Bazee.com was actively involved in the posting of content and could not claim ignorance.
It was held that the website had a role in facilitating the content and thus cannot be absolved from liability merely by being an intermediary.
The judgment emphasized that intermediaries should take prompt action to remove offensive content once notified.
The case brought attention to the responsibility of online platforms to monitor and control the content they host.
Legal Principles:
Intermediary Liability: Intermediaries are not automatically liable for third-party content, but if they have control, knowledge, or fail to act upon notice, they can be held responsible.
Due Diligence: Intermediaries must exercise due diligence to avoid becoming liable.
The case was significant in shaping the understanding of Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides a “safe harbor” to intermediaries under certain conditions.
Subsequent Development and Impact:
The judgment was criticized for being strict on intermediaries.
Later, the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 and subsequent amendments clarified the “safe harbor” provisions.
The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) upheld the IT Act but laid down strict guidelines for intermediary liability to avoid unnecessary censorship and harassment.
Related Case Laws:
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Landmark judgment on intermediary liability and freedom of speech online.
Upheld the constitutional validity of the IT Act but struck down Section 66A.
Emphasized that intermediaries should not be penalized for third-party content unless they fail to remove unlawful content upon actual knowledge.
Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967)
Laid down principles regarding vicarious liability and knowledge.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
Established the “absolute liability” principle in environmental law, relevant for strict liability discussions.
Conclusion:
The Avnish Bajaj v. State case was a pioneering judgment addressing the responsibilities of internet intermediaries in India. It underscored the importance of monitoring online content and the limits of liability for platform operators. This case paved the way for later legislative clarifications and judicial guidelines balancing free speech with the need to prevent abuse of online platforms. Do write to us if you need any further assistance.
RELATED Blog
comments