Cybercrime Act Landmark Cases
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts:
The case challenged Section 66A of the IT Act, which penalized sending “offensive messages” via communication service.
It was argued that Section 66A was vague and violated freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional.
Held that it was vague, overbroad, and an unreasonable restriction on free speech.
Affirmed that freedom of speech must be protected online as much as offline.
Clarified limits on reasonable restrictions.
Significance:
Landmark for freedom of expression on digital platforms.
Defined boundaries for cyber law provisions vis-à-vis constitutional rights.
2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer & Ors. (2014) 10 SCC 473
Facts:
The admissibility of electronic evidence under the IT Act was challenged.
The trial court admitted electronic records without proper certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that electronic evidence is admissible only if it complies with Section 65B (certificate of authenticity).
Set strict rules for proof of electronic evidence in cybercrime cases.
Significance:
Clarified procedure for admission of electronic evidence.
Crucial for prosecution and defense in cybercrime trials.
3. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2005) 6 SCC 657
Facts:
The owner of an e-commerce website was charged for hosting obscene material.
The question was about intermediary liability under IT Act Section 79.
Judgment:
The Court held that intermediaries can be held liable if they have knowledge or control over the objectionable content.
Ruled that the IT Act protects intermediaries only if they observe due diligence and remove offensive content upon notice.
Significance:
Defined liability of intermediaries.
Laid foundation for safe harbor provisions in cyber law.
4. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Privacy Case)
Facts:
Though not purely cybercrime, this case dealt with privacy as a fundamental right.
Argued that privacy is essential for protecting data and preventing cybercrimes.
Judgment:
Supreme Court declared Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Laid foundation for data protection and cybersecurity laws.
Significance:
Strengthened legal framework for data privacy.
Indirectly affects cybercrime laws dealing with hacking, data theft, and unauthorized surveillance.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) 3 LW (Crl) 464
Facts:
The accused posted defamatory and obscene content on an internet website.
Charged under IPC and IT Act sections related to defamation and obscenity.
Judgment:
Court held the accused liable for cyber defamation and obscenity.
Recognized the internet as a medium where defamation laws apply.
Affirmed IT Act sections complement IPC.
Significance:
Early case establishing application of traditional laws to cyber context.
Recognized cyber defamation as an offense.
6. Tanya Singh v. Union of India (2021) (PIL on Cyberbullying)
Facts:
A Public Interest Litigation sought guidelines to combat cyberbullying and online harassment, especially of women.
Judgment:
The Court directed the government and police to set up special cybercrime cells.
Recommended awareness programs and fast-track courts for cyber offenses.
Significance:
Highlighted growing problem of cyber harassment.
Promoted institutional strengthening against cybercrimes.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Legal Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) | Constitutionality of Section 66A | Freedom of speech online, struck down vague law |
| Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) | Admissibility of electronic evidence | Strict compliance with Section 65B for electronic proof |
| Avnish Bajaj v. State (2005) | Intermediary liability | Safe harbor depends on due diligence |
| K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) | Right to Privacy | Privacy is fundamental right, basis for data protection |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) | Cyber defamation and obscenity | Application of IPC and IT Act for cyber offenses |
| Tanya Singh v. Union of India (2021) | Cyberbullying and harassment | Need for special cells and awareness |
Quick Recap:
Cybercrime law in India balances freedom and regulation.
Electronic evidence must follow legal protocols.
Intermediaries are protected only with due diligence.
Right to privacy is a key underpinning.
Courts are evolving to tackle new cyber challenges like harassment and defamation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments