HIMACHAL PRADESH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SHIMLA

An assignment of Cyber Laws on the Title

Cybercrime cases that shook the cyber jurisprudence: A study

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Prachi Tripathi Mr. Aayush Raj
5020212223 Assistant Professor of Law
LL.M. 2021-22
(Semester 2)

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Every project big or small is successful due to the effort of several delightful people who
have always given their treasured advice or lent a helping hand I am sincerely grateful for the
motivation, assistance, and leadership of all those people who have been contributory in
making this project a success.

I, Prachi Tripathi, a student at Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, am

extremely grateful to Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla for the confidence
conferred in me and for entrusting my assignment of Comparative Public Law.

On this occasion, I feel deeply honored in expressing my heartfelt thanks to Honourable

VICE CHANCELLOR Prof. (Dr.) Nishtha Jaswal for making resources available at just
time and providing valuable vision leading to the successful completion of my assignment.

I also widen my gratitude to my Project guide, Mr. Aayush Raj, Assistant Professor of Law,
Himachal Pradesh National Law University, Shimla, who assisted me in compiling the
project.

I would also like to express thanks to all the faculty members of H.P. National Law
University, Shimla for their vital advice and guidance without which this project would not
have been feasible.

Last but not least I place a deep sense of appreciation to my family members and my friends
who have been continuous source of encouragement during the formulation of this project
work.

2
 DECLARATION
I the undersigned solemnly declare that the project report, “Cybercrime cases that shook the
cyber jurisprudence: A study” is centered on my own work carried out during my study
under the supervision of Mr. Aayush Raj.

I assert the statements made and conclusions are drawn are an outcome of my original work. I
further certify that,

I. The work included in the report is the result of work done, best to my capabilities. All
care has been taken to keep this report error-free and I sincerely regret any
unintentional inconsistencies that might have crept into this project.
II. The work has not been presented to any other Institution for any other
degree/diploma/certificate in this university or the any other University of India or
abroad.
III. I have followed the guidelines provided by the university in writing the project
report.
IV. I have provided citations and references for the data collected wherever required.

Prachi Tripathi
5020212223
LL.M. 2021-22

3
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No. Headings

1. Introduction

2. Research Methodology

3. Case Study 1: Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2005

4. Case Study 2: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015

5. Case Study 3: Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2004

6. Case Study 4: SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra,

2001

7. Case Study 5: Swami Ramdev & Anr. v. Facebook Inc., 2019

8. Conclusion

9. Bibliography

4
 INTRODUCTION

The Information Technology Act, 2000 is one the key development of India’s legal
framework for cyber law. It is the primary legislation that deals with the penalties for a
variety of cybercrimes. As India is moving towards digitalization and development in
technology it is very essential that online regulations must be regulated, and further
cybercrime shall be curbed. In cybercrimes computer is used as an tool to further illegal ends,
such as committing fraud, trafficking in child pornography and intellectual property, stealing
identifies, or violating privacy. The relevance of cybercrime, particularly over the Internet,
has increased as the computer has taken centre stage in business, entertainment, and
government. The majority of cybercrime consists of an attack on data pertaining to people,
businesses, or governments. Although the physical body is not the target of the attacks, it is
the set of data characteristics that distinguish individuals and organisations on the Internet,
known as the personal or corporate virtual body. To put it another way, our virtual identities
are crucial components of daily life in the digital age.

Numerous statutes and even rules created by different regulators contain laws that punish
cybercrimes. Numerous cybercrimes are punished by the Information Technology Act, 2000
("IT Act") and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). Unsurprisingly, several clauses in the
IPC and the IT Act cross over with one another.

It can be seen from the numerous court rulings in India in situations involving cybercrimes
that the courts' options are limited. Without a question, the courts have a responsibility and a
duty to make sure that no one's individual rights are infringed. It is also true, however, that
the Court cannot assume the duties of the legislature. It can only make judgments based on
the laws already in place and how well they apply to the specific facts and circumstances of
each case.

5
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The case study method has been predominantly used to analyse the interpretations made by
the judiciary in India, both by the Supreme Court and High Courts. Content analysis of
relevant literature on this subject has been adopted on a doctrinaire approach. This includes
books and monographs, magazines, journals and periodicals, newspaper reviews, etc.
Evaluation has been made based on the critical analysis of the materials gathered from
relevant works of literature.

The research methodology chosen for the study involved in this project report is Secondary
Research. The secondary method of data collection involves using the existing data, known
as secondary data. The collected data is then summarized and arranged according to the
desired results of the study. The present project report consists of a method that involves data
collection from:

• Internet

• Government Documents

• Government Resources

• Libraries

• Collection of Data by a Third Party

• Legislations

The objectives of the study:

• To understand the effect of cybercrimes cases on cyber jurisprudence.
• To study the evolution of cyber jurisprudence through the cybercrimes case.

6
 CASE STUDY 1: AVNISH BAJAJ v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI1

Facts:

The present case involved an accusation against an IIT Kharagpur student Ravi Raj, who
placed a list offering an obscene MMS video Clip for sale with the username ‘Alice-elec’ on
baazee.com which was an auction site. Even though the website had a filter for posting of
objectionable content, the listing despite of it took place with the description stating, “Item
27877408 – DPS Girls having fun!! Full video + Bazee points” The item listed on the website
at around 8.30 P.M. on the evening of November 27th, 2004, and such listing was deactivated,
around 10 A.M, on 29th November 2004. The listing offered the video in the form of MMS
for Rs. 125 each and was made under the section of “e-books” because of the certainty that
the website, has a requisite safety filter for the putting up of objectionable content for sale.

The crime branch of Delhi police took cognizance of the matter and as a consequence to it,
registered a FIR.

When investigation started, a charge sheet was filed against three parties, Ravi Raj, Avnish
Bajaj, the owner of the website and Sharat Digumarti, who was responsible for handling the
contents listed on website, as accused. After the abscondment of Ravi Raj, Avnish Bajaj filed
a petition for the quashing of the criminal proceedings against him. He contended, that the
MMS was transferred directly between the seller and buyer without the intervention of the
website because it is wholly a buyer-to-customer website, which ease the online sale of a
property. The website receives a commission from such sales and also makes profits and
generates revenue from advertisements displayed on its web pages.

Avnish Bajaj was arrested under section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, and his bail application was
rejected by the trial court. After then he filed petition in Delhi High Court for bail and to have
his charges squashed.

Issues:

1. Whether there is a prima facie case under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code against a
company?

2. Whether the doctrine of illegal omission results in criminal liability in the present case?

1
2005 (79) DRJ 576

7
3. Whether the director of a website be held liable under Section 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 when the website is not arraigned as an accused?

Contentions:

Petitioner-

As the MMS was directly transferred between the seller and buyer without the intervention of
the website, they can at most be responsible for the listing placed on the website which by
itself was not obscene and did not attract the offence under Section 292/294 IPC or Section
67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Due diligence was carried out on the part of intermediary and the MMS was taken down once
it was brought to the knowledge that it was objectionable.

The scope of Section 67 of the IT Act is only restricted to the publication of obscene material
and does not cover the transmission of such material. Further Section 79 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 provided for exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases.
The provision states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information,
data, or communication link made available pr hosted by him.

State-

Offences under Section 292 of the IPC includes not only overt acts but illegal omissions
under the meaning of Section 32, 35, and 36 of the IPC.

The failure was on the part of the intermediary for not having an adequate filter in a system
that is entirely automated entails serious consequences and a website cannot escape such
legal consequences.

The fact that payment was made to the seller even as on 27th December 2004 shows that there
was no due diligence taken and no attempt was made to prevent or stop the commission of
the illegality by the website.

Decision:

The petitioner argued that due diligence was taken by the website to deactivate the sale of the
video clip immediately once it was brought to its cognition that it was objectionable. But
offence under Section 292 of Indian Penal Code includes not only overt acts but illegal
omissions within the meaning of Sections 32, 35 and 36 IPC. The issue arises that whether an

8
online marketplace website, Bazee (now E-bay) and its MD could be held to have committed
any offence because a pornographic video was listed on the website maintained by the
company.

The court observed that a prima facie case for the offence was made under Section 292 (2) (a)
and 292 (2) (d) of the IPC. The court stated in this regard that “by not having appropriate
filters that could have detected the words in the listing or the pornographic content of what
was being offered for sale, the website ran a risk of having imputed to it the knowledge that
such an object was in fact obscene”, and thus it held that as per the strict liability imposed by
Section 292, knowledge of the listing can be attributed to the company. The bench noted that
it was misleading to state that the company played the role of a mere moderator whereas the
function of the company was an integral part for the completion for the entire chain of events.
Bazee.com, in this case, was essentially an agent in the entire transaction as it had generated
revenue from the listing and also transferred the payment to the advertiser even after the
deactivation of the objectionable listing. Hence it was an evident procedural error in not
mentioning the company as a principle accused.

The Hon’ble High Court held that the charge-sheet did not make any prima facie case against
the petitioner, it also held that the concept of automatic criminal liability on the MD of a
company was not recognized in the Indian Penal Code and hence was not held liable under
the provisions of Section 292 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Avnish Bajaj was
held liable to the charges under section 85 of the IT Act as, together with Section 67 of the
same Act, it argued that even if the company had not been arraigned as a principal accused, a
director will be criminally liable.

Highlighted Concepts:

• There was a prima facie case against the Website BIPL (now EIPL) in regard of the
listing of the obscene video clip as an offence, under sub- sections of Section 292 of the
IPC was made out.

• Avnish Bajaj could not be held liable as the company was not arraigned as a plaintiff.

• The IPC did not recognize the concept of automatic criminal liability of a director of a
company when the company itself was not mentioned in the charge-sheet and be held
liable.

9
• A prima facie case was made out against Avnish Bajaj for an offence under section 67 of
the IT Act since the law recognizes the criminal liability of the directors even where the
company is not arraigned as an accused. This is because, according to Section 85 (1) of
the IT Act, when a company commits an offence under the IT Act, every person who was
in charge of the company at the time may be proceeded against.

• Consequently, while the case against the petitioner of the offences under Sections 292 and
294 IPC is quashed, the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 67
read with Section 85 IT Act will continue.

• The Supreme Court, in 2012, overruled the findings while stating that, vicarious liability
cannot be fastened to Avnish Bajaj, and he could not be held liable under the IT Act
provisions as the company was not arraigned as an accused. In this regard, the SC drew
an alignment between Section 85 of the IT Act and Section 141 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881. Section 141 of the NI Act is of the same substance as section 85
of the IT Act, in the context of certain offences by companies under the NI Act. In
interpreting section 141 of the NI Act, the SC held that the commission of an offence by
the company was an express condition precedent to attract the liability of others in charge
of the company, hence, since there was no case made against the company, Avnish Bajaj
was discharged.

• As result of this case, the IT Act was revised to introduce, an amendment to Section
79(1) of the IT Act. This section, subject to certain conditions, provides immunity and
safe harbour to intermediaries (such as the Website) from the penalties under the IT Act
for content made available on its platform by third parties.

10
 CASE STUDY 2: SHREYA SINGHAL v. UNION OF INDIA2

Facts:

Shaheen Dhada and Rinu Srinivasan were two girls who were detained by the Mumbai police
in 2012. The arrest was made in response to the Shiv Sena members' bandh call in
Maharashtra following the incident involving the murder of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackery.
The petitioners were accused of publishing their comments on Facebook, which sparked a
large-scale outcry from the general public. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of
2000, according to the petitioners by means of public interest, restricts an individual's
freedom of speech and expression. The petition was filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution.

Issues:

1) Whether Sections 66-A, 69-A and 79 of the IT Act are constitutionally valid?

2) Whether Section 66A of the Information Technology Act is violative of the fundamental
right of freedom of speech and expression?

Contentions:

Petitioner-

The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian
Constitution is violated by Section 66A of the IT Act 2000.

The petitioners stated that the reasonable constraints outlined in Article 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution do not apply to producing commotion, annoyance, and other similar behaviours.

Section 66A is ambiguous by nature, and imperfection has been introduced by it since it does
not adequately define the wording used in the section and leaves room for interpretations on
the part of law enforcement agencies. As a result, the section does not contain or give the
limitation.

As there is no "Intelligible difference," the section is in violation of Article 14 of the Indian

Constitution. The petitioners further claimed that the clause gave the authorities arbitrary
control over how to interpret it.

Respondent-
2
AIR 2015 SC 1523

11
The respondents raised objections regarding the writ petition's eligibility to be maintained.
The court may only intervene in cases of violations of Part III of the Constitution, and it is the
legislature's responsibility to address the needs of the people. The respondent claimed that
there is a presumption in favour of the law's validity. It was argued that the likelihood of
abuse of such provision could not possibly be a basis for invalidating the provision. Since the
monument is not arbitrary in nature, its ambiguity cannot be used to proclaim it
unconditionally.

Decision:

Every term employed has a hazy connotation, the court ruled. What might offend one person
might not offend another. The interpretation was deemed to be subjective as a result. Because
66A violates the right to freedom of speech and expression, the court ruled that it is not
covered by the justifications for reasonable limitations provided by Article 19. (2). The court
ruled that it is constitutionally acceptable to prohibit access to material for the general public
under Section 69A of the IT Act.

The court noted that because of the statements in 66A's total open-endedness and lack of
definition, it is not protected by Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The court overturned
Section 66A because it actually had no proximate relationship or link to upsetting the peace
or inciting someone to commit a crime. The court took the stance that law cannot in any way
restrict the basic right to freedom of speech and expression by using Article 19(2) of the
Constitution as protection.

Additionally, the court only invalidated the unclear and arbitrary provisions by using the
severability test. It is not necessary to declare all of the legislation invalid.

Key Points:

As a result, 66A of the Information Technology Act,2000 was struck down on the grounds of
unconstitutionality.

12
 CASE STUDY 3: SUHAS KATTI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU3

Facts:

The defendant was a friend of the victim's family. The victim declined the accused's proposal
of marriage and wed someone else. The couple's marriage had broken down. The defendant
observed this, saw an opening, and made a marriage proposal to the defendant. The victim
again declined. When the accused was rejected, he hurt the victim by posting offensive and
malicious words about him on Yahoo messenger groups.

After experiencing such slander as a result of the accused's activities, the women complained
against him. Following a few days, the police, acting on the women's allegation, detained the
offender. On 24th of March 2004, a charge sheet was filed under Section 67 of the IT Act
2000 and Section 469 of the IPC and 509 pf IPC.

Issue:

“Whether the respondent was liable for charges under section 67 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 and under sections 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Contentions:

Appellant-

The attorney for the appellant argued about the harassment, offensive mail messages and
comments, and false accusations that she had received. He added that the defence attorney
had claimed that her ex-husband or someone person had sent the offensive emails and
messages. He said that the victim had attempted to frame the accused with untrue allegations
after being denied her want to wed the accused. Moreover, defence attorneys argued that
certain documentary evidence was inadmissible under Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Respondent-

The learned counsel from the respondent’s side stated that the damaging emails were sent by
the victim’s spouse or herself in order to blame the accused. The defence maintained that the
infringing emails were sent by the complainant’s ex-husband or the complainant herself in
order to implicate the accused, who was accused of turning down the complainant’s request
to marry her.

3
Case Number 4680 of 2004

13
Decision:

Under section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Court, i.e., Forgery for the Purpose of
Harming Reputation-Whoever commits forgery with the intent that the document or
electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party or knowing that it is likely to
be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
period of up to three years, and is also subject to a fine.

And any word, gesture, or behaviour meant to offend a woman’s modesty is punishable,
stated by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on November 5, 2004, also section 67
of the information technology act, the accused is found guilty of the offence committed by
him, for which he must be convicted and sentenced to 2 years of rigorous imprisonment, a
fine of Rs. 500/- under section 469 of the Indian penal code, and also for the offence
committed by him under section 509 of the Indian penal code, the accused is sentenced to 1
year of simple imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 500/- under section 469 of the Indian penal
code, And, under section 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000.

The accused has been sentenced to two years in prison and a fine of Rs. 4000/-. The accused
must pay the payment and be imprisoned at Chennai Central Prison. Despite all of these
objections, the proofs were presented to the Court. The harasser’s IP address was the same as
the accused.

An eyewitness, the owner of the Cyber Café, testified against the defendants. The Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ruled the accused guilty of offences under Sections 469, 509
IPC, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, based on expert witnesses and
other evidence presented in court.

In addition, the accused is found guilty and sentenced for the offence. Under the accusations
of Section 509 of the IPC, he must serve one year of S.I. and pay a fine of Rs. 500. He must
also serve two years of R.I. under Section 469 of the IPC. He must serve two years of
rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 4000 for the offence under Section 67 of the IT
Act, 2000. All of the sentences will run simultaneously.

Key Points:

• This case was the first in the history of the Indian judicial system to punish someone for
sending obscene texts to a woman, causing her reputation and character to be harmed, as
well as outraging her modesty.

14
• It is a concept that the judgement should be based on a correct examination of the
witnesses and facts of a particular case, and in the current context, it should be noted that
the honourable judges decided the case correctly, which was filed under sections 67 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as sections 509 and 469 of the Indian Penal
Code.
• The accused was properly sentenced because his actions were not only against the law but
also against morality; publishing obscene content and speaking ill of women is a horrible
thing to do. It should be mentioned that in Indian society, women are subjected to many
criticisms and have faced several sexual remarks; therefore, the accused posted such
obscene stuff in cyberspace, which devastated the petitioner and lowered her reputation.
• The current case also prompted the government to impose a partial ban on pornography
under Section 67 of the IT Act of 2000, which is now being litigated. This case
encouraged a number of women to come out and talk about the similar issues they were
having, as it was previously embarrassing for women to openly discuss the harassment
they were experiencing. People were made aware that they have rights in the cyber realm
as well, and that they should have faith in the legal system.

15
 CASE STUDY 4: SMC PNEUMATICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. V. JOGESH
KWATRA4

Facts:

Plaintiff No. 2 is a gentleman and a very capable and hardworking individual. He was chosen
as the company's managing director due to his abilities. The second plaintiff claimed that he
had been the recipient of a number of emails that were profane, offensive, filthy, humiliating,
defamatory, and obscene. These letters have damaged the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of
his admirers. These emails were passed to the managing director after being sent through the
sales department to higher-ups at various subsidiary firms in various places where the
plaintiff no. 2 was known or had previously worked.

Indiatimes.com, having received a complaint regarding the obscene mails and after checking
the same, blocked the person’s mail address from whom the plaintiff received such e-mails.
With regard to the mails which were defamatory, the plaintiff with the help of a private
computer expert traced the origin of one such mail. Based on the enquiry of the expert and a
report thereafter, after identifying the defendant from a group photograph, investigations
further showed that the origin of the mail was from Dishnet Cyber Cafe, New Delhi. The
attender in the Cyber Cafe had identified the person in the photograph is the same person who
had sent the mail in question.

The plaintiff had filed a police complaint which was pending proceeding. It was also stated
by the plaintiff that the defendant was terminated from the service of the company for
violating the appointment letter and on account of sending mails in order to defame and harm
the reputation of plaintiff no-1 and 2 beside the other consequences. Hence, the plaintiff no-1
along with plaintiff no-2(its Managing Director) filed a suit before the Hon’ble District Court
at Delhi seeking a perpetual injunction against the defendant.

The allegations made by the plaintiffs were denied categorically by the defendant contending
mainly that the plaintiffs have not come before the Hon’ble Court with clean hands and
prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4
Suit No. 1279/2001, District Court of Delhi

16
Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of perpetual injunctions as prayed in the prayer
clause of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands?
3. Whether there is existence of some relief to the plaintiff?

Contentions:

On behalf of the plaintiffs, it was contended that the emails sent by the defendant were
distinctly obscene, vulgar, abusive, intimidating, humiliating and defamatory in nature.
Counsel further argued that the aim of sending the said emails was to malign the high
reputation of the plaintiffs all over India and the world. He further contended that the acts of
the defendant in sending the emails had resulted in invasion of legal rights of the plaintiffs.
Further the defendant is under a duty not to send the aforesaid emails. It is pertinent to note
that after the plaintiff company discovered the said employee could be indulging in the matter
of sending abusive emails, the plaintiff terminated the services of the defendant.

Decision:

The Court held that even if the plaintiff could prove or establish the cause of action showing
the violation of his legal right, he is not entitled to an injunction if he has not come praying
before the Court with clean hands. The injunction remedy thus becomes a statutory remedy
under Specific Relief Act but such a remedy cannot be availed if the plaintiff is guilty of not
coming to the Court with clean hands. But the defendant could not prove to the point or put
evidence as to the point he contended that plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean
hands. The only reason the Court could find was the intense battle between the manager and
the ex-employee to teach him a lesson for which no such allegations were made. Hence, the
court decided the issue having become infructuous.

1. The photograph on which the plaintiff relies on to contend that one of the attenders in the
Cyber Cafe identified the defendant to be the same person who sent the mails after having
a look at it is not placed before the Court as evidence on record.

2. The plaintiffs failed to produce such attender at least before the Court to prove the
allegation.

17
3. No information was sought by the plaintiff as to the sender of the mails which the
plaintiff no-2 claimed to have been received directly as forwarded. No attempt was made
by the plaintiff to find out the origin of the sender.

4. It was not only not pleaded, but no efforts were made by the plaintiffs to connect the e-
mails to the defendant.

5. The only crucial evidence produced by the plaintiff were the e-mails which were only
electronic evidence which cannot be considered as the supporting evidence which was
unaccompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

6. The Court held that the allegations made before the Court are too general in nature and
due to the absence of direct evidence to prove that it was the defendant who was sending
such e-mails to defame the reputation of the plaintiffs.

7. It also held that the test of balance of probabilities is to be applied to the evidence
available on record and not to the inferences. Therefore, the Court applying the same test
of balance of probabilities has decided the issue in favour of the defendant against the
plaintiffs and hence dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

Key Points:

• This case is a critical example to illustrate how the Court denies equitable justice to the
party who does not come to the Court with clean hands. This is known as the Clean
Hands Doctrine which is based on the maxim of equity which states that “one who comes
into equity must come with clean hands”. The doctrine’s objective is to prevent a party
from getting relief when that party’s own improper conduct makes it impossible to offer
relief in good conscience. It is an affirmative defence that the defendant may claim. The
main purpose of this doctrine is to protect the integrity of the Court.

• Any person who has engaged in improper conduct in the matter at hand is barred from
receiving the relief under this doctrine. Its purpose is to prevent the person with “unclean
hands” from recovering no matter how unfairly his or her opponent has treated him or
her.

18
 CASE STUDY 5: SWAMI RAMDEV & ANR. v. FACEBOOK INC.5

Facts:

The case involves content in the form of videos about the book on Swami Ramdev (popularly
known as Baba Ramdev) titled “Godman to Tycoon – The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev” by
Priyanka Pathak Narain. Such book had been previously restrained from being published by
the Delhi High Court which held that it contained prima-facie defamatory content on Baba
Ramdev. The petitioners, Baba Ramdev and Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd., asked the court to issue
a global take down order for the defamatory content in question to Facebook, Google,
YouTube, Twitter and other internet intermediaries. The Internet platforms removed the
content from their India-specific domains but refused to remove it globally.

Issue:

Whether Internet intermediaries like Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter, in accordance
with the prevailing jurisprudence in India on content take down [intermediary platforms were
only liable to take down illegal content from their websites, when ordered by a court or
appropriate government agency (as per Shreya Singhal)], were required to take down content
locally (i.e. restricted to India) or globally?

Contentions:

Plaintiff-

Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the petitioners
contended that once a court had ordered content to be taken off, it was bound to be removed
globally. They supported their contentions in India’s Information Technology Act (IT Act,
2000), particularly on the definitions of computer resource, computer system, and computer
network. The petitioners also argued that details of the users who had uploaded the content
weren’t specific enough for them to identify the individuals and reach out to them for taking
down the videos.

Respondent-

The Internet platforms on the other hand argued that what constitutes defamation differs from
country to country and passing a global take down order would be contrary to national
sovereignty and international comity, resulting in conflicts of laws. Since public interest

5
263 (2019) DLT 689

19
varies from country to country, Indian Courts definition of public interest and standards of
speech shall not be imposed internationally. They also argued that dissemination of views on
the Internet is essential to freedom of speech and expression. Although Sec. 75 of the IT Act
provides for extra-territorial jurisdiction, such jurisdiction shall be limited to contraventions
and offences under the IT Act and shall not extend to defamation. The platforms contended
that the High Court’s order should be proportionate to the alleged harm and, therefore, geo-
blocking of content specific to India should be enough to give relief to petitioners.

Decision:

The Court held that once content was uploaded from an IP address within India and was
made available globally, the removal of such content must also be worldwide. Therefore, the
Court ordered the intermediaries to take down the content globally if it was uploaded from
India.

The Court’s reasoning lies in the interpretation of Sec. 79(3)(b) of the IT Act along with the
definitions of computer resource, computer system, and computer network. The Court states
in its order that according to such provisions, intermediaries are required to remove content
from their platforms once ordered by a competent court. Such content shall be removed from
the “computer resource” controlled by the intermediary. Since the definition of “computer
resource” includes the “computer network”, which isn’t defined as merely a single computer
but can include a network of computers (including a global computer network), the content
must be taken off globally. The Court held that any other interpretation would not give full
effect to the intent of the IT Act or the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal.
Based on an interpretation of Sec. 75 of the IT Act, as soon as certain content was uploaded
from India and was made available globally, Indian courts attained jurisdiction for such
content to be removed, not just from Indian domains, but globally. Finally, the Court stated
that once removal was ordered, it needed to be complete and not partial in nature. Geo-
blocking could be easily circumnavigated by using VPN services, thus rendering the
protection given to the defendants insufficient.

Key Points:

• The court’s main reason to order for a global take down was based on an interpretation of
Sec. 79(3)(b) read with the definitions of computer resource, computer system, and
computer network, as per the IT Act. It stated that Sec. 79(3)(b) enabled courts to order
take down of content residing in a computer resource and since the definition of computer

20
 resource included that of computer network (a network of computers connected globally),
the said provision enabled global take downs. The court’s logic was based in the
argument that since the illegal content in question was uploaded globally, when ordered
to be taken down, it was required to be taken off globally and not nationally.
• Despite arguments about balancing of rights, the court did not explain how ordering of a
global take down was a necessary and proportionate response to defamatory content on
social media platforms, especially when all platforms had agreed to geo-block the content
in question from India. Setting a precedent for Indian courts to order global take downs
from social media platforms in order to protect the reputation of a well-known Indian
citizen is a disproportionate response to the harm which would have been suffered by
Baba Ramdev, if such a global take down order would not have been ordered.
• We believe that civil society and experts from around the world need to come together
and ensure that courts are provided proper assistance on law, technology and Internet
policy so that they are able to appreciate these problems better and deliver decisions after
analysing potential harms to users. Due to the global influence of such judgments on
courts of the world, there is a growing need for global coordination of civil society
members from around the world.

21
 CONCLUSION

Cybercrimes are a global problem that is rapidly spreading and could harm practically
everyone. Cybercrime is perceived to be expanding with each new technology development.
It is the obligation of the government and the courts to make sure that the criminal justice
system is current to combat new forms of crime that have emerged along with the moving of
traditional crimes into cyberspace. The courts are constrained by the letter of the law and are
only permitted to act in accordance with the Indian Constitution. The importance of the
internet and its use are rising quickly on a global scale. The ability to complete anything from
home has improved consumer convenience, but it has also made it easier for hackers to
acquire whatever data and information that individuals voluntarily and involuntarily share
online and offline. Therefore, it is essential that people are informed about and educated
about cybercrimes in addition to having appropriate regulations to defend against and prevent
them.

Cyberspace is the computer-generated realm of the internet, and the rules that control it are
regarded as Cyber laws. And all consumers of this area are subject to these laws, and it has a
kind of global authority. Cyber law is a field of law that deals with legal problems arising
from the usage of related digital technologies on the internet. In a nutshell, cyber law governs
machines and the internet, and the persons that deal with them.

The rise of electronic shopping and transactions has sparked the need for more vibrant and
efficient legislative frameworks to reinforce further the legal system that is so vital to its
success. Cyber law covers many of these governing processes and legislative procedures.

Since it covers virtually all facets of transactions and events affecting the internet and
cyberspace, cyber law is significant. In cyberspace, any move and response have inevitable
legal and cyber legal consequences.

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

▪ WEBSITES

https://blog.ipleaders.in/cyber-crime-laws-in-india/

https://sflc.in/detailed-analysis-swami-ramdev-v-facebook-judgment

https://legal-wires.com/case-study/case-study-avnish-bajaj-v-state/

https://www.legalbites.in/

https://www.livelaw.in/

https://www.casemine.com/

▪ DATABASES

https://www.scconline.com/

https://www.manupatrafast.com/

23