J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the nature of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking following prayers:-

A. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 2 to issue mandatory standing order/guideline to be followed by Delhi Police that whenever any aggrieved complainant approaches the Police in Delhi for lodging FIR related to Cyber-Crime, the Police shall initially invoke the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in compliance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 1222/2016 dated 14.12.2016 and as per mandate of Section 81 of the IT Act.

B. Direct the respondent no. 1 and 3 that they shall provide separate infrastructure and online visibility for proper functioning of the adjudicating officer appointed under the IT Act and run mass awareness publicity to make the people aware that such adjudicating officer has been appointed under the IT Act having power of the Civil Court so people can approach the said officer for redressal in respect of contravention in relation to Chapter IX of the IT Act.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief as culled out from the petition is as under:-

a. The Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted by the Indian Parliament to ensure protection to the victims of Cyber-Crime but despite the enactment of the said Act the same is not being implemented in its true sense by the respondents as a result our citizens are not able to avail timely criminal as well as civil remedy under the said act, even the public money spent in establishing and running the new special Cyber Police Stations in Delhi is getting waste as in the National Capital Delhi, whenever the aggrieved complainant approaches the Police in Delhi for legal action in Cyber-Crime, the police in a routine manner registers an FIR only under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sharat Babu Digumarti Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 1222/2016 dated 14.12.2016 and as per mandate of Section 81 of the IT Act.

b. As per section 78 of the IT Act only a police officer not below the rank of Inspector can investigate any offence under the IT Act, as time is the essence in the online offences, so in order to not burden the work of an Inspector in a Police Station the provisions of the IT Act are not being invoked by the respondent no. 2 in Delhi.

c. This fact is also apparent from the two FIR's and NCRB data of 2020 as per which on comparing the rate of Cyber-Crimes in various Metropolitan Cities in the year 2020, the rate of total Cyber-Crimes per One Lakh of population was 104.6 in Bengaluru, 50.5 in Lucknow and 32 in Ghaziabad, however, in Delhi it was merely 1 case was reported per One Lakh of population from the analysis of this data it is clearly visible that the respondent no. 2 is not invoking the provision of IT Act in the Cyber-Crime reported offences in Delhi and the same is reflected in the various replies of the RTI filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, although various news reports are depicting different story that Cyber-Crime in Delhi has increased by 100% during year 2020-2021.

d. Whereas civil remedy is concerned under Section 46 of the IT Act an adjudicating officer who shall adjudicate whether any person has committed contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, regulation, direction or order and shall hold an inquiry in the manner prescribed by the Central Government and further, the adjudicating officer is vested with the power of a civil court to adjudicate any matter before it, therefore, the Secretary of Department of Information Technology of each of the States or of Union Territory shall serve as an adjudicating officer, but the sai