Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
The section is part of a comprehensive code (Sections 67, 67A, 67B) covering various offences related to electronic content, particularly obscene or lascivious material ["Dalip Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]].
Main components (ingredients) across sources:
The offence can involve causing such material to be published or transmitted, or facilitating its dissemination ["[Jagat Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"], ["Dalip Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]].
Additional insights:
The ingredients also include the requirement that the content is likely to be seen or heard by persons who may be affected, emphasizing the importance of the content's nature and audience ["[Jagat Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak VS State Of Maharashtra - Bombay"]- ["[Jagat Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Dalip Kumar VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"]
In today's digital age, where content is shared instantly across electronic platforms, laws regulating obscene material play a crucial role in maintaining public decency. A common query from legal enthusiasts, businesses, and individuals is: What are the Ingredients for Section 67 Information Technology Act? This section of the IT Act, 2000, targets the publication or transmission of obscene content in electronic form. This blog post breaks down its key elements, punishments, interpretations, and real-world applications, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial insights. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 67 addresses punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. It distinguishes itself by focusing exclusively on digital and electronic communications, setting it apart from traditional obscenity laws under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The provision aims to protect public interest by curbing content that could harm societal morals, especially in the context of the internet's reach. I. Linga Bhaskar VS State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station - Madras (2018)
To establish a violation under Section 67, prosecutors must typically prove several core elements:
Publication or Transmission: The accused must have actively published (made available) or transmitted (sent) the material via electronic means, such as emails, social media, websites, or apps.
Obscene Nature of Material: The content must be:
The term obscene isn't explicitly defined in the IT Act but draws from judicial precedents, relating to materials that provoke excessive sexual interest or desire, or that encourage an undue focus on sexual matters. Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan VS State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh (2019)I. Linga Bhaskar VS State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station - Madras (2018)
Courts emphasize that not all explicit content qualifies—context matters. For instance, artistic or educational material may not meet these thresholds if it lacks intent to deprave. In one case, the High Court found that the ingredients of Section 67 were not fulfilled where the FIR did not disclose them adequately. SIDDHARTH S/O RAMESH WANKHEDE vs THE STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS JARIPATKA DIST.NAGPUR AND ANOTHER
Penalties are structured to deter repeat offenses:
Fine up to 5 lakh rupees.
Subsequent Convictions:
These punishments underscore the seriousness of electronic obscenity, given its potential for widespread dissemination.
Judicial rulings have refined the application of Section 67, often examining evidence of obscenity and intent.
Section 67 does not preclude charges under IPC sections like 509 (insulting modesty). In a key ruling, the court held that both Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 509 IPC can be applied concurrently arising from the same facts, affirming a charge-sheet for a fake Facebook account sharing obscene material about a complainant's daughter. Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2958 The court clarified: The special provisions of the I.T. Act do not negate the applicability of general provisions in IPC where applicable. Each can operate concurrently depending on the nature of the evidence. Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2958
Courts quash proceedings if ingredients aren't prima facie met. For example, directions were issued to delete charges under related Section 67A where evidence was lacking, proceeding only on IPC offenses like 294(b) and 506(i). Suriyakumar @ Suryakumar vs The Inspector of Police - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 25401 Similarly, in interception cases, Section 67 was deemed inapplicable without personal information or cognizable elements. Sanjay Pandey vs Directorate of Enforcement
In practice, defenses succeed when no dishonest intent or obscenity is proven, mirroring standards in IPC cheating cases (e.g., Section 415 requires inducement causing harm). G. R. Karthikeyan Founder Trustee of P. S. Govindaswamy Naidu and Sons Charities VS G. Rangaswamy Managing Trustee of P. S. Govindaswamy Naidu, Coimbatore - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3516
For content creators, platforms, and users:- Assess Content: Evaluate if material appeals to prurient interests or depraves viewers.- Contextual Review: Consider audience, platform, and purpose—educational content may be exempt.- Platform Responsibilities: Intermediaries under IT Rules must disable violating content promptly. Flipkart Internet Private Limited VS State Of U. P. - 2022 Supreme(All) 1377- Legal Safeguards: In disputes, gather evidence on lack of obscenity or fulfillment of ingredients.
Businesses handling digital media should implement moderation policies to avoid liability.
Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, serves as a vital tool against obscene electronic content, with clear ingredients centered on lascivious material that depraves. Punishments escalate for repeats, and courts rigorously test evidence, allowing concurrent IPC charges where facts support. Ram Pramesh Gupta @ Ram Pramesh vs State of U.P. - 2025 Supreme(All) 2958SIDDHARTH S/O RAMESH WANKHEDE vs THE STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS JARIPATKA DIST.NAGPUR AND ANOTHER
Key Takeaways:- Prove publication/transmission of obscene (lascivious, prurient, depraving) electronic material.- First offense: Up to 3 years jail + 5 lakhs fine.- Judicial scrutiny ensures only substantiated cases proceed.- Always prioritize compliance in digital spaces.
Stay informed on evolving cyber laws, as interpretations may shift with technology. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert.
#Section67ITAct, #CyberLawIndia, #ITActObscenity
Act covers all the ingredients of Sections 406, 408, 409 of the Indian Penal Code especially cases in which access is secured dishonestly to any electronic correspondence, information, document or other material and the said electronic record correspondence, information, document or material in misappropriated ... The ingredients of an offences under which are attracted by invoking and applying the Section 420, 408, 379 of the Indian Penal Code are covered by Section 66 of the Information Technology Act....
It may be noted that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act prohibits publishing and transmitting or cause to be published or transmitted in the electronic from, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest to the persons who are likely to see or hear the matter contained ... However, prima facie offences under Sections 67, 67 A and 66C of the I.T. Act were still made out. Against the aforesaid order of the trial Court, a criminal revision was preferred but the same came to be dismissed by t....
(ii) Section 72 A of the Information Technology Act is inapplicable since the information collected was not `personal information', and instead pertained to the internal workings of the NSE. ... He states that none of the ingredients of the sections leveled against the applicant make it a cognizable offence. The submission of Mr. ... 67. This is a case where the NSE, which is a private company, engaged ISEC to perform a service. ... He further states that section 72 is also violated since official....
In a petition before the High Court seeking quashment, he was discharged of the offences under Section 292 and 294 but the prosecution under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act continued. ... Having noted the provisions, it has to be recapitulated that Section 67 clearly stipulates punishment for publishing, transmitting obscene materials in electronic form. The said provision read with Section 67-A and 67-B is a complete code relating to the offences that are covered under the IT Act. ... If w....
(2017) 2 SCC 18 , the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that when the applicant is charged for commission of offence under Section 67 of Information Technology Act, he cannot simultaneously be tried for the offence under Section ... Assailing the validity of the charge-sheet and the summoning order, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Information Technology Act is a special Act. ... Section 67 of I.T. Act provides as follows: - “67. Punishment for publishing or tr....
Therefore, this Court has directed the first respondent police to delete the offence under Section 67 A of Information Technology Act in the final report. ... The learned trial Judge is hereby directed not to frame any charge under Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act and proceed with the trial for the offences under Section 294(b), 506(i) and 354 (d) of IPC. ... Insofar as inclusion of offence under Section 67 A of the Information Technology Act is concerned, as rightly subm....
Rules 66 and 67 of the Rules, 2016 provide detail procedure to be exercised and followed under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, as hereunder : "66. Information to Assistant Collector (Section 67). ... Further inquiry by Assistant Collector (Section 67) (1) On receipt of the information under rule 66, or on facts otherwise coming to his knowledge, the Assistant Collector may make such inquiry as he deems proper and may obtain further information regarding the following ....
Although, documents and books are used to store information; they are not the only mode for storing information. There are several other devices that are used to store information or records such as pen-drives, personal computers, hard disks, mobiles, communication devices etc. ... It denotes items that contain information or records, which the proper officer has reason to believe is useful for or relevant to the proceedings under the Act. ... The controversy, essentially, relates to interpretation of Section 6....
of the offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are not fulfilled. ... of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and consequent proceeding bearing R.C.C. ... of the Information First Information Report indeed discloses the ingredients of such applicant No.1 – Police Station against the applicant for the offence under Section 67
It is further submitted that expressions like ‘conspiracy’, ‘cheating’ and ‘forgery’ has been employed in the impugned F.I.R. but the ingredients thereof has not been asserted or detailed in the impugned F.I.R. ... signature about any such information as mentioned in sub-rule (2) above, shall act within thirty six hours and where applicable, work with user or owner of such information to disable such information that is in contravention of sub-rule (2). ... The ingredients of the offence under Section 4....
5. Plainly read, Section 209 IPC applies only where a person fraudulently or dishonestly makes a claim, in a Court, which he knows to be false, with intent to injure or annoy any person. (i) the making, by the accused, of a claim which he knows to be false, (ii) fraud or dishonesty in making of the said claim and (iii) intent, while making the said claim, to injure or annoy any person. There are, therefore, three ingredients in Section 209, viz.
The following are the essential ingredients of Section 498- A IPC: "Essentials (i) That there was a married woman; (ii) that such woman was subjected to cruelty; (iii) that such cruelty consisted of any willful conduct of such nature as was likely to drive such woman - to commit suicide, or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical; harassment of such woman where such harassment was - with a view to coercing such woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, or on account o....
The ingredients of Section 304B are as follows - “(1) The death of the woman was caused due to burns, bodily injury or due to unnatural circumstances. Explanation II – The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)” (2) The death should be within seven years of marriage.
That apart, Section 27 of the Act 35 of 1972 enjoins issuance of notice for preparation of detailed development plan, which was corresponding to Section 14(3) of the Act VII of 1920. Notice of the preparation of the detailed development plant – (1) As soon as may be, after the local planning authority has received the consent of the Director under sub-Section (2) of Section 25 to the publication of the notice, the local planning authority shall publish the notice in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and in leading daily newspapers of the region of the preparation of the detailed development....
The ingredients of the above Section are as follows: 2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person. A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
