Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Simply liking or viewing a message does not amount to transmission or publication under Section 67; it involves actual forwarding or sending, which is the key act that triggers the offence ["Mohd Imran Kazi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Publication vs. Transmission under Section 67:
Mere possession or viewing does not constitute publication or transmission; the act of forwarding is integral to the offence ["Mohd Imran Kazi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["Mohd Imran Kazi VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Rajesh, S/o. Dhananjayan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["Rajendra Agrawal, S/o Motilal Agrawal VS State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer of Police StationSupela, District Durg (C. G. ) - Chhattisgarh"]
In today's digital age, WhatsApp has become a primary mode of communication for billions worldwide. But what happens when you forward a message or image marked as Forwarded? Does this simple action expose you to legal liability under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)? This is a pressing question for many users, especially amid rising cybercrime concerns in India.
Whether forwarding a message or image marked as Forwarded on WhatsApp amounts to publication or transmission under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000? The short answer, based on judicial interpretations, is generally no—unless accompanied by intent or active dissemination. This blog post dives deep into the legal nuances, court rulings, and practical implications to help you navigate this grey area.
Section 67 punishes the publishing or transmitting of obscene material in electronic form. Specifically, it targets content that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see, or hear it. Niyaz Ahmad Khan VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 133
Key elements include:- Active dissemination: The act must involve deliberate sharing making the material accessible to the public or a segment thereof.- Obscene nature: Material must meet the legal test of obscenity, not mere vulgarity.
Courts have consistently emphasized that passive actions do not trigger liability. Mere possession or incidental relaying falls short of the threshold. Niyaz Ahmad Khan VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 133
WhatsApp's Forwarded label indicates content relayed from another user, often within private chats or closed groups. This is typically viewed as relaying or passing along, not creating or actively publishing. Kishor VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 801
In a landmark observation, courts have clarified: An administrator or user of WhatsApp cannot be held vicariously liable for objectionable content posted by members unless there is evidence of concerted action or common intention. Kishor VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 801 Simply forwarding marked content does not equate to publication or transmission.
Judicial precedents reinforce this view. For instance, in cases involving WhatsApp groups, posting emojis or sharing grievances did not constitute offences under Section 67. In one matter, petitioners posted a smiling face with tears emoji in response to a video of customer complaints about BSNL services. The court quashed the FIR, noting: Everyone has a right to express their feelings and share their idea... face of crying smiley is to comment about idea. I. Linga Bhaskar VS State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2682I. Linga Bhaskar VS State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1497
The High Court held that no cognizable offence was disclosed, as the group was for official innovative works, and such expressions did not amount to obscenity or transmission. I. Linga Bhaskar VS State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2682
Similarly, in another case, allegations of forwarding a message related to a CD were scrutinized. The court granted anticipatory bail, observing that the offence under Section 67(A) required trial to determine, but mere forwarding from a mobile did not clearly establish direct liability. Virender Aggarwal VS State Of Haryana - 2020 Supreme(P&H) 33
These rulings highlight that context matters—closed groups versus public dissemination.
While mere forwarding is generally safe, exceptions exist:- Intent to disseminate widely: If done to spread obscene material to a broad audience, it could qualify as transmission.- Scale and repetition: Mass forwarding or using broadcast lists may indicate active publication.- Accompanying actions: Editing, commenting, or endorsing the content could elevate it to publication.
Courts stress: The law requires active dissemination with an intent or circumstances indicating publication or transmission, not passive relaying. Kishor VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 801
In obscenity cases, Section 67 covers electronic forms comprehensively, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Sharat Babu Digumarti, where Sections 67, 67A, and 67B were held to address such issues fully. Shaik Faheemullah vs The State of Telangana and 4 others - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 24696Shaik Faheemullah vs The State of Telangana and 4 others - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 62470Shaik Faheemullah vs The State of Telangana and 4 others - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 35925
Other judgments provide additional clarity:- Group Admin Liability: No vicarious responsibility without proof of common intention. Kishor VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 801- Obscenity Threshold: WhatsApp messages must be statutorily obscene; casual content does not qualify. Mohankumar @ Mohanakumar vs State Of Tamilnadu Rep By In - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8164- Quashing FIRs: Proceedings quashed when no prima facie offence under Section 67, as in emoji-sharing or non-obscene forwards. I. Linga Bhaskar VS State through the Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 2682
In a web series case alleging obscenity, the court found a prima facie case under Section 67 but allowed investigation to proceed, underscoring that early-stage quashing is rare if allegations suggest incitement. Ekta Kapoor VS State of M. P. - 2020 Supreme(MP) 1206
These cases illustrate that Indian courts adopt a measured approach, prioritizing intent over mechanical actions.
To stay on the safe side:- Verify content: Avoid forwarding potentially obscene material, even if marked Forwarded.- Limit audience: Stick to private chats; avoid broadcasts.- Document intent: If questioned, show it was inadvertent relaying.- Group admins: Moderate actively but note no automatic liability. Kishor VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 801
Authorities should focus on intent, scale, and context rather than isolated forwards. Legal actions typically require evidence beyond the act itself.
Forwarding a message or image marked as Forwarded on WhatsApp does not, by itself, amount to publication or transmission under Section 67 of the IT Act. It generally constitutes mere relaying, absent active dissemination or intent. Kishor VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 801Niyaz Ahmad Khan VS State of U. P. - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 133
Key Takeaways:- Passive forwarding in closed groups is typically not punishable.- Intent and context are decisive factors.- Courts protect free expression in non-obscene scenarios.
Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on judicial trends and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Stay informed, share responsibly, and navigate cyber laws confidently.
Law Amendment Act - The court discussed the application of Section 67 of the I.T. ... LIKING - Social Media Provocation - Section 147, 148, 149 I.P.C., Section 67 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, 7 Criminal ... Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant's liking of a post on social media constituted an offence under Section 67 ... Sami and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2019, u/s 147, 148, 149 I.P.C., Section 67 #HL_....
) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 'I.T. ... From perusal of the FIR, it would be a matter of trial whether the offence under Section 67(A) of I.T. ... A perusal of the message forwarded on Whatsapp shows that it is stated that CD relates to Gopal Sharan Garg, as per Forensic Lab report. ... , allegedly done from the mobile phone of Radhey Shyam Sherewala, is not clear, whether t....
Even according to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint, the said allegations attract the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) only. ... In Sharat Babu Digumarti supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that cases involving obscenity in electronic form are completely covered by Sections 67, 67-A and 67-B of the Information Techno....
Even according to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint, the said allegations attract the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) only. ... In Sharat Babu Digumarti supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that cases involving obscenity in electronic form are completely covered by Sections 67, 67-A and 67-B of the Information Techno....
Even according to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the complaint, the said allegations attract the offence under Section 66-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘IT Act’) only. ... In Sharat Babu Digumarti supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that cases involving obscenity in electronic form are completely covered by Sections 67, 67-A and 67-B of the Information Techno....
67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. ... 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 is that there should be publication, transmission or causing it to be published of the Information Technology Act, 2000. ... Section 67-A of the Information #H....
It was further argued that Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals exclusively with obscene material and that the alleged WhatsApp message does not, by any stretch of imagination, fall within the statutory definition of obscenity. 9. ... With regard to the offence under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the ....
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 482, 155(2) , 199 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 ... A comparison of the relevant wordings in Section 292(1) of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act would make it clear that in order to make the publication or transmission or causing of publication or transmission in the electronic form to be brought within the contours of Section ....
67 - Innovative Works - It is admitted that official what sapp group was intended to be used by members for sharing of any innovative ... Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Caste and Scheduled Tribes Amendment Act, 2015 - Section 3 - Information Technology Act - Section ... Section 67 of Information Technology Act reads as follows : ... “67. ... From the reading of Section 67 of Information#HL_EN....
67 - De-facto complainant - Working in BSNL Department - De- motivate executives - All petitioners are working in BSNL Department ... Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 - Section 3 (1)(r), 3(1)(t), 3(1)(u) - Information Technology Act - Section ... Section 67 of Information Technology Act reads as follows: ... “67. ... From the reading of Section 67 of Information #HL_....
While considering the ingredients of Section 67 of the information Technology Act, 2000, it can be said mat firstly there must be a publication or transmission of any material in the electronic form. Secondly, such material must be lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest. Thirdly such transmission and publication must be such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons, who are likely to read, see or heart he matter contained or embodied in it While considering the terms ‘publication’ and ‘transmission’, it is to be established that the person charged with the offence,....
2. While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence [other than the offence referred to in sub-section (1)], with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial. 3. The Special Court constituted under this Act, notwithstanding anything in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), shall have jurisdiction to try offences under section 67-B of that Act in so far as it relates to publication or transmission of sexually explicit material depicting children in any act, or conduct or manner or facil....
(3) The Special Court constituted under this Act, notwithstanding anything in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000), shall have jurisdiction to try offences under section 67-B of that Act in so far as it relates to publication or transmission of sexually explicit material depicting children in any act, or conduct or manner or facilitates abuse of children online. (2) While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence other than the offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Proced....
Now coming to the question as to whether the provisions of Section 67 of Information Technology Act are attracted or not, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2000, which runs as under:- Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
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
