Page |1

SEMINAR COURSE- II
A PROJECT ON

Law and information technology with reference to section-66 of the Information technology act

Submitted To:

Dr. Kehkashan Y. Danyal

BY: Name: Ayush Bansal; Roll No: 07; B.A. LLB.(Hons.), 9th semester

Page |2

Table Of Contents
S.No. Topics Part I
1. Introduction .........................................................................6-9
Need For Cyber Law

Pg. No.

Part II
2. Information Technology Act, 2000 An Introduction........10-13
History Provisions The I. T. (Amendment) Act, 2008 Critical Analysis

Part III
3. Section 66 , I.T.Act Before And After The Amendment.....14-18
Under I. T. Act, 2000 Under I. T. Act, 2008

Part IV
4. I.T(.Amendment) Act, 2008 . .......................................19-24

Changes Brought Down In The I.T. Act , 2000

Page |3

Part V

5.

Section 66(A) Of It Act- Recent Controversies ................25-29

Recent Controversy Understanding Section 66 A Of I.T. Act Core Issue Cases Referring To The Misuse Of Section 66a Of I.T. Act New Guidelines For Section 66 A Of I.T. Act
Part VI 6. Cases ..................................................................................30-33 Part VII 7. Criticism ...........................................................................34-37 Part VIII 8. Some Real Life Scenarios ...............................................38-47

Social Networking Sites Related Case E-Mail Account Hacking Credit Card Fraud Online Share Trading Fraud Tax Evasion And Money Laundering
Part IX 9. Conclusion.........................................................................48-54 10. Bibliography

Page |4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This project has been written after careful reading and examination of books, articles, blogs and expert opinion on the subject, section -66 of I.T.Act as well as its amendment , etc. The opinion of experts in this field has also been quoted as and when it was found necessary. The material has been collected from various sources that of articles, books various law journals, newspapers and internet. It contains viewpoint of many jurists and advocates. The material was collected and arranged in order. In order to make it easily understandable, In the last section, a conclusion is given that concludes the topic and gives a quick gist of the whole subject.

Page |5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Dr. Kehkashan Y. Danyal , our Seminar professor, for providing the help and guidance required during the entire stage of the project. He helped form the research methodology till the end of this project. He inspired us at every step of the way and I am very grateful for the help and support he showed us for it would not have been possible to complete this project without it.

AYUSH BANSAL

Page |6

PART I INTRODUCTION
Success in any field of human activity leads to crime that needs mechanisms to control it. Legal provisions should provide assurance to users, empowerment to law enforcement agencies and deterrence to criminals. The law is as stringent as its enforcement. Crime is no longer limited to space, time or a group of people. Cyber space creates moral, civil and criminal wrongs. It has now given a new way to express criminal tendencies. Back in 1990, less than 100,000 people were able to log on to the Internet worldwide. Now around 500 million people are hooked up to surf the net around the globe. Until recently, many information technology (IT) professionals lacked awareness of and interest in the cyber crime phenomenon. In many cases, law enforcement officers have lacked the tools needed to tackle the problem; old laws didnt quite fit the crimes being committed, new laws hadnt quite caught up to the reality of what was happening, and there were few court precedents to look to for guidance. Furthermore, debates over privacy issues hampered the ability of enforcement agents to gather the evidence needed to prosecute thesenew cases. Finally, there was a certain amount of antipathyor at the least, distrust between the two most important players in any effective fight against cyber crime: law enforcement agencies and computer professionals. Yet close cooperation between the two is crucial if we are to control the cyber crime problem and make the Internet a safe place for its users. Law enforcement personnel understand the criminal mindset and know the basics of gathering evidence and bringing offenders to justice. IT personnel understand computers and networks, how they work, and how to track down information on them. Each has half of the key to defeating the cyber criminal.

Page |7

IT professionals need good definitions of cybercrime in order to know when (and what) to report to police, but law enforcement agencies must have statutory definitions of specific crimes in order to charge a criminal with an offense. The first step in specifically defining individual cybercrimes is to sort all the acts that can be considered cybercrimes into organized categories. United Nations Definition of Cybercrime Cybercrime spans not only state but national boundaries as well. Perhaps we should look to international organizations to provide a standard definition of the crime. At the Tenth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, in a workshop devoted to the issues of crimes related to computer networks, cybercrime was broken into two categories and defined thus: a. Cybercrime in a narrow sense (computer crime): Any illegal behavior directed by means of electronic operations that targets the security of computer systems and the data processed by them. b. Cybercrime in a broader sense (computer-related crime): Any illegal behavior committed by means of, or in relation to, a computer system or network, including such crimes as illegal possession [and] offering or distributing information by means of a computer system or network. Of course, these definitions are complicated by the fact that an act may be illegal in one nation but not in another. There are more concrete examples, including i. Unauthorized access ii Damage to computer data or programs iii Computer sabotage iv Unauthorized interception of communications v Computer espionage

Page |8

These definitions, although not completely definitive, do give us a good starting pointone that has some international recognition and agreementfor determining just what we mean by the term cybercrime.

Need for Cyber law

In today's techno-savvy environment, the world is becoming more and more digitally sophisticated and so are the crimes. Internet was initially developed as a research and information sharing tool and was in an unregulated manner. As the time passed by it became more transactional with e-business, e-commerce, e-governance and eprocurement etc. All legal issues related to internet crime are dealt with through cyber laws. As the number of internet users is on the rise, the need for cyber laws and their application has also gathered great momentum.

In today's highly digitalized world, almost everyone is affected by cyber law. For example:

Almost all transactions in shares are in demat form.

Almost all companies extensively depend upon their computer networks and keep their valuable data in electronic form.

Government forms including income tax returns, company law forms etc. are now filled in electronic form.

Consumers are increasingly using credit cards for shopping. Most people are using email, cell phones and SMS messages for communication.

Even in "non-cyber crime" cases, important evidence is found in computers / cell phones e.g. in cases of divorce, murder, kidnapping, tax evasion, organized crime, terrorist operations, counterfeit currency etc.

Page |9

Cyber crime cases such as online banking frauds, online share trading fraud, source code theft, credit card fraud, tax evasion, virus attacks, cyber sabotage, phishing attacks, email hijacking, denial of service, hacking, pornography etc are becoming common.

Digital signatures and e-contracts are fast replacing conventional methods of transacting business.

Technology per se is never a disputed issue but for whom and at what cost has been the issue in the ambit of governance. The cyber revolution holds the promise of quickly reaching the masses as opposed to the earlier technologies, which had a trickledown effect. Such a promise and potential can only be realized with an appropriate legal regime based on a given socio-economic matrix.

P a g e | 10

PART II

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 AN INTRODUCTION

The Indian Parliament enacted in the Fifty first Year of the Republic of India , an Act called the Information Technology Act1 , 2000. This Act is based on the Resolution A/RES/51/162 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 30th January, 1997 regarding the Model Law on Electronic

Commerce earlier adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)2 in its twenty-ninth session. The aforesaid resolution of the General Assembly recommends that all States give favourable consideration to the Model Law on Electronic Commerce when they enact or revise their laws, in view of the need for uniformity of the law applicable to alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information.

HISTORY
The United Nations General Assembly by resolution A/RES/51/162, dated the 30 January 1997 has adopted the Model Law on Electronic Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. This is referred
1 2

It received the assent of the President on the 9 June, 2000. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was established by the United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution 2205 (XXI) of 17 December 1966 "to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of international trade law .

th

P a g e | 11

to as the UNCITRAL Model Law on E-Commerce. Following the UN Resolution India passed the Information Technology Act 2000 in May 2000, which came into force on October 17, 2000. The Information Technology Act 2000 has been substantially amended through the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 which was passed by the two houses of the Indian Parliament on December 23, and 24, 2008. It got the Presidential assent on February 5, 2009 and came into force on October 27, 2009.

PROVISIONS
Information technology Act 2000 consisted of 94 sections segregated into 13 chapters. Four schedules form part of the Act. In the 2008 version of the Act, there are 124 sections (excluding 5 sections that have been omitted from the earlier version) and 14 chapters. Schedule I and II have been replaced. Schedules III and IV are deleted. Information Technology Act 2000 addressed the following issues: 1. Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents 2. Legal Recognition of Digital Signatures 3. Offenses and Contraventions 4. Justice Dispensation Systems for Cybercrimes

P a g e | 12

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2008

The Government of India has brought major amendments to ITA-2000 in form of the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008. ITAA 2008 (Information Technology Amendment Act 2008) as the new version of Information Technology Act 2000 is often referred has provided additional focus on Information Security. It has added several new sections on offences including Cyber Terrorism and Data Protection. A set of Rules relating to Sensitive Personal Information and Reasonable Security Practices (mentioned in section 43A of the ITAA, 2008) was released in April 2011 .3

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The amendment was passed in an eventful Parliamentary session on 23rd of December 2008 with no discussion in the House. Some of the cyber law observers have criticized the amendments on the ground of lack of legal and procedural safeguards to prevent violation of civil liberties of Indians. There have also been appreciation about the amendments from many observers because it addresses the issue of Cyber Security. Section 69 empowers the Central Government/State Government/ its authorized agency to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource if it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence or for

Available at < http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf > .

P a g e | 13

investigation of any offence. They can also secure assistance from computer personnel in decrypting data , under penalty of imprisonment.4 Section 66A is widely criticized. It has led to numerous abuses reported by the press. Section 66A has also been criticised and challenged in Lucknow and Madras High Courts for its constitutional validity.5 information on it can entail cyber crime.7
6

Based on Section 66A,

Bombay High Court has held that creating a website and storing false

4 5

Available at < http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?282245 > Available at < http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-21/social-media/35257411_1_writpetition-facebook-post-life-and-liberty >. 6 Available at < http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/validity-of-section-66a-of-it-actchallenged/article4116598.ece > . 7 Available at < http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-08-19/mumbai/41424525_1_websitesection-66-a-section-66a > .

P a g e | 14

PART III SECTION 66 , I.T.ACT BEFORE AND AFTER THE AMENDMENT

UNDER I.T.ACT, 2000

66. Hacking with computer system. * Whoever with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person destroys or deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, commits hack: * Whoever commits hacking shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend upto two lakh rupees, or with both.8

UNDER I.T.ACT, 2008

66 Computer Related Offences (Substituted vide ITAA 2008) If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
8

Available at < http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act > .

P a g e | 15

Explanation: For the purpose of this section,a) the word "dishonestly" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 24 of the Indian Penal Code; b) the word "fraudulently" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 25 of the Indian Penal Code. 66 A Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.( Introduced vide ITAA 2008) Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages (Inserted vide ITAA 2008) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms "Electronic mail" and "Electronic Mail Message" means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.

P a g e | 16

66 B Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device (Inserted Vide ITA 2008) Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both. 66C Punishment for identity theft. (Inserted Vide ITA 2008) Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh. 66D Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource (Inserted Vide ITA 2008) Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. 66E. Punishment for violation of privacy. (Inserted Vide ITA 2008) Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both

P a g e | 17

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section (a) transmit means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; (b) capture , with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means; (c) private area means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast; (d) publishes means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public; (e) under circumstances violating privacy means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that (i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or (ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place. 66F. Punishment for cyber terrorism (1) Whoever,(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by (i) denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or (ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorized access; or

P a g e | 18

(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant. and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or (B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism. (2) Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.9

Sharma,Vakul, Information and Technology Law and Practice , Third Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co.

P a g e | 19

PART IV I.T(.AMENDMENT) ACT, 2008

The Information Technology (Amendment) Bill, 2008 (Bill No.96-F of 2008) was passed by the both houses of parliament on December, 2008 and received the accent of the president on 5th February, 2009. 10However, there was lots of confusion about the date of Notification of IT Amendment Act, 2008 as per the requirements of the Section 1 (2) of the same. However, after the wait of almost more than 8 months, the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (ITAA, 2008) has been notified with effect from 27/10/2009 and is now become operational. Many significant changes have been introduced in the IT Amendment Act, 2008. Lets have a glance over some of important changes: -

TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL (SECTION 15): The welcome step in

the IT AA, 2008 is the attempt to make the Act as technological neutral by defining the concept of Electronic Signatures within which the existing Digital Signature system would be one of the kinds. Thus, the Act has introduced flexibility to the system of authentication of Electronic Documents by any electronic signature technique.

EXAMINER OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE(SECTION 79-A):

The ITAA, 2008 establishes an examiner of electronic evidence to give expert opinion on electronic form evidence. The examiner of electronic evidence may help the investigating agencies/or adjudicating officer to investigate the cyber violations/crimes.
10

Available at < http://cyberlaws.net/itamendments/index1.htm >.

P a g e | 20

EIGHT NEW CYBER OFFENCES ADDED :The IT AA, 2008 adds

new eight cyber offences viz;

1. Sending offensive messages through a computer or mobile phone (Section 66A),

2. Receiving stolen computer resource or communication device (Section 66B)

3. Punishment for identity theft (Section 66C)

4. Punishment for cheating by personation using computer resource (Section 66D)

5. Punishment for violating privacy or video voyeurism (Section 66E)

6. Cyber Terrorism (Section 66F)

7. Publishing or transmitting material in electronic form containing sexually explicit act (Section 67A),

8. Child pornography (Section 67B)

Thus, cyber crime police stations have to deal with more cyber crimes. Earlier they were dealing with only two sections, 66 & 67.

P a g e | 21

POWER OF INTERCEPTION OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TO THE GOVERNMENT: Sections 69 and

69A of the amended Act empower the state to issue directions for interception, monitoring, decryption of any information through any computer resource; and for blocking websites in the interest of national security, and friendly relations with foreign states. Further, Section 69B empowers the government to authorize to monitor, collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for cyber security. In addition to the existing circumstances under the IT Act, like in the interest of national security, sovereignty, public order etc., the central government may intercept /monitor any information transmitted through any computer resource also for investigation of any offence.

DATA BASE SECURITY AND PRIVACY: The IT AA, 2008

incorporates provisions pertaining to data base security and privacy in Section 43, 43 A, 66E and 72A. A body corporate shall be liable to pay compensation if it is negligent in implementing reasonable security precautions with respect to sensitive personal data. The liability would arise if the negligence leads to a wrongful loss or wrongful gain to a person (43A). Also a person including an intermediary is held liable if he discloses personal information which he accessed while providing services under a contract. The liability arises if the disclosure was made with an intention to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain to a person(72A). Section 66E defends privacy and now one cannot publish or transmit nude photo of a person without his/her permission.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY: The newly inserted section 67 B of ITAA,

2008deals with child pornography. The wordings of the section are very hard worded and makes even the recording in electronic form of any sexually explicit

P a g e | 22

act with children shall be punishable under this section. Even if one is found to be engaged in online relationship with sexual overtone that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource would be punishable under this section. The expression May offend a reasonable adult is subject to judicial scrutiny and interpretation and leaves scope for misuse and controversy.

CYBER TERRORISM : Newly inserted Section 66F in IT AA, 2008 deals

with Cyber Terrorism i.e. one who causes denial of access to computer resources, or has unauthorized access to a computer resource, or introduces a virus, with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in any section of the people is deemed to be committing cyber terrorism. If a person has unauthorized access to a computer resource with the intent to breach the security of the state, its sovereignty and integrity, and friendly relations with foreign states, then also he is deemed to be committing cyber terrorism. However Ancillary cyber activities to further terrorism not included as Cyber terrorism.

COMPOUNDING OF OFFENCES : Hitherto under the u/s 63 of the IT

Act, 2000, provisions were made only for compounding of contraventions and not for offences under Chapter XI of the IT Act. Now, the provision for compounding of offences under the IT Act has been made under the newly inserted Section 77-A of IT AA, 2008. However, it is to be noted that under the amendment, the second conviction is not compoundable and it also not compoundable where such offence affects the socio-economic conditions of the country or has been committed against a child below the age of 18 years or a woman.

P a g e | 23

OFFENCES MADE BAILABLE , LESS STRINGENT: Now most

of the offences are considered Cognizable but Bailable and Compoundable. Now offences, punishable with imprisonment of more than three years are only non bailable.

ABETMENT AND ATTEMPT: Abatement of the offences under the act

is also made punishable with the punishment provided for the offence committed in pursuance of such under IT AA, 2008. The newly inserted section makes punishable any attempt to commit the offences under this act which is similar in line with Section 511 of the Indian Penal code.

OFFENCE OF HACKING ONLY IF WITH DISHONEST OR FRAUDULENT INTENTION: Now, the hacking of computer is covered
u/s 66 IT Act only if it is done dishonestly or fraudulently as defined under the IPC. If it is not done dishonestly or fraudulently, it would be covered under Section 43 which is civil in nature. Thus, the moment one commits hacking, he would be either criminally liable or face civil liability.

THE LEVEL OF INVESTIGATION BROUGHT DOWN TO THE INSPECTORS FROM DSPs: The level of investigation has been
brought down to the level of inspector from that of DSP. It means, more IOs are now available to investigate the cyber crime incidents.

LIABILITY OF INTERMEDIARY, SECTION 79 REVISITED:

This section is revised in lines with the EU Directives on E-Commerce to determine the extent of responsibility of intermediaries for third party data or content. Intermediaries are not ordinarily responsible for third party content they do not create or review. However this protection is not available if the

P a g e | 24

intermediary conspired or abetted or aided in the commission of the unlawful act or he upon receiving actual knowledge or on being notified about unlawful content, fails to quickly remove access to such data or content.11

11

Article by Sagar Raghukar , Law Graduate , Senior Faculty at Asian School of Cyber Laws

P a g e | 25

PART V SECTION 66(A) OF IT ACTRECENT CONTROVERSIES

66 (A) of IT Act has been termed as draconian and violating the fundamental right of freedom of expression by various civil society activists and critics.12 Some incidents of arbitrary arrests under this Section in the recent past for posting alleged offensive messages on social media has resulted in huge public outrage against this Section of the IT Act. Voicing concern over recent incidents of people beingarrested for posting alleged offensive messages on websites, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear aPIL seeking amendment to the Information Technology Act.

THE RECENT CONTROVERSY

The Section 66 (A) of IT Act gathered the public attention and became an issue of controversy when twoyoung girls were arrested in Mumbai.13 One of these girl was arrested for questioning on Facebook the shutdown in Mumbai after leader Bal Thackeray's death, which was 'liked' and shared by the other girl,who was also arrested. The police invoked section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act against these young women.

12 13

Yogesh Pratap Singh , Ex IPS Officer Shaheen Dhada and Rini Srinivas , <http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/weekend-life/the-flawin-cyber-law/article4143509.ece >

P a g e | 26

Use of authority against a person for expressing an opinion on a restrictedaccess social networking site is arbitrary in nature and gross abuse of authority. The girl was not slandering anybody, nor was shepromoting hatred towards any community. She was merely expressing the view that there was no needfor Mumbai to be shut down because a leader had died. A section of society (the Shiv Sainik in particular)may not agree with this view, but there certainly was no criminality involved in it. What is even morebizarre is that another girl was arrested merely for indicating that she agreed with her friend. The Supreme Court in various cases regarding the freedom of speech has heldthat fundamental right tofreedom of expression protects not merely ideas that are accepted but also those that offend shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population

WHAT IS SECTION 66 (A) OF IT ACT ?

Section 66 (A), which is a bailable offence and provides for a jail term of up to three years, makes it an offence to send, by means of a computer resource or communication device, any information which is grossly offensive, menacing, causes annoyance or hatred.66 A is related to Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc. Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance,inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will,persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

P a g e | 27

Any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of suchmessages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years andwith fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms Electronic mail and Electronic Mail Messagemeans a message or information created or transmitted or received on acomputer, computer system,computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and anyother electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message.14

CORE ISSUE

The phraseology of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and hence falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a)and Article 21 of the Constitution. Currently, a police station in-charge or an inspector can register a caseunder the said provision.15

14

Sharma,Vakul, Information and Technology Law and Practice , Third Edition, Universal Law Publishing Co. Available at <http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?283149>.

15

P a g e | 28

OTHER CASES INVOLVING MISUSE OF SECTION 66(A) OF I.T .ACT

1. April 2012 incident, when a professor of chemistry from Jadavpur University in West Bengal, Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for posting a cartoon concerning a political figure on social networking sites.

2. Arrest of businessman Ravi Srinivasan in October 2012 by the Puducherry Police for having made a allegation on twitter against a politician from Tamil Nadu.

3. Arrest of two Air India employees V. Jaganatharao and Mayank Sharma, by the Mumbai Police for posting content of Facebook and Orkut against a trade union leader and some politicians.

4. Assem Trivedi, the famous cartoonist arrested misusing Section 66 (A) of IT act along with the sedition charges.

NEW GUIDELINES FOR SECTION 66 (A) OF IT ACT

The government has issued fresh guidelines in the backdrop of Public outrage against the Section 66 (A)of IT Act. The following are the guidelines:

1. A police officer no less than the rank of DCP can sanction prosecution.

2. In metropolitan cities, such an approval would have to be given by officers at the level of Inspector General of Police (IGP).

P a g e | 29

3. Only officers of these ranks will be allowed to permit registration of a case for offences under theInformation Technology (IT) Act relating to spreading hatred through electronic messages in a bidto prevent the misuse of the legislation.16

16

Available at < http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/11/29/india-tightens-rules-on-hate-speech-law/ >.

P a g e | 30

PART VI CASES
There has been numerous instances application of the Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000 (ITA) in the lower courts. Currently, there are six High Court decisions, in which the section has been mentioned or discussed. In this blog post, I will be summarizing facts of a few cases insofar as they can be gathered from the orders of the Court and are pertinent to the application of 66-A, ITA.

1. Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on June 5, 2012)
Petition before High Court for release of passport seized by investigating agency during arrest In the case of Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Decided on June 5, 2012), a petition was filed before the Kerala High Court for release of passport seized at the time of arrest from the custody of the investigating agency. The Court accordingly passed an order for release of the passport of the petitioner. The Court, while deciding the case, briefly mentioned the facts of the case which were relevant to the petition. It stated that the gist of the accusation is that the accused pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by them made attempts to extort money by black mailing a Minister of the State and for that purpose they have forged some CD as if it contained statements purported to

P a g e | 31

have been made by the Minister. The Court also noted the provisions under which the accused was charged. They are Sections 66-A(b) and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with a host of sections under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (120B Criminal Conspiracy, 419 Cheating by personation, 511- Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment, 420 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, 468 Forgery for purpose of cheating, 469 Forgery for purpose of harming and 201 Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Nikhil Chacko Sam v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on July 9, 2012)
Order of the Kerala High Court on issuing of the summons to the petitioner. In another case, the Kerala High Court while passing an order with respect to summons issued to the accused, also mentioned the charge sheet laid by the police against the accused in its order. The accused was charged under section 66-A, ITA. The brief facts which can be extracted from the order of the Court read: that the complainant and the accused (petitioner) were together at Chennai. It is stated that on 04.09.2009, the petitioner has transmitted photos of the de facto complainant and another person depicting them in bad light through internet and thus the petitioner has committed the offence as mentioned above.

P a g e | 32

3. J.R. Gangwani and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Decided on October 15, 2012)
Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an application for quashing of criminal proceeding draws attention to a complaint which was filed under Section 66A(c). This complaint was filed under Section 66-A(c) on the ground of sending e-mails under assumed e-mail addresses to customers of the Company which contained material which maligned the name of the Company which was to be sold as per the orders of the Company Law Board. The Complainant in the case received the e-mails which were redirected from the customers. According to the accused and the petitioner in the current hearing, the e-mail was not directed to the complainant or the company as is required under Section 66-A (c). The High Court held that, the petitioners are sending these messages to the purchasers of cranes from the company and those purchasers cannot be considered to be the possible buyers of the company. Sending of such e-mails, therefore, is not promoting the sale of the company which is the purpose of the advertisement given in the Economic Times. Such advertisements are, therefore, for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience to the company or to deceive or mislead the addressee about the origin of such messages. These facts, therefore, clearly bring the acts of the petitioners within the purview of section 66A(c) of the Act.

P a g e | 33

4. Mohammad Amjad v. Sharad Sagar Singh and Ors. (Criminal Revision no. 72/2011 filed before the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khana Additional Sessions Judge 04 South East: Saket Courts Delhi)

Revision petition against the order of the metropolitan magistrate In a revision petition came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that the metropolitan magistrate has dismissed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without discussing the ingredients of section 295-A, IPC and 66-A, IT Act. In this case, the judge observed that, ...section 66A of Information Technology Act (IT Act) does not refer at all to any 'group' or 'class' of people. The only requirement of Section 66A IT Act is that the message which is communicated is grossly offensive in nature or has menacing character. He also observed that the previous order not at all considered the allegations from this angle and the applicability of Section 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 to the factual matrix of the instant case.

P a g e | 34

PART VII CRITICISM

Bad laws pave the way for worse ones

We only have to look at Section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act 2008 to realise that it is so badly worded that it not only permits draconian abuse by the government but allows individuals to get fellow citizens arrested for merely sending an electronic message that they consider grossly offensive. It is obviously ultra vires of the Constitutions Article 19, which enshrines freedom of speech as a fundamental right. If a statute renders blasphemy a crime in the Republic of Indiaas the IT Rules for Intermediaries, 2011, which draw their authority from the IT Act, have donethen it doesnt take a legal genius to notice that a lot of things have gone ultra vires of the Constitution. The higher courts ought to strike it down when the matter comes up for hearing in a few public interest litigations that are in the works. The question is how did this appalling section make it into the statutes in the first place? Heres where it gets murky. By all accounts, the IT Act was sought to be amended in 2006, when Dayanidhi Maran was the IT minister. The concern at that time was over hacking and circulation of covertly-shot pornographic videos on mobile phones. An expert committee, of which Kiran Karnik, then the chairman of NASSCOMM was a member, recommended changes to the Act. In its Summary Report it said: Language of Section 66 related to computer related offences has been revised to be in lines with Section 43 related to penalty for damage to computer

P a g e | 35

resource. These have been graded with the degree of severity of offence when done by any person, dishonestly or fraudulently without the permission of the owner. Sometimes because of lack of knowledge or for curiosity, new learners/Netizens unintentionally or without knowing that it is not correct to do so end up doing certain undesirable act on the Net. For a country like India where we are trying to enhance the positive use of Internet and working towards reducing the digital divide, it need to be ensured that new users do not get scared away because of publicity of computer related offences. Section 43 acts as a reassuring Section to a common Netizen(sic). IT Act in order to ensure that it promotes the use of e-commerce, e-governance and other online uses has been cautious not to use the word cyber crime in the text. [ Expert Committee's Summary Report at MCIT, doc] This, however, does not sound like an explanation for the wording of Section 66A. Thats because it explains the Expert Committees draft of Section 66, which is very different from what eventually went into the amendment. Somewhere between then and the report being tabled in the Lok Sabha for vote, during Andimuthu Rajas controversial tenure IT minister, the wordings were changed. We do not at whose behest these changes were made. We do not know why. The Union Cabinet and the Ministry of Communications and IT are accountable, of course, but there is no transparency at all on the motives and the actors behind these changes. If there were national security reasons, they should at least have been mentioned as reasons. Without transparency, we will not be wrong in assuming that the draconian measures were intentionally introduced to stifle free speech and target political opponents of the parties in power. CIS Indias Pranesh Prakash has more on where they got the wording from in his detailed deconstruction of the offending section. Theres worse.

P a g e | 36

Shouldnt one of the hundreds of members of parliament noticed this section for its potential abuse, and flagged the issue? Shouldnt the parties in Opposition, from the BJP to the Communists to the various regional parties, held the Governments feet to the fire? After all, thats what the parliament is for. How could this Bill make it past the two houses of Parliament, where there still are many individuals with the knowledge, inclination and position who could have intervened? Well, because it was passed in mindless haste at the fag end of the 2008 Winter Session of Parliament, when eight bills were passed in a mere seven minutes! This happened because of the anti-defection laws introduced in the 1980s has turned Parliament from a debating chamber to a puppet theatre where the MPs strings are pulled by the party leaderships. Bills are passed more through political deal-making between the party leaderships than through debate. It was not always like this. It changed because of one bad law. So bad is that law that it is hard to change it, because changing it requires the consent of the very party leaderships that it will disempower. Shanti Bhushan, now associated with India Against Corruption, was one of its drafters. It was enacted by the Rajiv Gandhi government. This begs the question. How seriously can we take the laws made by a parliament that overlooked such a flagrant assault on our fundamental rights? The legitimacy of every single law, every single section made by this parliament is suspect. That does not mean citizens can disregard them. It means citizens ought to scan every bit of legislation going in and coming out of parliament with extreme diligence. This is where the work of neutral research bodies like PRS Legislative Research becomes extremely useful. Its out there, for those willing to pay attention and act.

P a g e | 37

Parliament must redeem itself. If it wants to restore its credibility, parliamentarians should act in ways that corrects their big mistake. They must get rid of Section 66A in its entirety.

P a g e | 38

PART VIII SOME REAL LIFE SCENARIOS

1. SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES RELATED CASE
Social networking sites like Orkut and Facebook are very popular nowadays. Users of such sites can search for and interact with people who share the same hobbies and interests. The profiles of such users are usually publicly viewable.17

Scenario 1:
A fake profile of a woman is created on a social networking site. The profile displays her correct name and contact information (such as address, residential phone number, cell phone number etc). Sometimes it even has her photograph. The problem is that the profile describes her as a prostitute or a woman of loose character who wants to have sexual relations with anyone. Other members see this profile and start calling her at all hours of the day asking for sexual favours. This leads to a lot of harassment for the victim and also defames her.

Usual motives: Jealousy or revenge (e.g. the victim may have rejected the advances made by the suspect).

17

Articles available at Club Hack Magazine.

P a g e | 39

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 Section 67 of the Information

After 27 October, 2009 Sections 66A and 67 of

Technology Act and section 509 of the Information Technology Act and Indian Penal Code section 509 of Indian Penal Code

Scenario 2:

An online hate community is created. This community displays objectionable information against a particular country, religious or ethnic group or even against national leaders and historical figures.

Usual motives: Desire to cause racial hatred and communal discord and disharmony.

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009

After 27 October, 2009

Section 153A & 153B Section 66A of the Information Technology of Indian Penal Code Act and sections 153A & 153B of Indian Penal Code

P a g e | 40

Scenario 3:

A fake profile of a man is created on Orkut/facebook. The profile contains defamatory information about the victim (such as his alleged sexual weakness, alleged immoral character etc).

Usual motives: Hatred (e.g. a school student who has failed may victimize his teachers).

Applicable law

Before 27 October, After 27 October, 2009 2009 Section 500 of Indian Section 66A of the Information Technology Penal Code Act and section 500 of Indian Penal Code

2. Email Account Hacking

Emails are increasingly being used for social interaction, business communication and online transactions. Most email account holders do not take basic precautions to protect their email account passwords. Cases of theft of email passwords and subsequent misuse of email accounts are becoming very common.18

18

Ibid .

P a g e | 41

Scenario 1:
The victims email account password is stolen and the account is then misused for sending out malicious code (virus, worm, Trojan etc) to people in the victims address book. The recipients of these viruses believe that the email is coming from a known person and run the attachments. This infects their computers with the malicious code.

Usual motives: Corporate espionage or a perverse pleasure in being able to destroy valuable information belonging to strangers etc.

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act

After 27 October, 2009 Sections 43, 66, 66A and 66C of the Information Technology Act

Scenario 2:
The victims email account password is stolen and the hacker tries to extort money from the victim. The victim is threatened that if he does not pay the money, the information contained in the emails will be misused. Usual motives: Illegal financial gain.

P a g e | 42

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act

After 27 October, 2009 Sections 43, 66, 66A & 66C of the Information Technology Act

Scenario 3:
The victims email account password is stolen and obscene emails are sent to people in the victims address book.

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 After 27 October, 2009 Sections 43, 66 and 67of Section 43, 66, 66A and 67 of the Information the Information Technology Act Technology Act Additionally, depending upon the content, sections 66C and 67B of the Information Technology Act may also apply

3. Credit Card Fraud

Credit cards are commonly being used for online booking of airline and railway tickets and for other ecommerce transactions. Although most ecommerce

P a g e | 43

websites have implemented strong security measures (such as SSL, secure web servers etc), instances of credit card frauds are increasing.19 In credit card fraud cases, the victims credit card information is stolen and misused for making online purchases (e.g. airline tickets, software, subscription to pornographic websites etc).

Modus Operandi 1: The suspect would install key loggers in public computers (such as cyber cafes, airport lounges etc) or the computer of the victim. Unsuspecting victims would use these infected computers to make online transactions. The credit card information of the victim would be emailed to the suspect.

Modus Operandi 2: Petrol pump attendants, workers at retail outlets, hotel waiters etc note down information of the credit cards used for making payment at these establishments. This information is sold to criminal gangs that misuse it for online frauds.

Usual motives: Illegal financial gain

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology

After 27 October, 2009 Sections 43, 66, 66C, 66D of the Information Technology Act and

19

Ibid .

P a g e | 44

Act and section 420 of Indian Penal Code

section 420 of Indian Penal Code

4. Online Share Trading Fraud

With the advent of dematerialization of shares in India, it has become mandatory for investors to have demat accounts. In most cases, an online banking account is linked with the share trading account. This has led to a large number of online share trading frauds.20

Scenario 1:
The victims account passwords are stolen and his accounts are misused for making fraudulent bank transfers.

Usual motives: Illegal financial gain

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act and section 420 of Indian Penal Code

After 27 October, 2009 Sections 43, 66, 66C & 66D of the Information Technology Act and section 420 of Indian Penal Code

20

Ibid .

P a g e | 45

Scenario 2:
The victims account passwords are stolen and his share trading accounts are misused for making unauthorised transactions that result in the victim making losses.

Usual motives: Revenge, jealousy, hatred.

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009 Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act and section 426 of Indian Penal Code

After 27 October, 2009 Sections 43, 66, 66C & 66D of the Information Technology Act and section 426 of Indian Penal Code

Modus Operandi: The suspect would install key loggers in public computers (such as cyber cafes, airport lounges etc) or the computer of the victim. Unsuspecting victims would use these infected computers to login to their online banking and share trading accounts. The passwords and other information of the victim would be emailed to the suspect.

P a g e | 46

5. Tax Evasion and Money Laundering

Many unscrupulous businessmen and money launderers (havala operators) are using virtual as well as physical storage media for hiding information and records of their illicit business.21

Scenario 1:
The suspect uses physical storage media for hiding the information e.g. hard drives, floppies, USB drives, mobile phone memory cards, digital camera memory cards, CD ROMs, DVD ROMs, iPods etc.

Usual motives: Illegal financial gain.

Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009

After 27 October, 2009

Information Technology Act usually Information Technology Act usually does not apply. Applicable laws are does not apply. Applicable laws are usually the Income Tax Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. usually the Income Tax Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

21

Ibid .

P a g e | 47

Scenario 2:
The suspect uses virtual storage media for hiding the information e.g. email accounts, online briefcases, FTP sites, G space etc. Applicable law

Before 27 October, 2009

After 27 October, 2009

Information Technology Act usually Information Technology Act usually does not apply. Applicable laws are does not apply. Applicable laws are usually the Income Tax Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. usually the Income Tax Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

P a g e | 48

PART IX CONCLUSION
"Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing." "Such are the differences among human beings in their sources of pleasure, their susceptibilities of pain, and the operation on them of different physical and moral agencies, that unless there is a corresponding diversity in their modes of life, they neither obtain their fair share of happiness, nor grow up to the mental, moral, and aesthetic stature of which their nature is capable."

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) The Information Technology Act, 2008 is an outcome of the need that has arisen because of information and communication revolution. Though this is comparatively a new legislation as far as others areas of law are concerned, still 4 years have passed since this act was enacted and in these 4 years Technology has changed at a much faster pace. Though law cannot possibly be expected to keep pace with changes in technology, still there are few areas in the current cyber laws which need some attention. The Act talks about publishing of information which is "obscene" in nature, but it doesn't specifically define what is obscene and what may be classified as pornography. Spamming and phishing are not recognized offences under the Act. The Act is

P a g e | 49

silent about unauthorised access into databases and misuse of copyrighted data in the virtual space. Complex modern societies have developed in the context of mass media and industrial information economy. Our theories of growth and innovation assume that industrial models of innovation are dominant. Our theories about how effective communications in complex societies are achieved center on market-based, proprietary models, with a professional commercial core and a dispersed, relatively passive periphery. Our conceptions of human agency, collective deliberation, and common culture in these societies are embedded in the experience and practice of capitalintensive information and cultural production practices that emphasize proprietary, market-based models and starkly separate production from consumption. Our institutional frameworks reflect these conceptual models of information production and exchange, and have come, over the past few years, to enforce these conceptions as practiced reality, even when they need not be. Section 66A of ITA 2008 has been one of the most abused sections of the Act in recent days. There is also a discussion about the constitutional validity of this section on whether this section infringes on the constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression as provided in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. The discussion has arisen due to the filing of criminal cases in recent days in the case of Ravi Srinivasan of Pondicherry over a tweet, and two ladies in Palghar over postings in Facebook, Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution is subject to Reasonable Restrictions as mentioned in Article 19(2) which provides discretion for any Government to

P a g e | 50

frame and implement laws infringing on the freedom of expression under the following condition namely, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence The question therefore is whether Section 66A of ITA 2008 is a legislation framed under the exceptions provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This discussion would be relevant only if there is an impact of this section 66A on the Freedom of Expression under Article 19(1) in the first place . The perception of the community is of course that section 66A does infringe on the Freedom of Expression as otherwise the police action in the case of Ravi Srinivasan and the Palghar ladies were unwarranted. However when we analyze the situation we need to also consider whether the action of the Police in the above two cases were in fact because the Police considered that Section 66A was an exception under Article 19(1) or simply because they misread the law. If the Police had misread the law the remedy is not in removing the section but in punishing the Police for Human Rights Violation and providing such clarifications as would ensure that in future similar mistakes would not be done. In this context it becomes necessary to discuss if Section 66A of ITA 2008 was indeed meant to address the situation where a Facebook post or a Twitter post could cause annoyance to another individual and that the person who had expressed the objectionable view could not be protected under Article 19(1). Section 66A has three parts. It is reproduced below for immediate reference.

P a g e | 51

Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device, c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years and with fine. Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms Electronic mail and Electronic Mail Message means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message This section applies to Any Person who Sends by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any Information or Electronic Mail or Electronic Mail Message. It may be noted that this section is applicable to Messages and not for Publishing a content on a web platform. Under ITA 2008 offenses related to Publishing were covered under Sections 67, 67A and 67B and were restricted to content which was Obscene.

P a g e | 52

Then does it mean that ITA 2008 did not address situations where Defamation could occur through non obscene content being published on the web as in the case of the above cases?. The clear indication in the legislation is Yes. ITA 2008 did not try to address Defamation in electronic space except where the content was obscene. The perception that Section 66A addressed defamation arose from the fact that it referred to Information that is grossly offensive or menacing under Section 66A(a) as well as information that could cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will under Section 66A(b) and Causing annoyance under Section 66A(c). The first time the section was invoked to address defamation was in the Delhi High Court case of E2labs Vs Zone-H.org . In this case the remedy sought was shutting down of a website which allegedly hosted some defamatory content. Since the defendant in this case was a foreigner and chose not to respond to the notices of the Court for reasons of his own, the Court passed an interim order blocking the website which has remained in place permanently since the defendant will never contest the injunction. The interim judgement has therefore created a perception that the Court agrees that Defamation was caused by the publication and hence the site was blocked. This perception provides a sort of legitimacy to the claim that Section 66A can be invoked when defamatory content is published on the web platform and it does not get restricted by the constitutional rights of freedom of expression. It must however be noted that Section 66A was meant to address Information that can be Sent and not Information which is static. Info rmation which is Sent is a message and is sent from one person to another. It is Pushed . On the other hand a content which is Posted is not directed at any person. It

P a g e | 53

is only Pulled by persons who have become part of a Community who have agreed to exchange information with other members of the community. A Facebook post or a Twitter Post falls into this category of Hosted content and does not fall into the category of messages. They can be dealt with under the Section 499 of IPC and there is no need to invoke Section 66A. The fact that Section 66A was meant for messages is also evident from the fact that Section 66A(b) used he word Persistently. This means that if a person is again and again sending a message (which he knows to be false and is sending it with the malicious intention of causing annoyance etc). In a website posting, the content is posted and not sent again and again to another person. Section 66A(a) does not use the word Persistently but it applies only to such messages which can be considered as Grossly offensive or Menacing. Section 66A(c) also does not use the word Persistently but it is specifically mentioned that it is addressed to an Electronic Mail. Thus it can be inferred that Section 66A was meant only for messages and not for Content. This is justifiable since Section 499 may not be apt for letters sent from one person to another and also that the web presented the possibility of a higher level of annoyance than the physical equivalent of Bulk letter mailing since Bulk email bombardment is more likely. Section 66A addressed the message because there were offences such as Cyber bullying and Cyber Stalking as well as Spam which could not be effectively dealt with under Section 499. In view of the above we can conclude that Section 66A ITA 2008 was never meant to address Defamation and never meant to overlap Section 499 of IPC but was meant to address situations which in the cyber space were significant

P a g e | 54

threats and were not addressed effectively by the physical world equivalent addressed by IPC. If therefore we come to the conclusion that No change is required in Section 66A it will be because the section was never meant to address Defamation and exclusions under Article 19(2) of the constitution and not because we endorse the view that Section 66 A is within the constitutional validity of Article 19(2). Media needs to understand the issues involved and does not misinterpret the views that may be expressed by the Court in this regard.

P a g e | 55

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS :
Nandan Kamath Law Relating To Computers Internet And E-Commerce A Guide To Cyber Law , Universal Law Publication House , 2000. Madeline Schchalter Law Of Internet Speech II Edited. Vakul Sharma Law And Emerging Technology- Cyber Law And E-Commerce Third Edition , Universal Law Publication House , 2010 .

ARTICLES:
Aseem Trivedi If Speaking The Truth Is Sedition, Then I Am Guilty Outlook India , September 10 , 2012 Ashish Tripathi After Mumbai FB case, writ filed in Lucknow to declare section 66A, IT Act 2000 as ultra-vires The Times Of India , Nov 21, 2012
Validity Of Section 66 A Of I T Act challenged- News Article

,The Hindu , Nov 21, 2012

P a g e | 56

Swati Deshpande Creating a website can entail cyber crime: HC The Times Of India , Aug 19 , 2013

Pavan Duggal I T Act Amendments Cyber Laws. Net

Article by Sagar Raghukar , Law Graduate , Senior Faculty at Asian School of Cyber Laws

S . Ronendra Singh The Flaw In Cyber Law Business Line , Nov 29 ,2012

Pranesh Prakash The Unconstitutional Section 66 A Outlook India , Nov 28 , 2012

Preetika Rana And Margherita Stancati India Tightens Rules on Hate Speech Law India Realtime , Nov 29, 2012

P a g e | 57

WEBSITES :
www.mit.gov.in www.indiankanoon.org www.indianexpress.com www.intoday.in www.thehindu.com www.witnesslive.in www.timesofindia.com www.deity.gov.in www.lawyersupdate.co.in www.business-standards.com

www.nationalinterest.in

P a g e | 58

www.lawzonline.com www.cis-india.org www.witnesslive.in www.outlookindia.com www.cyberlawsindia.net