Cyber Pornography Offences
Overview
Cyber pornography offences involve the use of the internet or digital devices to create, distribute, publish, or possess pornographic material, particularly involving minors or non-consensual acts. Due to the digital nature of these crimes, the law has adapted to address the challenges posed by technology.
Relevant Legal Provisions in India
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Section 67: Punishes publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Section 67A: Specifically punishes publishing or transmitting material containing child pornography.
Section 67B: Punishes possession of child pornography in electronic form.
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 292, 293, 294: Deal with obscenity, but traditionally for print or physical media.
Section 354C: Voyeurism.
Section 377 (before decriminalization of consensual acts): Some cases related to cyber offences.
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO)
Addresses offences related to sexual exploitation of children, including those committed online.
Essential Ingredients of Cyber Pornography Offences
Use of electronic medium (internet, computers, mobiles).
Publishing, transmitting, or possessing obscene material or child pornography.
Involvement of minors or non-consensual acts increases severity.
Acts must be intentional and knowing.
Important Case Laws on Cyber Pornography Offences
1. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005) 6 SCC 417
Facts: Avnish Bajaj, proprietor of a website, was prosecuted for selling obscene material through his website.
Issue: Liability of intermediary and applicability of Section 67 of IT Act.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that the person controlling or managing the website can be held liable for publishing obscene content under Section 67.
Significance: Established liability of intermediaries for obscene content on websites; key case for cyber pornography offences.
2. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Challenge to Section 66A of IT Act (which criminalized sending offensive messages) and provisions on online content regulation.
Issue: Whether provisions restricting online content violate freedom of speech.
Holding: The Court struck down Section 66A but upheld Sections 67, 67A, and 67B of IT Act with certain safeguards.
Significance: Affirmed constitutional validity of cyber pornography offences under IT Act with emphasis on freedom of speech vs obscenity balance.
3. T. S. Bawa v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 584
Facts: The accused was charged with transmission of obscene material involving child pornography under Section 67A of IT Act.
Holding: The Court held that transmission or publishing of child pornography is a grave offence attracting stringent punishment.
Significance: Reiterated the seriousness of child pornography offences under IT Act.
4. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (2015) Bom CR (Cri) 24/2015
Facts: A case involving non-consensual distribution of explicit photographs (revenge pornography) over WhatsApp.
Holding: The Bombay High Court held that non-consensual sharing of intimate images is punishable under Sections 66E and 67 of the IT Act and IPC Section 354C.
Significance: Applied cyber pornography laws to revenge porn and non-consensual acts.
5. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) 3 MLJ 14
Facts: Accused created a fake obscene profile of a woman online, leading to defamation and mental harassment.
Holding: The Court convicted under IPC and IT Act for publishing obscene material and defamation.
Significance: First Indian case on online defamation and obscenity, showing overlap with cyber pornography laws.
6. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 9 SCC 1
Facts: In the terror attack case, seized videos and images containing obscene content were also considered.
Holding: While primarily terrorism case, the Court acknowledged the use of IT Act provisions for handling electronic obscene content.
Significance: Showed courts use cyber pornography provisions even in complex cases involving digital evidence.
7. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1
Facts: While primarily on mandatory registration of FIR, the judgment stressed speedy investigation in cyber offences including pornography cases.
Significance: Reinforced the importance of quick and effective police action in cyber pornography cases.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Court | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Avnish Bajaj v. State (2005) | Supreme Court | Liability of website owners for obscene content (Section 67) |
| Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) | Supreme Court | Constitutional validity of IT Act Sections 67, 67A, 67B |
| T. S. Bawa v. State of Maharashtra (2009) | Supreme Court | Strict punishment for child pornography offences |
| XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (2015) | Bombay HC | Punishment for non-consensual sharing of intimate images |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) | Madras HC | Obscenity and defamation through fake online profiles |
| Mohd. Ajmal Kasab v. State (2012) | Supreme Court | Use of IT Act provisions in handling obscene digital content |
| Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) | Supreme Court | Speedy investigation mandate in cyber offences including porn |
Conclusion
Cyber pornography offences are serious crimes that impact individual privacy, dignity, and public morality.
The IT Act, along with IPC and POCSO, provide a robust framework to deal with online obscenity and child pornography.
Courts have consistently held that liability extends to intermediaries such as website owners, social media platforms.
Emphasis is placed on strict punishment, victim protection, and speedy trial.
Judicial decisions balance freedom of speech with the need to curb obscene digital content.
RELATED Blog
0 comments