What does Section 67A of the IT Act say?
The bare provision of Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states:
“Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which contains sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.”
This section goes beyond obscenity. It specifically targets the electronic publication or transmission of sexually explicit acts. Courts have repeatedly interpreted it to ensure that its application remains strict, evidence-based, and limited to cases where actual sexually explicit material is involved.
Why is Section 67A important in cyber law?
Section 67A represents a higher threshold of criminal liability compared to Section 67 of the IT Act. While Section 67 punishes obscene or lascivious material, Section 67A requires proof that the material contains a sexually explicit act or conduct. This distinction is vital because it prevents misuse of the law in cases where content may be vulgar, titillating, or obscene but does not involve explicit sexual acts. Recent judgments have clarified that mere abusive language, innuendo, or lascivious conduct falls under Section 67, not Section 67A.
How did the Supreme Court in 2025 define the limits of Section 67A?
In 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a widely reported judgment in the College Romance case. The case involved FIRs against the actors and creators of the popular web series. The complaint alleged that the series used obscene language and vulgar dialogues. Prosecution sought to apply Section 67A of the IT Act.
The Supreme Court quashed the FIRs. It ruled that profanity and expletives cannot be equated with sexually explicit acts. The Court made it clear that Section 67A applies only when there is actual depiction of sexual conduct. Merely offensive or vulgar language does not meet that standard.
The Court emphasised that digital content should be judged using the community standards test. It recognised the freedom of creative expression in entertainment. Unless a work directly depicts sexual acts, creators and actors cannot be prosecuted under Section 67A. This ruling narrowed the scope of the section and prevented overreach by law enforcement authorities.
What did the Bombay High Court say about sexually explicit material?
The Bombay High Court also clarified the application of Section 67A in a significant case. The accused had sent images alleged to be obscene. The prosecution argued that the pictures attracted Section 67A.
The Court disagreed. It ruled that while the images were lascivious and could fall within Section 67, they did not depict a sexually explicit act. The distinction between obscenity and explicit sexual activity was highlighted. On that basis, the Court granted pre-arrest bail.
This judgment reinforced the principle that not every obscene or offensive image can trigger Section 67A. The prosecution must show that the material contains an explicit sexual act, not just nudity or suggestive content.
How have High Courts clarified the essential elements of Section 67A?
Several High Court judgments in recent years have developed consistent standards. They have held that for Section 67A to apply, two elements must be satisfied. First, the material must contain actual depiction of sexual activity in a clear and detailed form. Second, the accused must have actively published or transmitted such material electronically.
Courts have repeatedly distinguished between Section 67 and Section 67A. Section 67 covers lewd or lascivious material that appeals to prurient interests. Section 67A raises the bar to sexually explicit conduct. This ensures proportionality in the law.
Where prosecution has failed to produce evidence of explicit content, High Courts have quashed FIRs or granted bail. This trend reflects a careful approach to prevent misuse of the law in cases where only obscene but non-explicit material is involved.
Why does evidence matter so much in Section 67A prosecutions?
Evidence plays a decisive role in all recent rulings under Section 67A. Courts insist on clear proof that the accused published or transmitted sexually explicit material. If the prosecution cannot establish actual transmission or publication, the case collapses.
This strict evidentiary standard ensures that innocent users are not trapped in loosely framed prosecutions. For example, where only allegations existed but no electronic evidence was produced, High Courts have set aside convictions. Similarly, bail applications succeed when the alleged content is not clearly proven to be explicit.
The courts thus protect due process while ensuring that only serious cases involving real sexual exploitation are punished under Section 67A.
Does passive online conduct attract liability under Section 67A?
Another trend from recent rulings is the clear distinction between active and passive conduct online. Courts have ruled that merely liking, viewing, or passively interacting with online content does not amount to publication or transmission.
For liability under Section 67A, the accused must have engaged in an active act of sharing, uploading, or transmitting sexually explicit material. Passive involvement like receiving or liking a post cannot trigger prosecution.
This principle provides important protection to ordinary social media users. It prevents misuse of the law against people who have no active role in circulating explicit material.
How are courts harmonising the IT Act and IPC?
Recent judgments also show an effort to harmonise the IT Act with IPC provisions. Courts stress that when the case involves electronic publication of sexually explicit material, Section 67A is the controlling law. Charges under IPC obscenity provisions should not be used as substitutes when the requirements of Section 67A are not met.
This approach avoids double jeopardy and ensures that prosecutions are conducted under the correct statutory framework. It reinforces the IT Act’s position as the special law governing digital content.
What larger legal trends emerge from the latest judgments?
Recent rulings in 2025 confirm a strict and evidence-based approach to Section 67A. The law applies only in serious cases involving clear depiction of sexual activity. Obscene, vulgar, or profane language is not enough. Courts consistently demand proof of active publishing or transmission. They grant bail or quash cases where these elements are missing.
There is also a shift towards protecting artistic expression in online media. The Supreme Court’s College Romance ruling is a major step in ensuring that creative works are not censored merely for offensive language. High Courts across India echo this reasoning by applying Section 67A narrowly.
At the same time, the judgments confirm that where clear evidence of explicit sexual content exists, Section 67A will apply strictly. This balance helps maintain freedom of expression while punishing genuine abuse of digital platforms.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 67A of the IT Act is designed for serious cases of sexually explicit electronic content. Courts in 2025 have reinforced that its application requires strict proof of explicit acts and active electronic transmission. They have distinguished obscenity under Section 67 from explicit sexual conduct under Section 67A. They have also protected passive users and creative artists from unjust prosecution.
The combined effect of Supreme Court and High Court judgments is a clear legal framework. Section 67A remains a strong tool against digital exploitation, but its scope is confined to explicit and intentional publication. This ensures a balance between protecting society from harmful content and safeguarding constitutional freedoms in the digital age.
