Introduction
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with the offence of publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. The law prohibits any act of publishing, sharing, or transmitting content that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt people who may read, see, or hear it. It aims to protect public morality in the digital space and curb the spread of obscene or indecent material through electronic platforms such as websites, social media, or messaging apps. This section serves as a major tool in India’s cyber law framework to address online obscenity, pornography, and indecent publications.
What Are the Punishments Under Section 67?
Section 67 prescribes strict punishments for anyone found guilty of publishing or transmitting obscene content electronically. For the first conviction, the punishment may extend to three years of imprisonment and a fine up to ₹5 lakh. In case of a subsequent conviction, the punishment can go up to five years in jail with a fine up to ₹10 lakh. These punishments reflect the seriousness with which the law treats online obscenity and the intention to deter individuals or intermediaries from promoting indecent content on digital platforms.
How Does the Law Define Obscenity in Digital Space?
The term “obscene” in Section 67 has been interpreted through judicial precedents. The content is considered obscene if it tends to deprave or corrupt persons who are likely to read, see, or hear it. Courts have explained that the test of obscenity depends on whether the content appeals to the prurient interest or has an immoral effect on the audience. Thus, the focus lies not only on nudity but also on the intention and potential effect of the material shared online.
What Happened in Avnish Bajaj v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi)?
The most significant case under Section 67 is Avnish Bajaj v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) (2008). This case involved the sale of an obscene MMS clip titled “DPS Girls having Fun” on the online marketplace Baazee.com. The video was uploaded for sale by a user, but the CEO, Avnish Bajaj, was prosecuted under Section 67 for the publication and transmission of obscene material. The Delhi High Court examined whether the CEO could be held liable when he was not directly involved in uploading the clip. The court ruled that intermediaries could be held responsible only if there is evidence of active involvement in transmitting or publishing obscene content. The court also clarified that for Section 67 to apply, the content must be lascivious and intended to corrupt or deprave the audience.
What Was the First Conviction Under Section 67?
The first recorded conviction under Section 67 took place in Chennai, where a man was found guilty of publishing obscene material online. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fined under the provisions of the IT Act. This case marked a turning point as it demonstrated the practical enforcement of cyber laws in India. The judgment reinforced that digital publication of obscene material, even by individuals operating from private devices, can attract criminal liability under Section 67.
Do Social Media “Likes” and Shares Amount to Offence?
Recent High Court judgments have clarified that merely “liking” or reacting to an obscene post on social media does not amount to publication or transmission under Section 67. The Allahabad High Court held that passive engagement, such as liking a post, does not constitute an offence unless there is active involvement in sharing or distributing the material. This interpretation ensures that casual or unintended online interactions are not criminalized unless accompanied by active participation in spreading the content.
What Is the Judicial Approach Toward Section 67 Cases?
Courts across India have emphasized that the application of Section 67 requires proof of active publication or transmission of obscene material. The prosecution must establish that the accused knowingly and intentionally uploaded, shared, or transmitted such content. Merely being in possession of obscene material or viewing it is not sufficient for conviction unless there is evidence of active dissemination. The judiciary has also acknowledged the need to balance the right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution with the restrictions under Article 19(2) relating to public decency and morality.
How Do Courts Distinguish Between Obscenity and Free Expression?
Courts often rely on the “community standards test” and “artistic value test” to determine whether content is obscene. Material with artistic, educational, or social relevance may not fall under the purview of Section 67. The Supreme Court, in several cases, has stressed that freedom of expression must be preserved, but not at the cost of societal morality. Hence, the application of Section 67 depends on context, purpose, and intent behind the content shared online.
What Are Some Other Relevant Cases Under Section 67?
Apart from Avnish Bajaj, several other cases have discussed the scope of Section 67. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in CRA 6128/2023 reiterated that the prosecution must produce clear evidence of transmission or publication of obscene content for conviction. Similarly, the Supreme Court in its 2024 order emphasized that mere possession or accidental forwarding of such material cannot be treated as an offence. These rulings highlight the judiciary’s careful interpretation to avoid misuse of Section 67 while still maintaining a strong stance against digital obscenity.
How Does Section 67 Relate to Other Provisions?
Section 67 works closely with Sections 67A and 67B of the IT Act. While Section 67 covers general obscene material, Section 67A deals specifically with sexually explicit acts, and Section 67B focuses on child pornography. Together, these sections form a comprehensive framework to combat cyber offences related to indecent or explicit digital content. Section 67 is often invoked alongside IPC provisions such as Section 292, which also addresses the sale and distribution of obscene material.
How Have Intermediaries Been Treated Under the Law?
The role of intermediaries like social media platforms, website owners, and app operators is crucial under Section 67. Courts have clarified that they cannot be held liable unless they fail to act after receiving knowledge of the presence of obscene material on their platform. This principle aligns with Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries if they exercise due diligence. Thus, intermediaries are expected to remove obscene or indecent content promptly when notified.
What Is the Impact of Section 67 on Digital Users and Society?
Section 67 has had a significant impact on how digital platforms operate in India. It has encouraged platforms to adopt stricter monitoring and content moderation policies. At the same time, it has made internet users more cautious about what they upload or share online. The provision promotes responsible digital behaviour and reinforces the idea that online spaces are subject to the same moral and legal standards as physical spaces.
Summary of Punishments Under Section 67
For the first conviction, the offender may face imprisonment up to three years and a fine of ₹5 lakh. For subsequent convictions, the punishment increases to five years of imprisonment with a fine up to ₹10 lakh. These punishments underline the gravity of the offence and reflect the government’s commitment to maintain decency in cyberspace.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 67 of the IT Act remains a vital safeguard in India’s cyber law framework. It addresses the growing challenges of online obscenity, digital exploitation, and moral degradation in virtual spaces. The courts have ensured that its application is fair, demanding concrete evidence of active publication or transmission before imposing punishment. As digital content continues to evolve, Section 67 serves as a legal boundary that preserves online decency while respecting individual freedom of expression.
In today’s internet-driven world, Section 67 stands as a reminder that the virtual world is not beyond legal accountability. It ensures that technology serves society ethically, balancing freedom with responsibility.
