What Does Section 67 of the IT Act State?
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, criminalizes the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. It specifically targets online and digital platforms, including websites, social media, emails, and other electronic communication modes.
“Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished…”
The punishment for the first conviction is imprisonment for up to three years and a fine that may extend to ₹5 lakh. For subsequent convictions, the imprisonment may extend to five years with a fine up to ₹10 lakh.
This law forms the core of India’s cyber obscenity laws. It ensures accountability for those who misuse digital platforms to circulate obscene content.
What Does Section 292 of the IPC Provide?
Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with obscenity in physical and printed materials. It defines what constitutes obscene objects and penalizes their sale, distribution, or public exhibition.
The section describes obscene material as anything that is “lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see, or hear the matter contained in it.”
However, it also includes exceptions for works created for the public good, including literature, science, art, or other educational purposes. The punishment for the first conviction is imprisonment of up to two years and a fine up to ₹2,000. For subsequent convictions, the term can extend to five years and the fine to ₹5,000.
This provision has been historically used to regulate books, films, posters, and printed content deemed obscene by community standards.
How Do These Sections Differ in Focus and Applicability?
The main distinction lies in the medium and mode of dissemination. Section 67 of the IT Act applies exclusively to electronic and digital platforms. It covers all forms of digital communication, from social media posts to emails containing obscene content. It was enacted to address the rising issue of cyber obscenity in the age of the internet.
In contrast, Section 292 of the IPC governs physical and offline materials. It deals with tangible items such as printed books, paintings, pamphlets, and photographs. Its enforcement is rooted in the traditional concept of obscenity that existed before the digital era.
Therefore, while both provisions target obscenity, Section 67 caters to modern technology-driven offences, and Section 292 continues to regulate conventional physical publications.
How Is “Obscenity” Interpreted Under Both Laws?
The term “obscene” is not explicitly defined under the IT Act. Courts often rely on interpretations provided in Section 292 of the IPC and judicial precedents to determine whether digital content is obscene. The challenge with digital obscenity lies in its rapid spread, easy accessibility, and difficulty in removing such content once circulated online.
In contrast, Section 292 provides a clearer definition of “obscene.” It also includes explanations and exceptions that protect freedom of artistic, literary, and scientific expression. The determination of obscenity under Section 292 depends on community standards and judicial interpretation.
Courts follow the “community standards test” to decide whether the material depraves or corrupts. The focus is not merely on nudity or sexual content but on whether the content’s dominant theme appeals to prurient interest or has artistic or educational value.
What Are the Differences in Penalties and Punishments?
The penalties under Section 67 of the IT Act are more severe due to the wider and faster impact of digital circulation. A first conviction can lead to imprisonment for up to three years and a fine up to ₹5 lakh. A repeat conviction can attract up to five years of imprisonment and a fine up to ₹10 lakh.
In comparison, Section 292 IPC prescribes lighter penalties. For the first conviction, imprisonment can extend up to two years and a fine up to ₹2,000. For subsequent convictions, imprisonment can extend to five years and the fine up to ₹5,000.
This contrast highlights the law’s recognition of the potential harm caused by digital media’s viral reach. Electronic content can reach millions instantly, unlike physical materials, which are limited in circulation.
How Are These Sections Enforced?
Enforcement under Section 67 of the IT Act involves specialized cybercrime investigation units and the Computer Emergency Response Team of India (CERT-In). Complaints are handled under the procedures of the Information Technology Act. Investigators often rely on digital forensics, IP tracing, and online monitoring tools to detect violations.
In contrast, Section 292 IPC is enforced by local police under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Investigations typically involve seizure of books, photographs, or printed materials considered obscene. Prosecution requires physical evidence of the material’s sale or exhibition.
Thus, Section 67 operates in the cyber domain through digital evidence, while Section 292 remains tied to physical objects and traditional investigation methods.
How Have Courts Interpreted These Provisions?
Indian courts have often used judicial precedents to maintain consistency in obscenity interpretation across both laws. The Supreme Court in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014) adopted the “community standards” test, ruling that mere nudity is not enough to label content obscene if it has artistic or journalistic value.
In Ajay Goswami v. Union of India (2007), the Court emphasized the balance between freedom of expression and public morality, stating that not every sexually suggestive expression qualifies as obscene.
Courts have extended these principles to digital content under Section 67 of the IT Act. They continue to apply the same moral and artistic standards, even though the medium has shifted from paper to pixels.
Why Is Section 67 Stricter Than Section 292?
The legislature made Section 67 stricter to tackle the exponential speed and reach of electronic media. Once obscene content is shared online, it can be downloaded, replicated, and redistributed instantly. The financial penalties are heavier to act as a deterrent and to emphasize the seriousness of cyber offences.
On the other hand, Section 292 was drafted in an era of physical obscenity, where distribution was limited and traceable. The relatively lighter fines and penalties reflect the lesser risk of rapid mass exposure in that context.
What Is the Broader Legal Impact of These Sections?
Together, these sections create a dual framework to combat obscenity in India. Section 67 ensures accountability in the digital world, while Section 292 continues to protect society from indecent materials in physical form. Their coexistence allows the legal system to cover both traditional and modern offences comprehensively.
However, both sections also raise questions about the balance between morality and freedom of expression. Courts must interpret these laws carefully to prevent misuse and overreach, particularly when art, journalism, or education is involved.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code address the same moral concern, preventing obscenity, but they function in distinct realms. Section 67 targets digital obscenity with strict penalties and advanced cyber enforcement. Section 292 governs physical obscenity with lighter punishment and clear exceptions for genuine public interest.
