“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, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished…”
Introduction
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, plays a crucial role in regulating obscene material circulated in the digital world. It directly addresses the growing misuse of electronic platforms for sharing obscene, indecent, or sexually provocative content. The law was designed to preserve public morality, safeguard users from exposure to obscene content, and ensure accountability for those misusing online platforms. In an era of rapid digital expansion, Section 67 acts as a safeguard against the online spread of inappropriate or corrupting material.
What Does Section 67 Prohibit?
Section 67 prohibits the publication, transmission, or even facilitation of any obscene content through electronic means. This includes websites, emails, messaging apps, or any other digital communication platform. The provision covers materials that are lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, or tend to deprave or corrupt those who view or read them.
Essentially, if a person knowingly uploads, forwards, or distributes any obscene image, video, or text online, they are liable under this section. Even reposting such content with intent to attract attention or sensationalize it falls within the ambit of this offence. The law applies equally to individuals and organizations, emphasizing that digital platforms must act responsibly in curating and monitoring content.
What Are the Essential Elements of the Offence?
To constitute an offence under Section 67, two major elements must be satisfied.
First, the act must involve publication or transmission of material in electronic form. This means the content must exist on a digital medium, such as a website, social media post, or email attachment.
Second, the content must be obscene, that is, it must either be lascivious, appeal to prurient interest, or tend to deprave and corrupt those who may encounter it. Courts often interpret “obscene” in light of community standards and the tendency of the material to arouse sexual thoughts or degrade moral values.
The offence is not dependent on whether the material was accessed by many people. Even a single act of digital publication can trigger criminal liability. However, accidental or unknowing transmission may not attract punishment unless intent is proven.
What Are the Punishments Under Section 67?
The law imposes strict penalties for publishing obscene content online. The punishment increases with repeat offences, showing the legislature’s intent to deter persistent offenders.
For the first conviction, the punishment includes imprisonment for up to three years and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh.
For the second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment may extend to five years, along with a fine that may reach ₹10 lakh.
This escalating structure demonstrates that the government treats digital obscenity as a serious social harm. It also reflects the importance of maintaining ethical boundaries on online platforms. Courts have consistently upheld these penalties to prevent misuse of digital freedom.
How Have Courts Interpreted Section 67?
Indian courts have provided clarity on the scope and limits of Section 67. The judiciary recognizes the need to balance freedom of expression with the protection of public decency.
In several cases, courts have held that Section 67 specifically covers electronic publications, and thus has an overriding effect over Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with obscenity in print or physical media.
A notable interpretation came from the Allahabad High Court (2025), which ruled that merely “liking” or reacting to an obscene post on social media does not amount to publication or transmission. The court explained that intent plays a crucial role. A person must actively publish, share, or distribute the content for criminal liability to arise.
Similarly, in Avnish Bajaj v. State (2008), known as the Bazee.com case, the Delhi High Court examined the liability of an online platform for an obscene video clip sold through its website. The court held that the intermediary could not be directly punished under Section 67 unless it was proven that it knowingly allowed or participated in the publication. This case laid the groundwork for safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act for intermediaries acting in good faith.
How Does Section 67 Differ from Related Provisions?
Section 67 is closely related to Section 67A and Section 67B of the IT Act, which deal with aggravated forms of online obscenity.
- Section 67A penalizes the publication or transmission of material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct. It applies when the content depicts sexual activity rather than mere nudity or vulgarity.
- Section 67B specifically targets the online publication or circulation of material involving children in sexually explicit acts. It reflects India’s commitment to protecting minors from exploitation in cyberspace.
While Section 67 focuses on general obscenity, Sections 67A and 67B deal with more severe forms, involving explicit sexual content and child pornography respectively. The punishments under these sections are even harsher, with imprisonment extending up to seven years.
Why Is Section 67 Important in Today’s Digital Age?
The rise of social media, instant messaging, and user-generated content has created new challenges in regulating online behaviour. Section 67 ensures that the spread of obscene material does not go unchecked. It holds individuals accountable for their actions in the digital world and emphasizes that the internet is not a lawless space.
This section also reinforces digital ethics by discouraging the creation or circulation of content that could corrupt or degrade public morals. It empowers authorities to act against those who misuse technology for sexual gratification or public provocation. Furthermore, it protects users, especially minors and women, from unwanted exposure to obscene or offensive material.
Does Section 67 Conflict with Freedom of Speech?
A common question arises about whether Section 67 violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. Courts have consistently ruled that the restriction imposed by Section 67 is reasonable under Article 19(2), which permits curbs on free speech in the interest of decency and morality.
The Supreme Court has affirmed that obscene content cannot claim protection under free speech. Therefore, while individuals have the right to express opinions online, they must exercise this right responsibly without crossing the boundaries set by law.
What Are the Responsibilities of Digital Platforms?
Intermediaries such as social media platforms, hosting services, and messaging apps have a crucial responsibility under the IT Act. They must monitor and remove obscene or objectionable material once notified by authorities. Failure to act promptly may expose them to liability under Section 67 read with Section 79.
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 further emphasize this duty. They require intermediaries to maintain robust mechanisms for content moderation and user grievance redressal. This ensures that obscene content can be quickly identified and taken down before it causes public harm.
What Are the Practical Challenges in Enforcement?
Despite its significance, enforcing Section 67 remains challenging. The anonymity of users, rapid content sharing, and the global nature of the internet often make it difficult to trace the original offender. Investigating cyber offences requires technical expertise and cooperation across borders.
However, authorities have improved their approach by developing cyber forensics, digital evidence preservation techniques, and international cooperation frameworks. With these advancements, the enforcement of Section 67 is becoming more effective and comprehensive.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, stands as a vital legal tool to combat the online circulation of obscene and corrupting material. It establishes clear boundaries for responsible digital conduct and ensures accountability for those misusing online platforms. Through its strict penalties and well-defined scope, it preserves public decency in cyberspace while respecting individual freedoms.
As digital communication continues to evolve, the relevance of Section 67 grows stronger. It reminds every user that online actions have real-world consequences and that the internet must remain a space of dignity, safety, and lawful expression.
