Lex Cyberia

Services

Press Room & Media

Cyber Law cases

This section of the Website discusses briefly some important orders/judgements passed by Indian courts relating to cyberlaw .The cases elucidate various aspects of cyberlaw in India including copyright infringements,digital frauds, data thefts, online defamation and other cybercrimes . The cases also deal in complex matters dealing with determining jurisdiction in cyberspace, trademark infringements, breach of privacy, and cyberpornography.

Right to privacy

  1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 Of 2012
    A landmark case decided by the Supreme court of India holding Right to Privacy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
    https://www.lexcyberia.com/pdf/JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY.pdf
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf  
  2. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 20825-20826 of 2017
    A landmark case on Electronic Evidence law in India
    The Supreme Court of India held certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act is mandatory for admissibility of electronic evidence
    https://www.lexcyberia.com/pdf/Arjun Panditrao.pdf
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/39058/39058_2017_34_1501_22897_Judgement_14-Jul-2020.pdf
  3. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 80
    The Court held that the procedural requirement under Section 65B (4) is applicable only when electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in control of the said device. If the person is not in possession of the device, Sections 63 and 65 cannot be excluded.
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/6212/6212_2017_Judgement_30-Jan-2018.pdf
  4. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473
    The Supreme Court of India held that CDs, VCD, Chip produced in the court are admissible only if the same is accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
    https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/41931.pdf
  5. Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178
    The Supreme Court of India observed that even in the absence of a certificate under Sec.65(B)(4), secondary evidence could still be led under Sec. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to prove the contents of an electronic record.
    https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/42313.pdf
  6. Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2017(8) SCC 570
    A case on admissibility of electronic records as secondary evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
    https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/2036/2036_2013_Judgement_18-Jul-2017.pdf
  7. Shreya Singal v UOI- W.P167/2012
    In a landmark case , The Supreme court struck down Section 66A of IT Act,2000 as unconstitutional on the ground that its terms were vague, and ambiguous and placed unreasonable restrictions on the Freedom of speech.
    http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf
     
  8. Anvar P.V  Vs P.K  Basheer  civil appeal 4226/2012
    An important case on admissibility of electronic records.
    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41931
     
  9. Vyakti Vikas Kendra,India Public vs Jitender Bagga-Order dated 09.05.2012 in I.A. No.8877/2012
    The Delhi High court granted an exparte injunction in a civil defamation action involving posts on blogspot.
    http://delhicourts.nic.in/MAY12/Vyakti%20Vikas%20Kendra%20India%20Public%20Charitable%20Trust%20Vs.pdf
  10. Nirmaljit Singh Narula vs Indijobs At Hubpages.Com -Delhi High Court CS (OS) No.871/2012
    Nirmal baba approached the Delhi High court in an online defamation case where exparte injunction was granted against a foreign website, hubpages.com. The case deals with jurisdiction issues,intermediary liability and blocking of defamatory content online.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0NGd0SHRoN3M2LTA/edit?pli=1
  11. Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels- Supreme court of India - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1484 OF 2009
    This case was a verdict on Bazee.com case wherein director of Bazee.com was accused of selling pornographic material through its website.The Supreme Court of India held that when a company has not been arraigned as an accused , the director of the company cannot be made vicariously liable and quashed the FIR registered under Section 67 & 85 of IT Act,2000.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_-V5K_jBhEXcWxZeHBNWUFjWkU/edit?pli=1
  12. Janhat Manch v. Union of India Bombay High Court (PIL No. 155/2009)
    Decision by High court of Bombay on a PIL filed on issue of blocking of objectionable and obscene content on Internet
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0YTRhZGYxMDEtMzJjYS00NGRkLWEyMWItMTY4ODBkYTNiNmE0/edit?pli=1
  13. E2 Labs v. Zone-H -Delhi High Court- CS(OS) -2305/2009
    This case concerns an exparte injunction issued against defendant website based abroad to block from access defamatory content published against the plaintiff.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0OTIxMmI3MGQtMDRiMS00OWQ0LTk4OGQtOTIyNmI1ZjYzZDMx/edit?pli=1
  14. Super Cassettes v. Myspace Inc. Delhi High Court- CS (OS) No. 2682/2008
    An important judgment on determining liability of an internet service provider and law on digital copyright infringement in India.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2TXI7Jugb2OMzg1ZmY4ZjUtZGM3Zi00ZDkyLWEwZmEtZTViYjZhMGYwZWY5/edit?hl=en_GB&pli=1
  15. Sanjay Kumar Kedia v. Narcotics Control Bureau - 2008 (2) SCC 294
    This case dealt with allegations made by petitioner that defendant runs an illegal online pharmacy. The court deals with question of intermediary liability and exemptions available to them under IT Act,2000.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0MDIwZjVhOWItM2Y4NS00YjVlLWI4NzUtNGY5MGRjOTY1YmEy/edit?pli=1
  16. State v. Navjot Sandhu- Case No. : Appeal (Crl.) 373-375 of 2004, Date of Judgement : 04/08/2005
    This case deals with digital evidence , particularly ,Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act. The Court held that even if an affidavit in terms of Section 65B has not been filed electronic evidence can be proved through other means such as secondary evidence.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0Y2JkZWIzYzYtYTM1OC00YmU0LWJkYWQtY2YzZTdjY2Q3OTZh/edit?pli=1
  17. Dharambir v. Central Bureau of Investigation Delhi High Court 148 (2008) DLT 289
    The case concerns admissibility of electronic evidence and law on interception of telecommunication in India.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0MDIwZjVhOWItM2Y4NS00YjVlLWI4NzUtNGY5MGRjOTY1YmEy/edit?pli=1
  18. Diljeet Titus vs Alfred A. Adebare Delhi High Court 130(2006) DLT330, 2006(32) PTC609 (Del)
    This case pertained to copyright and data theft from ex employers office and discusses breach of confidentiality in detail.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0MWMzNDFiOGYtNTVmNi00YTg1LWJhNWUtNTI0ZTIwNjZjMmQ1/edit?pli=1
  19. Eastern Book Company v. DB Modak -Supreme Court of India Appeal (civil) 6472 of 2004
    The Supreme court deals with a case involving copyright infringement of online legal library/databases
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0N2UxYjk2NWEtMmM1Ny00OTQzLThkNzItZjc4NzJkMTM1MjJi/edit?pli=1
  20. Gramaphone Company v. Super Cassetes Industries -Delhi High Court 1999 PTC 252 (Del.)
    The case deals with laws applicable to cover versions of an album and throws light on copyright infringement issues.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0NzgxZmNjNDQtOTM1NS00ZGY5LTkzMTItMjg5ZTI4NTZlY2Jh/edit?pli=1
  21. Amar Singh v. Union of India Supreme Court of India
    This case deals with illegal wiretapping, interception and online surveillance
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0Mjg4NWQyYmQtYWFmNy00YTBjLWJlNjUtNjA4OGNiNDlkNTE3/edit?pli=1
  22. Shri Umashankar Sivasubramanian v. ICICI Bank
    The case concerns illegal transfer of moneys from a customer account to another account and bankers liability
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0Y2IwZTIxN2QtYzU1OC00ZmJmLTk0YWEtY2RmZWIyYzdhNzUw/edit?pli=1
  23. Public Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301.
    A land mark judgment wherein the Supreme court laid down detailed procedural guidelines for telephone tapping which led to formation of new rules under Telegraph Act.
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8vVw0jzMxE0MjlmOGE5MmUtZTNkNC00MDJmLTk2NzUtYjc0NjA3M2ZhNGI5/edit?pli=1

Right to be forgotten