Shreya Singhal Vs UOI AIR 2015 SC 1523

• Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 was declared unlawful by
the Supreme Court of India. The Petitioners claimed that Section 66A was
unconstitutionally vague and that its intended protection from annoyance,
inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or ill-will
fell outside the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Indian
Constitution.
• The Court concluded that the prohibition against disseminating material through
a computer resource or a communication device with the intent to annoy,
inconvenience, or insult did not come under any reasonable exceptions to the
right to freedom of expression. It further found that because the provision failed
to define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of
protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed, and hence its sweep was
overly broad and vague.
 Facts
• Two women were arrested for allegedly making disrespectful and inappropriate
comments on Facebook concerning the propriety of shutting down Mumbai after the
death of a prominent leader. The arrests were made under Section 66A of the
Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes anyone who sends grossly
offensive information through a computer resource or communication device with
the knowledge of its falsity for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience,
danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will.
• Although the women were ultimately released and their charges were dropped, the
episode drew widespread media attention and outrage. The women then filed a
petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it
violates the right to freedom of expression.
• The Supreme Court of India initially issued an interim measure in Singhal v. Union of
India, (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, prohibiting any arrest pursuant to Section 66A unless such
arrest is approved by senior police officers. In the case in hand, the Court addressed
the constitutionality of the provision.
 Judgment
• The Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal is significant for a variety of reasons. In a rare
occurrence, the Supreme Court has gone so far as to declare a censorship law established by
Parliament to be completely unconstitutional. The Court's decision has broadened the
breadth of our right to freely express ourselves, while also limiting the state's ability to
restrict this freedom unless in the most extreme instances. Justice Nariman has emphasized
that freedom of thought and expression is more than a pipe dream. It's also "a cardinal value
of supreme importance under our constitutional structure.
• “The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners that none of the grounds set forth in
Section 19(2) could be used to challenge the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act.
"Any law trying to restrict freedom of speech can only pass scrutiny if it is proximately
related to any of the eight subject topics set up in Article 19(2)," observed Justice Nariman.
• The Section 66A was put through two tests: clear and present danger and the likelihood of
inciting hatred. The posts that persons were jailed for did not promote public hate or
undermine law and order, hence Section 66A failed those tests.
 Conclusion
• In a modern era where millions of people utilize the Internet as a
medium of communication to express their opinions, the Supreme
Court's two-judge bench has delivered a welcome step toward the
protection of Freedom of Speech and Expression. By declaring Section
66A unlawful, the court emphasized the need for debate and
advocacy on a topic in order to aid in the discovery of truth and to
allow everyone to participate in decision-making.
 Christian Louboutin Sas. Vs. Nakul Bajaj &
Ors.
• The Delhi High Court handed down a landmark ruling in the case of
Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj and Ors.1 on November 2, 2018, in
which it attempted to explain the responsibilities and liabilities of an
e-commerce as an IP rights intermediary for trademark infringement.
This decision attempted to clarify, but in some ways also confused,
the intermediary liability in trademark infringement cases. Although,
this verdict is significant and crucial since it is the first time an Indian
court has issued a ruling on trademark infringement by an e-
commerce platform.
 Facts
• Christian Louboutin, the plaintiff in the case, is a premium company
that specializes in shoes and other related goods. Christian Louboutin
has a number of products that are protected by Intellectual Property
Rights. Darveys.com, the defendant, is a members-only luxury online
shopping portal. The company forced subscribers to pay $2,000 to
utilize the website, according to the inquiry. It was claimed that the
products sold by Darveys.com, particularly the plaintiff's product line,
were unauthorized sales. The complaint further claimed that their
brand's items were only offered through authorized retailers in India.
As an intermediary, the defendant claimed protection under section
79 of the Information Technology Act of 2000.
 Judgement
• The Delhi High Court endeavored to define the roles and duties of online intermediaries in
trademark infringement in this case. In the case of trademark infringement, the judgment defines
India's intermediary responsibility scheme. Christian Louboutin, the Plaintiff, is the owner of
registered trademarks, including the single color mark for its signature "red sole." Plaintiff claims
that only authorized dealerships in India sell these products. "Darveys.com," a website that bills
itself as a "luxury brands marketplace," is the defendant. The plaintiff accuses the defendant of
trademark infringement by selling counterfeit goods. The defendant maintained that the items
sold were genuine and that it had committed no infringement because it was just acting as an
intermediary and therefore entitled to protection under section 79 of the IT Act, 2000's "Safe
Harbor" provision. In this case, the Delhi High Court considered the term "intermediary" under
section 2(w) of the IT Act, as well as the position of intermediary in the EU, the United States, and
India. Finally, the court finds that the defendant is more than a middleman and has entire control
over the product being sold. As a result, failure to exercise 'due care' with respect to IPR could be
construed as conspiring, assisting, abetting, or inciting unlawful activity, disqualifying
intermediaries from the safe harbor exemption under Section 79(3). (a). Finally, the Court
ordered the intermediary to oblige its sellers to honor the plaintiff's warranties and promises, as
well as to remove all meta-tags containing the plaintiff's mark.
 Conclusion
• Without a question, this judgement is a significant step forward in
evaluating the immediacy's liability and protection under section 79
of the IT Act. This decision will undoubtedly preserve the legitimate
owner's trademark rights by requiring intermediary e-commerce
platforms to exercise due diligence and take sufficient steps to identify
genuine products in order to take advantage of the benefit afforded
to them under the IT Act, 2000.
 CBI Vs Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)
• In this situation, Sony India Limited operates a website called
www.sony.sambandh.com, which allows NRIs to make online payments and have
Sony products delivered to anyone in India. The payment was made with a credit
card that was used by an American citizen to deliver television and headphones
to Arif Azim, a resident of Noida. After all of the legalities and delivery were
completed, the credit card company informed Sony that the card owner was
disputing the payment, and Sony filed a fraud complaint with the CBI. Arif Azim, a
call center employee, was later discovered to have obtained the card user's
information and utilized it to order merchandise using that information.
 Facts
• Sony India Ltd, which operates the website www.sony.sambandh.com, has filed a complaint. By
making an online payment, NRIs can send Sony products to their friends and family in India. Someone
signed onto the website under the name Barbara Campa. A Sony Color Television and a cordless
headphone were also ordered. The user used a credit card to make the payment. She requested that
the product be sent to Arif Azim in Noida. The credit card company had cleared the payment. After
completing the relevant formalities, the products are delivered to Arif Azim. That are required for the
record, such as taking photographs as evidence of delivery acceptance.
• That was the end of the transaction. However, the Credit Card agency notified the corporation after
one and a half months. An unauthorized person carried out the transaction. Because the true owner
declined to complete the purchase.
• The corporation then filed a complaint with the CBI, which opened an investigation under Indian Penal
Code Sections 418, 419, and 420. Arif Azim was arrested while working at a call center in Noida,
according to the inquiry. He gained access to the data of an American citizen's credit card number. As
a result, he used to buy Sony things on the internet without permission.
• The Color Television and the cordless headphones were recovered by the CBI, and Arif Azim was
arrested.
 Judgement
• Based on the testimony of witnesses and the evidence presented, the
court found Arif Azim guilty of cyber fraud and cheating under
Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court,
however, believed that a light punishment should be issued because it
was the first time a cybercrime criminal was convicted, and the
accused had no prior criminal record and was a 24-year-old young kid.
Keeping this in mind, the offender was given a one-year probationary
sentence. It was also decided that the India Penal Code covers all
forms of offenses, including cybercrime.
 Conclusion
• The judgment has enormous implications for the entire country. Apart
from being the first conviction in a cybercrime case, the conviction
has demonstrated that the Indian Penal Code can be used to
prosecute various sorts of cybercrime not covered by the Information
Technology Act 2000. Second, a decision like this sends a clear
message to everyone that the law cannot be manipulated.
 Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu
• The woman brought the complaint against him for sending indecent
communications. The case has established a precedent for
prosecuting criminals who transmit offensive messages that defames,
irritates, or offends a person due to their filthy and vulgar nature. The
case is especially significant because it is the first time that online
evidence has been presented in court under section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act.
 Facts
• The accused man was the victim's friend. He wanted to marry the victim,
Ms. Roselind, but she married someone else instead, rejecting him. He
tried to seduce her again after she got divorced. Infuriated by this
rejection, he began to harass the woman by releasing her phone number
and posting vulgar messages on several groups in the hopes of insulting
her and convincing others that she was a woman of wicked nature. She
then began to get messages from unknown persons, which she found
quite offensive. The accused constructed a bogus account under the
victim's name, Ms. Roselind, with the goal of damaging the victim's
reputation. Based on the above situations, the victim filed a complaint
under section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 and under sections 469 and 509 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
 Judgement
• Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the honourable
judges rendered a judgement by sentencing the accused under
sections 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, sections 509 and
469 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for his actions that were not only
against the legality of the country but also against morality, such as
posting obscene material and speaking ill of women, which is
shameful, and it should be noted that such acts should not be
tolerated.
 Conclusion
• This case has cemented a position in the history of the Indian judicial
system as the first to punish someone for transmitting obscene
messages against a woman's reputation and character, as well as
outraging her modesty.
Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud
• We live in a world where the internet controls our every move.
Although cyber laws have only just begun to evolve, the rising human
reliance on technology has produced a situation in which the need for
tighter cyber laws has become a pressing necessity. If this is not
emphasized, people will be exposed to significant hazards, including
their personal and sensitive information being public. This is
cybercrime, as well as many other types of crimes that go unnoticed
since the victims do not submit a report. This could be due to a fear of
character assassination or a lack of understanding of how to go about
doing it.
 Facts
• It is a case in which $3,50,000 was transferred from four Citibank
accounts in the United States in 2005. This money was fraudulently
moved to fake accounts in the United States via the internet.
Customers from the United States had faith in some Call Center staff.
By acquiring the trust of those clients, they were able to collect their
PINs while posing as a helping hand to those customers in distress.
These numbers were then utilized to commit the fraud. Ivan Thomas,
Siddhartha Mehta, and Stephen Daniel, as well as others who were
not MphasiS employees, are the defendants in this case.
 Judgment
• Because of the nature of illegal access that is involved in committing
transactions, the Court ruled that Section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2000
applies in this case. Sections 420 (cheating), 465, 467, and 471
(forgery) of the same Act are also utilized to charge the defendants.
 Conclusion
• Such cases occur all over the world, but when they occur in India, it is a cause for
concern, and such a severe subject cannot be overlooked. After reviewing this
case, it is clear that there are still many areas of cyber law that need to be
explored and secured. Companies should be required to do thorough background
checks when hiring call center executives. Though a background check cannot
completely exclude the potential of negative elements infiltrating and breaking
security, it should not be overlooked when recruiting staff. National ID and a
national database that includes criminals' names and criminal histories.
• This fraud case demonstrated the importance of revisiting business cultures and
ethics. Instead of short-term greed, a corporate culture that emphasises the value
of a well-done task and the worth of the employees within the firm is required.