Cybercrime in India

Cybercrime in India: Landmark Cases- All You Need to Know

This article on ‘Landmark Cases related to Cybercrime in India’ is written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.


This article discusses the Landmark Cases related to Cybercrime in India. Cyber Crime is a crime committed using computers. Children are the future of our country. It is imperative to protect them from bad criminal behaviour and people. This generation is full of technologies that help us accept and improve our lives while threatening all of us, including children. This is a complex and intelligent way to commit a crime because a person can be thousands of miles away from a crime scene. We’ll take a closer look at this in this article.

The threat of Cybercrime in India

The internet can be a scary place full of scammers, thieves and saboteurs. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, there were 12,317 cybercrimes in 2016, and that number increased to 50,035 in 2020. This means that there is 136 cybercrime in India reported every day. Cybercrime in India, the rate also increased by 270% in four years, from 1 in 2016 to 3.7 in 2020. According to the NCRB, an average of 65.81% of cases are pending at the end of each year. Cases excluded from the investigation last year are also carried over to next year.

On average, 45.57% of cases opened for investigation in that year were pending in the previous year. In 2016, 24,187 cybercrime cases were investigated, of which 11,870 were received in 2015, 14,973 were pending by the end of the year, and 9,213 were pending with the police. The number of cases subject to investigation in 2020 has increased to 103,000, of which 51.1% are related to the previous year, and 71.29% (74,142 cases) are pending until the end of the year. investigation stage.

Case Laws

Cybercrime in India: Landmark Cases
Cybercrime in India: Landmark Cases

Shreya Singhal v. UOI


Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act after posting offensive comments on Facebook regarding Mumbai’s total closure following the death of a political leader. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act presents consequences for the usage of laptop sources or communications, consisting of data this is offensive, fake, worrying, inconvenient, dangerous, offensive, repulsive, dangerous or malicious. The women responded to the arrest in a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act because they violated freedom of speech and expression.


The Supreme Court made its decision based on three concepts: deliberation, advocacy, and incitement. He pointed out that simply discussing or defending a case, no matter how popular, is at the heart of freedom of speech and expression. Section 66A may restrict any form of communication and does not appear to distinguish between the mere advocacy or discussion of a particular issue that is offensive to some people and the instigation of such words leading to a causal relationship to public disorder, safety, etc. When asked if Section 66A was intended to protect people from defamation, the court answered that Section 66A condemned abusive language that may annoy people but does not affect their reputation.


The court also noted that Section 66A of the Information Technology Act did not violate Section 14 of the Constitution of India because there is a clear distinction between information transmitted over the Internet and information transmitted through other forms of speech. Also, the Supreme Court did not even consider the issue of procedural irrationality because it was inherently unconstitutional.

Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.


Subscriber purchased Reliance phone and Reliance mobile service together under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer plan. Subscribers were attracted to other operators’ top rates and wanted to switch to other operators. The applicant (TataIndCom employee) has hacked the Electronic Serial Number (“ESN”). The Reliance MIN (Mobile Phone Identification Number) has been permanently integrated with the ESN and the ESN has been reprogrammed to verify the device through the applicant’s service provider rather than Reliance Infocomm.


  • Is a handset a “computer” under section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?
  • Is the ESN operation programmed in the mobile phone a source code change according to Article 65 of the IT Act?


In section 2(1)(i) of the Information Technology Act, “computer” means an electronic, magnetic, optical or other high-speed data processing device or system that electronically manipulates logic, arithmetic and memory functions. , magnetic or optical impulses and any input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication connected to or connected to a computer in a computer system or computer network.

Therefore, a telephone falls within the definition of “computer” as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act. If the ESN changes, other service providers like TATA Indicom can use the phone exclusively.

Therefore, changing the ESN would be a violation of Section 65 of the Information Technology Act. This is because each service provider must maintain a unique SID and assign a specific number to the customer for each tool used to provide the services they provide. Consequently, crimes registered against the applicant cannot be excluded under section 65 of the Information Technology Act.


In 2003, Crime No. 20 was dismissed under Articles 409, 420 and 120B, and criminal cases brought under Article 65 of the Information Technology Act and Article 63 of the Copyright Act and CID were also dismissed. When complaints are received, it is suggested that the investigation be completed and a final report be submitted to the metropolitan court to hear the case within three months.

Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi

Facts CEO Avnish Bajaj had been arrested under section 67 of the Information Technology Act for broadcasting cyber pornography. Someone else was selling obscene CD copies through the website.


  • Is Article 67 of the Information Technology Act against which the case was brought against the applicant?
  • Are allegations of misconduct under Sections 292(2)(a) and 292(2)(d) IPC on the website objectionable or not?


The court noted that Mr Bajaj did not participate in any pornography program anywhere. No one is allowed to view pornography on the website. However, receives sales commissions and makes money from advertisements placed on its web pages. The court also points out that the evidence gathered indicates that cyber-porn crimes can be attributed to someone other than The court granted Mr Bajai two rupees bail. 10,000 won each. However, the defendant bears the burden of being only a service provider, not a content.


  • The testimony could not prove that any publications were written directly or indirectly by the accused.
  • Analysis confirms that you cannot view real porn/clips on the portal.
  • The consideration for the sale had nothing to do with the defendant.
  • At first glance, the website ( was trying to close the loop.
  • The accused took an active part in the investigation.
  • The nature of the suspected crime has already been determined and can be protected from unauthorized access.
  • Evidence gathered suggests that only pornographic content may be unintentionally offered for sale on a website.
  • It also indicates that criminal charges may be attributed to others.


The law deals an important part in the overall development of the country, and this can be achieved with proper and effective implementation of it. Now the children are being exploited. As can be seen, the crime rate against children is rising day by day. It is a challenge to apprehend a wrongdoer in cybercrime but with proper and strict implementation it can be curtailed. Some crucial points regarding ineffective protection of children against cybercrime are-

  • Educating the children and their parents against the threat of cybercrime.
  • Proper functioning of legislation to meet up with the growing challenge to tackle cybercrime.
  • Enhancement in skilled Manpower and Equipment required.

These three are the basic points to start with to protect our young generation before it’s too late!


The cyber legal system is subject to IT laws and regulations. The Indian Penal Code of 1860 may also be applicable where the Information Technology Act cannot provide for certain types of crimes or does not contain comprehensive criminal provisions. However, the cyber law framework is still insufficient to cover all types of cybercrime in India that exist today. As countries move towards the Digital India movement, cybercrime is constantly evolving and new types of cybercrime enter the cyber law regime every day. India’s cyber legal system is weak compared to other countries.

Another Important article on Cybercrime in India by Legal Upanishad