Section 67 – Publishing or Transmitting Obscene Material in Electronic Form

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Statutory Provision

Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted any material which is lascivious or appeals to prurient interest or tends to deprave and corrupt persons shall be punished.

Punishment

First conviction

Imprisonment up to 3 years

Fine up to ₹5 lakh

Subsequent conviction

Imprisonment up to 5 years

Fine up to ₹10 lakh

Punishment increases for repeat offenders.


Essential Ingredients

Publishing / Transmitting / Causing to transmit

        +

Electronic form

        +

Obscene material

        +

Lascivious or depraving effect


Meaning of Key Terms

Publish/Transmit Includes:

WhatsApp

Email

Websites

Social media

Telegram

OTT platforms

Cloud sharing

Even forwarding counts.


Obscene Material Borrowed from IPC Section 292 test: Material that:

appeals to sexual interest

is vulgar/lustful

corrupts moral standards


Examples

✔ Circulating pornographic videos

✔ Uploading obscene MMS

✔ Running porn websites

✔ Sharing explicit content in groups

✔ Selling obscene digital content

All → Section 67 applies


Related Sections (Comparison) Section Nature

66E Privacy violation (private images)

67 Obscene content

67A Sexually explicit content (more serious)

67B Child pornography (most serious)

Severity increases from 67 → 67A → 67B


Difference: 67 vs 67A vs 67B

Section Content Type Gravity

67 Obscene Moderate

67A Sexually explicit acts Serious

67B Child sexual content Most serious


Constitutional Aspect

Article 19(1)(a) – Free speech

restricted by

Article 19(2) – Decency & morality

Section 67 is a reasonable restriction on obscene speech.


Case Laws

Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014)

SC adopted “community standards test” for obscenity:

Must be judged as a whole Context matters Artistic or social value protected Not every nudity = obscenity


Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

While 66A was struck down, SC held:

Sections like 67 dealing with real harm (obscenity) are valid and constitutional.


Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (2016)

SC discussed regulation of online pornography and government’s duty to block child sexual content.


Practical Issues

Viral forwarding

Difficulty tracing original sender

Cross-border websites

Freedom of speech concerns

Overblocking by authorities


Conclusion

Section 67 criminalises dissemination of obscene material in electronic form and balances freedom of expression with public decency and morality in cyberspace.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

📘 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

🔹 Where BSA Applies All Judicial Proceedings in or before any Court Civil and Criminal trials (in courts of law) Proceedings before tribunals if declared as courts by statute Oral evidence → statements made in court by witnesses Documentary evidence → documents produced for court’s inspection 🔹 Where BSA Does NOT Apply Affidavits presented to any Court or officer Even if notarized, it’s not “evidence” unless statute allows ✔️ Acceptable only if CPC, CrPC, or a Special Act permits Arbitration proceedings Conciliation / mediation / Lok Adalat proceedings (not judicial) Statements made outside court (unless admitted through exceptions like dying declaration, admissions, etc.) 🔹 Statutory Exceptions (When Affidavit = Evidence) Civil Procedure Code (Order XIX) → Court may accept affidavit instead of oral evidence Election Petitions → Affidavits required Company Law Tribunals (NCLT/NCLAT) → Affidavits accepted Family Courts...
Read more

🏛️ Court Fee Refund after Settlement: Rajasthan High Court Clears the Air

In a notable judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the right of litigants to seek a full refund of court fees when a matter is settled through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms even after a decree is passed and during execution proceedings . 📌 Case Snapshot Case Title : Harish Madhan v. Kshema Power & Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. Citation : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13265/2025 Date of Judgment : 17th July 2025 Judge : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga ⚖️ Background Harish Madhan, the petitioner, filed a recovery suit in 2023, which was decreed ex-parte in his favour in February 2024. During execution proceedings, the parties settled the matter through conciliation , and the case was disposed of via the National Lok Adalat in December 2024. Relying on Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961, Harish sought a refund of the court fees paid. However, the trial court rejected the application, stating...
Read more

Bombay Court Ruling: Sending Obscene WhatsApp Messages Is a Serious Criminal Offence

Image
Date of Judgment : 18 February 2025 Court : Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai Case Title : Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude v. State of Maharashtra Sections Involved : Section 509 IPC (Insulting the modesty of a woman) Sections 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Electronic transmission of obscene material) Case in Brief  A female corporator in Mumbai received a barrage of inappropriate and obscene WhatsApp messages from an unknown number late at night during a public event in her constituency. The messages, containing sexually suggestive texts and images, deeply disturbed her. After informing her husband, she lodged a police complaint. Investigations revealed that the messages were sent from a number registered in the name of the accused, Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude. The trial court convicted him, and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction and imprisonment. Legal Findings 1. Electronic Evidence Is Admissible If Properly Certi...
Read more