Adv. Shoeb Hakim | I train the people who protect India.

Supreme Court Judgments on Section 67 IT Act 2026: Key Cases & Impact | Adv Shoeb Hakim

Adv Shoeb Hakim

Section 67 IT Act

Updated: August 2026 | Reading Time: 12 minutes

Supreme Court Judgments on Section 67 IT Act Guide by Adv. Shoeb Hakim

Introduction

Supreme Court judgments on Section 67 IT Act have played a pivotal role in shaping India’s legal framework for regulating obscene content in electronic form. Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with the punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, carrying penalties of up to three years imprisonment and a fine of up to ₹5 lakh on first conviction, and up to five years and ₹10 lakh on subsequent convictions.

Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark rulings that have clarified the scope of Section 67, balancing the need to regulate harmful content with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. These Supreme Court judgments on Section 67 IT Act have addressed issues ranging from intermediary liability to the distinction between vulgarity and obscenity.

Authored by Adv. Shoeb Hakim—a criminal defence, AML, digital forensics, and cybercrime specialist with decades of experience training police and judiciary—this comprehensive guide examines the key Supreme Court judgments on Section 67 IT Act, their legal principles, and their lasting impact on India’s cyber jurisprudence.

Section 67 IT Act: Overview of the Provision

Section 67 of the IT Act states: “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 on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.”

The provision was introduced to address the unique challenges posed by the digital medium, where content can be published and transmitted instantly across borders. Key elements of the offence include:

  • Publishing or transmitting material in electronic form
  • Material must be lascivious or appeal to prurient interest
  • Material must tend to deprave and corrupt persons likely to view it

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments on Section 67 IT Act

1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Citation: AIR 2015 SC 1523

Key Issue: Constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act; interpretation of Section 67

Held: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional for violating Article 19(1)(a), but upheld the validity of Section 67. The Court distinguished between restrictions on speech that are “reasonable” and those that are vague and overbroad. The Court noted that Sections 66B to 67C, along with the Indian Penal Code, were sufficient to deal with criminal offences in cyberspace.

Significance: This judgment reaffirmed that while the state can regulate obscene content under Section 67, it cannot use vague provisions like Section 66A to curtail free speech. The ruling established a clear boundary: Section 67 targets obscenity, not mere annoyance or inconvenience.

2. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2008)

Citation: 2008 (105) DRJ 721

Key Issue: Criminal liability of intermediaries and CEOs under Section 67 for content posted by third parties

Held: The Delhi High Court (later upheld by the Supreme Court in principle) held that the CEO of an online marketplace (Baazee.com) could be held liable under Section 67 for the sale of obscene material through the platform. The court emphasized the responsibilities of intermediaries in preventing the dissemination of obscene content.

Significance: This judgment highlighted the personal liability of individuals in charge of intermediaries and raised important questions about the balance between platform responsibility and freedom of expression. It also underscored the need for clear guidelines on intermediary liability.

3. Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2016)

Citation: 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1464

Key Issue: Whether a person discharged under Section 67 of the IT Act can be prosecuted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code

Held: The Supreme Court held that once an offence has a nexus with electronic records, the protection under Section 79 of the IT Act cannot be ignored. The Court ruled that the IT Act is a special law that shall prevail over general laws like the IPC for offences committed in electronic form. The Court quashed the prosecution under Section 292 IPC.

Significance: This judgment established that the IT Act is a complete code for offences involving electronic records. It clarified that Section 67 read with Sections 67A and 67B constitutes a comprehensive framework for regulating obscenity in electronic form.

4. Apoorva Arora v. State (TVF College Romance Case) (2024)

Citation: 2024 INSC 223

Key Issue: Whether the web series “College Romance” violated Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act for using profane language

Held: The Supreme Court held that the web series, despite its use of expletives and profane language, does not violate Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act. The Court clarified that obscenity under the law requires content to be lascivious, appeal to prurient interests, or tend to deprave and corrupt those likely to view it. Profanity alone does not meet this threshold.

The Court criticized the High Court’s reliance on “impressionable minds” as a standard, holding that legal obscenity must be judged by the perspective of the average viewer, not a hypersensitive or overly impressionable audience.

Significance: This landmark judgment established that vulgarity and profanities do not per se amount to obscenity under Section 67. It protected artistic freedom and set a high threshold for invoking Section 67, requiring actual obscenity—not mere distastefulness or vulgar language.

5. If No Charge Under Section 67 IT Act, Cannot Proceed Under Section 292 IPC (2016)

Case: Connected to the Baazee.com matter

Key Issue: Whether prosecution under Section 292 IPC can proceed when charges under Section 67 IT Act have been dropped

Held: The Supreme Court held that when the IT Act in various provisions deals with obscenity in electronic form, it covers the offence under Section 292 IPC. The Court reiterated that a special law shall prevail over general and prior laws.

Significance: This judgment reinforced the principle that the IT Act is the primary legislation for regulating obscenity in electronic form, and that general provisions of the IPC cannot be invoked to circumvent the specific provisions of the IT Act.

Section 67 IT Act: Penalties and Enforcement

Section 67 of the IT Act provides for graduated penalties:

ConvictionImprisonmentFine
First ConvictionUp to 3 yearsUp to ₹5,00,000
Second or Subsequent ConvictionUp to 5 yearsUp to ₹10,00,000

Section 67 is a cognizable offence, meaning police are allowed to start an investigation and make arrests without requiring the permission of a magistrate.

Related Provisions: Section 67A and 67B

The IT Act also contains provisions for more severe forms of obscene content:

  • Section 67A: Punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act in electronic form. Penalty: imprisonment up to 7 years and fine up to ₹10 lakh on first conviction; up to 10 years and fine up to ₹20 lakh on subsequent conviction.
  • Section 67B: Punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in sexually explicit act in electronic form. Penalty: imprisonment up to 5 years and fine up to ₹10 lakh on first conviction; up to 7 years and fine up to ₹20 lakh on subsequent conviction.

Judicial Interpretation: Key Principles Established

The Supreme Court judgments on Section 67 IT Act have established several important principles:

1. The “Average Viewer” Test

In the TVF College Romance case, the Supreme Court held that obscenity must be judged by the perspective of the average viewer, not a hypersensitive or overly impressionable audience. This aligns with the “community standards” test used in earlier obscenity jurisprudence.

2. Distinction Between Vulgarity and Obscenity

The Court clearly distinguished between vulgarity/profanity and obscenity. Profanity alone does not meet the legal threshold for obscenity under Section 67.

3. IT Act as a Complete Code

The IT Act is a special law that prevails over general laws like the IPC for offences involving electronic records. Section 79 provides protection to intermediaries.

4. Intermediary Liability

While intermediaries can be held liable under Section 67, the protection under Section 79 cannot be ignored when the offence has a nexus with electronic records.

2026 Updates: Enforcement Actions Under Section 67

In 2026, the government has continued to enforce Section 67 and 67A of the IT Act:

  • The Government has disabled 50 OTT platforms for public access in India in the last two years for displaying obscene content and for violation of Section 67 and 67A of the IT Act, Section 294 of the BNS, and other applicable laws.
  • The Ministry of Electronics & IT has reported that 11.37 lakh+ citizens have been reached through 6,650 cyber awareness workshops to educate the public on online safety, including the risks of obscene content.
  • Draft rules on obscenity online mandate the classification of all digital content with labels based on themes and messages, including violence, obscenity, nudity, sex, language, drugs, and horror.

Section 67 IT Act vs. BNS: Transition to New Criminal Code

With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, effective 1 July 2024, the Indian Penal Code has been replaced. However, the IT Act remains in force and continues to govern cyber offences. Section 67 of the IT Act remains the primary provision for regulating obscene content in electronic form.

Under the BNS, the corresponding provisions for obscenity include:

  • Section 294 BNS: Obscene acts and songs (replacing IPC Section 294)
  • Section 356 BNS: Defamation (replacing IPC Sections 499-500)

However, for offences involving electronic records, the IT Act provisions—including Section 67—continue to apply as special laws.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court judgments on Section 67 IT Act have significantly shaped India’s cyber jurisprudence. From the landmark Shreya Singhal ruling striking down Section 66A while upholding Section 67, to the TVF College Romance case clarifying that vulgarity is not obscenity, the judiciary has consistently balanced the need to regulate harmful content with the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

In 2026, as digital content continues to proliferate and OTT platforms face increased scrutiny, the principles established by these Supreme Court judgments on Section 67 IT Act remain highly relevant. The courts have made it clear: while the state can regulate obscenity, it cannot use vague provisions to curtail free speech, and mere profanity does not amount to a crime.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: What is Section 67 of the IT Act?

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. First conviction carries up to 3 years imprisonment and fine up to ₹5 lakh; subsequent conviction carries up to 5 years and fine up to ₹10 lakh.

Q2: What was the Shreya Singhal judgment on Section 67?

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional but upheld Section 67, reaffirming that the state can regulate obscene content while protecting freedom of speech.

Q3: What was the TVF College Romance case about?

In Apoorva Arora v. State (2024), the Supreme Court held that the web series “College Romance,” despite its use of expletives and profane language, does not violate Sections 67 and 67A. The Court clarified that profanity alone does not amount to obscenity.

Q4: What is the difference between Section 67 and Section 67A of the IT Act?

Section 67 deals with publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. Section 67A deals with publication or transmission of material containing sexually explicit acts, with higher penalties—up to 7 years imprisonment on first conviction.

Q5: Is Section 67 of the IT Act a bailable offence?

Section 67 is a cognizable offence, meaning police can start an investigation and make arrests without requiring the permission of a magistrate. The offence is generally considered non-bailable, though bail may be granted at the discretion of the court.

Q6: What is the Sharat Babu Digumarti judgment?

In Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2016), the Supreme Court held that the IT Act is a special law that prevails over the IPC for offences involving electronic records. A person discharged under Section 67 cannot be proceeded against under Section 292 IPC.

Q7: What are the penalties under Section 67 of the IT Act?

On first conviction, imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹5,00,000. On second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment up to 5 years and fine up to ₹10,00,000.

📚 Related Legal Guides on Adv. Shoeb Hakim’s Website:

📌 Explore More on Adv. Shoeb Hakim’s Website:

By Adv. Shoeb Hakim
Criminal defence, AML, digital forensics, and cybercrime specialist; former General Counsel, Credit Suisse; training police and judiciary since 1995.

📌 Connect: https://www.linkedin.com/in/shoebhakim | https://shoebhakim.com/shoeb-hakim-blog/
📌 Visit my website for more articles: https://www.shoebhakim.com
📌 Visit my website for legal knowledge: https://www.vakilverse.com
📌 Visit my website for research fellowship: https://www.legalcomplaince.in

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice on their specific circumstances.

Additional Page Metadata

  • Author: Adv. Shoeb Hakim
  • Author Bio: Adv. Shoeb Hakim is a Mumbai-based criminal defence, AML, digital forensics and cybercrime specialist. Former General Counsel at Credit Suisse. Has been training police and judiciary since 1996. Provides expert commentary on cybercrime law, IT Act jurisprudence, and criminal justice reform.
  • Article Publisher: Adv. Shoeb Hakim
  • Article Section: Cybercrime Law | IT Act | Criminal Justice | Supreme Court Judgments
  • Article Tags: Supreme Court Judgments on Section 67 IT Act, Section 67 IT Act, Shreya Singhal Judgment, TVF College Romance Case, Avnish Bajaj Case, Sharat Babu Digumarti, IT Act Obscenity, Cyber Law India, Section 67 Penalty, Section 67A IT Act, Adv Shoeb Hakim

#SupremeCourtJudgments #Section67ITAct #ITAct #CyberLaw #Obscenity #ShreyaSinghal #TVFCollegeRomance #AvnishBajaj #SharatBabuDigumarti #CyberCrime #FreedomOfSpeech #IndianLaw #SupremeCourt #AdvShoebHakim

Find

Latest Posts

Post Category

Find Us On: