Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Information Technology Act, 2000

47 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

AROON PURIEversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2022 INSC 114231 October 2022Disposed off

The case arose from an India Today article titled “Mission Misconduct” that alleged sexual misconduct and other improprieties by an Indian Foreign Service officer. The officer, after disciplinary action, filed a criminal complaint against the magazine’s Editor‑in‑Chief (A‑1), the article’s author (A‑2) and several publ

PRAGYA PRASUN & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 59930 April 2025Disposed off

The petitioners, including acid‑attack survivors with facial disfigurements and a blind individual, challenged the mandatory digital KYC/e‑KYC/video‑KYC procedures for being inaccessible and discriminatory. They argued that requirements such as capturing a live photograph and performing a liveness check (e.g., eye‑blin

K.K. VELUSAMYversusN. PALANISAMY

2011 INSC 24330 March 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant, K.K. Velusamy, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, which he claimed was merely a security for a loan. After the evidence was closed, he sought to reopen the evidence and recall two witnesses to cross‑examine them about admissions recorded on a compact disc, alleging that the record

SHAFHI MOHAMMADversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2018 INSC 7530 January 2018

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of electronic evidence, particularly videography of crime scenes, in the petition Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh. It considered whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act is mandatory when the party producing the electronic record does not c

G H P. GOPALKRISHNAN @ DILEEPversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2019 INSC 130329 November 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, accused in a rape case, sought a cloned copy of the contents of a memory card/pen‑drive that the prosecution intended to rely upon, arguing that the electronic record should be treated as a "document" under the Evidence Act and thus be furnished under Section 207 of the CrPC. The trial court and High Cou

ANEETA HADAversusM/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 18727 April 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether an authorised signatory of a company could be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 67/85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 without the company itself being named as an accused. The Court held that Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrume

KANISHK SINHA & ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 27827 February 2025Dismissed

The appellants, a husband and wife, were charged in two FIRs (2010 and 2011) for offences under the IPC and the IT Act. They contended that the second FIR was based on a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC that was not accompanied by an affidavit, thereby violating the Supreme Court’s direction in Priyanka Sriva

SWAPNIL TRIPATHIversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2018 INSC 88626 September 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Supreme Court proceedings of constitutional and national importance be live‑streamed and that a regulatory framework be established. The Court examined whether live‑streaming is compatible with the constitutional mandate of open courts, the rights

JUSTICE K. S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.)versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 88026 September 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which provides a unique identity number to residents based on biometric and demographic data. The petitioners challenged the Act on grounds of violation of the right

BENGAL STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.versusCOMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST) AND ORS.

2018 INSC 74424 August 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The West Bengal State Election Commission sought to set aside a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court order that directed acceptance of nomination papers filed electronically for the 2018 Panchayat elections. The High Court had justified its direction on the ground of ensuring free and fair elections and on a readi

SHREYA SINGHALversusUNION OF INDIA

2015 INSC 25724 March 2015Disposed off

The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, alleging that it infringes the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved by the reasonable restrictions of Article 19(2). They also contested the validity of Section 69A

ANANT THANUR KARMUSEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

2023 INSC 16824 February 2023Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a civil engineer, posted a viral picture of a sitting cabinet minister on Facebook and alleged that police, at the minister’s behest, forcibly took him to the minister’s residence, beat him and threatened him. He filed FIRs (Nos. 119 and 120 of 2020) but the minister was not named in the initial chargesh

JUST RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ALLIANCE & ANR.versusS. HARISH & ORS.

2024 INSC 71623 September 2024Disposed off

The case arose from an FIR filed in 2020 alleging that the accused, S. Harish, had downloaded and stored child pornographic videos on his mobile phone. The investigation recovered two such videos and a chargesheet was filed under Section 15(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S G S CHATHA RICE MILLS & ANR.

2020 INSC 56123 September 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered whether Notification 5/2019, issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act to raise the import duty on goods from Pakistan to 200%, applied retrospectively to bills of entry that had been presented and self‑assessed before the notification was uploaded to the e‑gazette at 20:46:58 on 16

BHAGWAN SINGHversusDILIP KUMAR @ DEEPU @ DEPAK AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 76123 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal against a Rajasthan High Court order that granted bail to three accused in a gang‑rape case involving a 15‑year‑old girl. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 376D, 384, 506 IPC, Sections 3‑6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 66 IT Act, with the complainant asserti

HDFC BANK LTD.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2024 INSC 80722 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Income Tax Department ordered HDFC Bank to stop operation of certain lockers and accounts, but later revoked the order only for the accounts, leading bank officials to mistakenly allow a locker to be operated. The department filed a complaint and an FIR was registered against the bank and its officials for multiple

MOHAMMED ZUBAIRversusSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

2022 INSC 73620 July 2022Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Mohammed Zubair, co‑founder of ALT News, who faced five FIRs in Uttar Pradesh and one in Delhi arising from the same set of tweets. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIRs and, alternatively, their consolidation with the Delhi FIR, along with interim bail in all ca

RAMESH RAJAGOPALversusDEVI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED

2016 INSC 32719 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a director of Devi Polymers Private Limited, was prosecuted under IPC sections 409, 468 and 471 and IT Act sections 65 and 66 for allegedly forging a website that portrayed Devi Consultancy Services as a separate entity and for misappropriating funds. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, hold

APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC.versusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2024 INSC 22319 March 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who created and acted in the web‑series “College Romance”, were charged with publishing obscene and sexually explicit material under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act after a complaint that an episode titled “Happily F****d Up” contained vulgar expletives. The High Court upheld the F

AMITABHA DASGUPTAversusUNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2021 INSC 10419 February 2021Disposed off

Amitabha Dasgupta, a locker holder, complained that United Bank of India had inadvertently broken open his locker despite his rental dues being cleared, and that only two of the seven ornaments he claimed to have deposited were returned. The District Consumer Forum found a deficiency of service and awarded compensation

RINKU BAHETIversusSANDESH SHARDA

2024 INSC 101418 December 2024Disposed off

The petitioner-wife Rinku Baheti filed a transfer petition seeking to move a pending divorce suit to the Pune Family Court and opposed the respondent-husband Sandesh Sharda's application under Article 142(1) for a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The parties had a brief marriage o

ANVAR P.V.versusP.K. BASHEER AND ORS.

2014 INSC 64518 September 2014Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an election petition challenging the election of P.K. Basheer on the ground that a leaflet (Exhibit‑P1) and various audio‑visual recordings were published to malign the petitioner, Anvar P.V., constituting a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court held tha

APARNA BHAT & ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR.

2021 INSC 19218 March 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a bail order that required the accused, who was charged with sexual harassment and related offences, to visit the complainant’s house, tie a rakhi, and give gifts as a condition of bail. The Court held that such conditions amount to judicial overreach, compel contact with the survivor, and pe

TEESTA ATUL SETALVADversusTHE STATE OF GUJARAT

2017 INSC 123915 December 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the police could lawfully freeze the bank accounts of Teesta Atul Setalvad, Javed Anand and related trusts under Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) without prior notice to the account holders. The investigation, stemming from an FIR alleging misappropriation of donation

SHARAT BABU DIGUMARTIversusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

2016 INSC 113114 December 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sharad Babu Digumarti, was charged under IPC Sections 292 and 294 and IT Act Section 67 for alleged possession of obscene material in electronic form. He was discharged of the IT Act charge but the trial court framed a charge under IPC Section 292, which the High Court upheld. The Supreme Court examined

IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR.versusIN RE:

2020 INSC 48914 August 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court, acting suo motu, took cognizance of two tweets posted by advocate Prashant Bhushan that alleged the Chief Justice of India was riding a luxury motorcycle while keeping the Court in "lockdown" and that the Supreme Court had facilitated the destruction of democracy. The Court examined whether such stat

ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKARversusKAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL AND ORS.

2020 INSC 45314 July 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, was elected to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly but his election was challenged on the ground that two of his nomination papers were filed after the statutory deadline. The High Court relied on video recordings of the Returning Officer's office, produced by the Election Commi

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENTversusADITYA TRIPATHI

2023 INSC 53112 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigated alleged tampering of e‑tender bids that led to charges under the IPC, IT Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Because those offences are scheduled under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the ED opened a money‑laundering investigation and the accused,

PRAVASI BHALAI SANGATHANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2014 INSC 18312 March 2014Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard a public‑interest writ petition filed by Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan seeking pre‑emptive orders against hate speeches by elected representatives, arguing that such speeches violate Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and fundamental duties. The Court examined whether existing statutes—IPC, SC/ST (Prevention of

SANJAY DUBEYversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 51911 May 2023Dismissed

The appeal concerned an Inspector, Sanjay Dubey, who was found prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty for failing to ensure DNA testing in a sensitive case involving offences under the IPC, POCSO Act, SC/ST Act and IT Act. While the High Court, hearing a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, directed departmental

DR. SOHAIL MALIKversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

2025 INSC 141510 December 2025Dismissed

The case involved an IAS officer (the aggrieved woman) who alleged that an IRS officer (the appellant) sexually harassed her at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. She filed a complaint under the POSH Act before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of her own department, the Department of Food and Public Distribution. The app

GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITEDversusM/S. VISAKHA INDUSTRIES

2019 INSC 135210 December 2019Disposed off

The appellant, Google India Private Limited, was summoned under a criminal complaint alleging defamation (IPC ss.120B, 500, 501 r/w s.34) for articles posted in a Google Group hosted by it. It filed a petition under CrPC s.482 seeking to quash the summons, arguing it was not an intermediary and that Section 79 of the I

AKHTAR ALI @ ALI AKHTAR @ SHAMIM @ RAJA USTADversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2025 INSC 109710 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl based on circumstantial evidence, a disputed 'last seen' theory, alleged motive of lust, and DNA forensic reports. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the motive, the reliability of the last seen testimony, and the integrity of the forensic

ANURADHA BHASINversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 3110 January 2020Disposed off

The Court examined the Jammu and Kashmir government's orders that shut down mobile, landline, and internet services and imposed Section 144 restrictions on 4‑8‑2019, which the petitioners claimed violated their fundamental rights to free speech, press, and trade. The petitioners sought production of all orders, a decla

BINOY VISWAMversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 4789 June 2017Disposed off

The petitioners, a group of public‑spirited individuals, challenged the constitutionality of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which makes it mandatory for income‑tax assessees to quote their Aadhaar number while applying for a PAN or filing returns. They argued that the provision violated Articles 14 and 19(1

WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION INC.versusANI MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 6569 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Wikimedia Foundation, as a defendant in a defamation suit filed by ANI Media, appealed a High Court order directing it to delete Wikipedia pages and discussion threads that commented on the court's proceedings, alleging that the order violated its freedom of speech and the sub judice principle. The High Court had h

AJIT MOHAN & ORS.versusLEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS.

2021 INSC 3248 July 2021Dismissed

In the wake of the February 2020 Delhi communal riots, the Delhi Legislative Assembly constituted a Committee on Peace and Harmony and issued summons to Ajit Mohan, the Vice‑President of Facebook India, and later to Facebook India itself, seeking their testimony on the platform's role in online hate speech. The petitio

TARUN TYAGIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2017 INSC 12618 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Tarun Tyagi was charged with stealing the source code of the 'Quick Recovery' software and selling it through his own company. The CBI seized three hard disks (Q‑2, Q‑9, Q‑20) containing the alleged source code. Tyagi sought copies of these disks under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prepare his defenc

AMISH DEVGANversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 6827 December 2020Disposed off

The petitioner, journalist Amish Devgan, hosted a televised debate on the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act and described the Sufi saint Pir Hazrat Moinuddin Chishti as an invader, terrorist and robber, leading to seven FIRs in different states under Sections 295A, 153A and 505(2) of the IPC. He sought quashin

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT LTDversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2023 INSC 1027 February 2023Disposed off

Roppen Transportation Services Pvt Ltd, an aggregator for two‑wheeler ride‑pooling, applied for a licence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but the Pune RTO rejected the application for non‑compliance with the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020. While the petition was pending, the Maharashtra Government issued a

SUKHPAL SINGH KHAIRAversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

2022 INSC 12525 December 2022

The appellant was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code after the trial of the original co‑accused had concluded with a conviction and sentence on the same day. The Supreme Court examined whether the power to summon under s.319 could be exercised after a judgment of convicti

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIAversusBHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED AND OTHERS

2018 INSC 11545 December 2018Leave granted

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (RJIL) filed an information under the Competition Act, 2002 alleging that the three incumbent dominant operators (Bharti Airtel, Vodafone India and Idea Cellular) and the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) colluded to deny or delay augmentation of Point of Interconnection (POI) cap

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.versusTASNEEM RIZWAN SIDDIQUEE

2018 INSC 7835 September 2018Leave Granted & Allowed

The police, investigating a case involving illegal sale of call detail records, arrested Rizwan Alam Siddique and obtained a magistrate's order remanding him to police custody until 23 March 2018. His wife, Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, filed a writ of habeas corpus in the High Court alleging unlawful detention; the High C

DR. RINI JOHAR & ANR.versusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2016 INSC 4413 June 2016Case Allowed

Dr. Rini Johar, a doctor, and a senior advocate were arrested in November 2012 on a FIR alleging fraud under IPC sections 420 and 34 and the Information Technology Act. The arrest was carried out without complying with Sections 41 and 41‑A of the CrPC, nor the D.K. Basu guidelines, and the petitioners were taken to Bho

KAUSHAL KISHORversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2023 INSC 43 January 2023Reference answered

Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 113 of 2016 and Special Leave Petition (Diary) No. 34629 of 2017 were referred to a Constitution Bench to answer five questions concerning the scope of freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the enforceability of fundamental rights against non-State actors. The petitions arose from st

SHAURYA SUNIL KUMAR SINGHversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2026 INSC 6661 July 2026Dismissed

The appellant, Shaurya Sunil Kumar Singh, was arrested in connection with a cyber‑fraud case involving a mule company and was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the IT Act. After being remanded, the investigating agency filed a charge‑sheet on 2 September 2025, but failed to

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search