CYBER DEFAMATION
The word cyber defamation consists of two words that are Cyber and Defamation. The word cyber means relating to computer, information technology and virtual reality. The word defamation is defined under Section 499 The Indian Penal Code 1860 as, “Whoever by words either spoken or intended to read or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person to harm, or knowing or having reasons to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the case hereinafter excepted, to defame that person”[1]. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 defines punishment for defamation, “Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”[2].
Defamation becomes cyber defamation when the defamation is done with computer as a tool. Cyber Defamation is publishing any defamatory statement about a person with the help of computers. If someone publishes any defamatory statement on any website, internet (WWW), email, online discussing groups then it said to be a Cyber Defamation. Cyber Defamation can be done by anyone using computer as a tool for any other person. The main intention of publishing a Cyber Defamatory statement is to harm the reputation of a person intentionally. The Information and Technology Act 2000 does not specifically deals with the cyber defamation but Section 66 of it deals with the Computer related offences and Section 67 deals with Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form .
India’s first Cyber Defamation case was filled in 2001 that is SMC Pneumatics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra[3]. In this case, the defendant Jogesh being an employee of plaintiff company started sending Defamatory, filthy, obscene, abusive emails to his employees as also to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world with the aim to defame the company and its managing director Mr. R K Malhotra. The plaintiff filled a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from doing his illegal acts of sending Derogatory emails to the plaintiff. The Hon’ble Judge of Delhi High Court after listening the detailed arguments of the counsels passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction. Consequently, the Delhi High Court restrained the defendant from sending abusive, obscene, filthy, defamatory emails to the plaintiff and to its subsidiaries all over the world. Further the Hon’ble Judge also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting or causing to publish any information in the actual world as also in cyber space which is derogatory or defamatory or abusive of the plaintiff.
Following are few cases related to Cyber Defamatory:-
- State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti 2004.
This case was successfully achieved within 7 months of filing the FIR and was first case of Chennai Cyber Crime Cell. In this case the accused was posting obscene, defamatory, annoying messages about divorcee women on yahoo messaging group. The Emails were forwarded by the accused through a fake email account which resulted in annoying phone calls to the women in a belief that she was soliciting. The police traced the accused from Mumbai and arrested him within few days. The accused was a known family friend of the victim and was interested in marrying the victim but she married another man but this marriage was ended in divorce and so the accused started contacting victim ones again. On her disinclination for marrying him the accused started harassing her through internet. The accused the fine amount and was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years under section 469 of Indian Penal Code 1860 and for offence under section 509 of Indian Penal Code 1860 sentenced to go one year of simple imprisonment and for offence under section 67 of the Information Technology Act 2000 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine.
- TATA Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International 2010[4].
The petitioner TATA Sons Limited filed this case for unauthorised usage of trademark and the damages caused to their reputation. The defendant company was Greenpeace International, an NGO which was engaged in environmental activism. The defendant opposed the industrial activities of the plaintiff which according to the defendant caused adverse impact on the breading of the injured species, Olive Ridley Sea Turtles. To create the awareness about the same the defendant launched a game based on Pacman, with title “Turtle v. TATA”, wherein the turtles being chased by the TATA logo. Here, the plaintiff wants to seek temporary injunction against the game, which was based on the loss of reputation of the plaintiff’s company. The Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Bhat held that “the use of the mark by the defendant was not in the course of the Trade because the defendant was not in the same line of business as TATA. Further, it was a promotional activity to draw consumers towards its activities; hence it was merely denominative in nature. So, it amounted to fair use in Trade Mark Law. The court rejected the possibility of setting the different standards for internet publications. The usage of trademarks for criticism was inconclusive regarding the infringement of the same. Therefore, in the absence of proof of defamation, temporary injunction was not issued.
- Avnish Bajaj v. state 2004[5]
In this case Avnish Bajaj(Appellant) the CEO of Bazee.com which is an online auction website, was arrested under section 67 of the Information Communication Act 2000 for distributing cyber pornography. The charges stated that the someone from bazee.com had sold the copies of a pornographic CD through his website bazee.com. There was no evidence that Mr. Bajaj sold pornography either directly or indirectly. When his bail application was rejected by the trial court, he moved to the Delhi High Court for Bail. The issue raised by the prosecution was that the accused didn’t stopped the payment through banking channels even after learning the illegal nature of the transactions. On learning the illegal nature of the sale, remedial steps were taken within 38 hours as the intervening period was weekend. The evidence that was collected indicated that the heinous nature of the alleged crime was attributable by some other person. Hence, the court granted bail to Mr. Bajaj and furnish two sureties of one lakh each. The court also ordered Mr. Bajaj to surrender his passport and not to leave India without the permission of the court, he was also ordered to assisting the investigation.
REFERNCES-
[1] Section 499 of Indian Penal Code 1860
[2] Section 500 of Indian Penal Code 1860
[3]https://indiankanoon.org/
[4]https://indiankanoon.org/
[5]http://164.100.68.118:8080/
Contributed by: PARIKRAMA SEHDEV
B.A.LLB. (FINAL YEAR)
FAIRFIELD INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI.
Comments
No comment yet.