Upload
barandbench
View
780
Download
8
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SYNOPSIS
This is a public interest writ petition under Article 32
read with Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of
India seeking directions against the Respondents to frame
an appropriate regulatory framework of Rules, regulations
and guidelines for effective investigation of cyber crimes,
keeping in mind the fundamental rights of citizens. The
Petitioner has also sought directions against the
Respondents to carry out proper and widespread
awareness campaigns particularly for investigating
agencies, intermediaries such as internet service providers
and the judiciary, regarding the various forms of cyber
crime sought to be criminalized by the IT Act or any other
penal law used to tackle cyber crime. The Petitioner has
also prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to frame
guidelines to be followed by the investigating agencies and
the judiciary in handling cyber crime cases so as to protect
the fundamental rights of citizens during the intervening
period before the Respondents frame the appropriate
regulatory framework.
There is a near total lack of procedural safeguards in
the prevalent system of cyber crime investigation. Police
harassment of citizens, whether out of intention or
ignorance, is rampant. There are several instances where
the police and private entities cooperating with the police
during cyber crime investigations have displayed great
negligence and apathy towards innocent citizens.
Conventional investigative methods unsuited to dealing
with complex cyber crime are nevertheless being followed,
leading to police harassment of citizens. Even in a tech-
savvy city like Pune, which is touted as an IT hub, the
police do not follow a proper and coordinated investigative
procedure, as is evidenced by the case of the Petitioner
himself.
The Information Technology Act has provided that
any police officer of the rank of sub-inspector can
investigate cyber offences, but there are no criteria for
training or knowledge for such officers in order to properly
equip them to handle cyber crime, leading to harassment
of citizens. The country has progressed in leaps and
bounds in terms of information technology, to the point
where mobile phones, computers and internet usage are
not only common but are also necessities. The Indian
Government is digitizing governance, social networking is
being used from camaraderie to campaigning, and people
are connected to each other in unprecedented ways. The
negative side to all this is increasing cyber crime that no
doubt needs to be tackled. However, in the absence of
proper procedures for investigation and safeguards,
citizens are even more vulnerable to police harassment.
There is also no uniformity in cyber security control and
enforcement practices.
Cyber crime by its very nature can be perpetrated in
practically any location in the world. A cyber criminal can
sit in one place and commit a crime the effect of which are
felt elsewhere, or can malign the name or identity of
another person located elsewhere, or even create the false
impression that someone else has committed the crime. In
such circumstances, it is very necessary that the
investigating machinery should take care while
investigating, particularly in light of the highly stringent
provisions of the IT Act, which prescribe bailable but
cognizable offences. The investigations are also dependent
on intermediaries such as internet service providers. There
are no proper provisions to ensure accountability of
intermediaries for their functions in aiding police
investigations.
The Petitioner has placed his own case before this
Hon'ble Court as an illustration of the negligence and lack
of knowledge on the part of the police as well as the lower
judiciary, and the complete apathy of an intermediary in
face of such negligence. The Petitioner has been accused
of a cyber crime under Section 66C of the IT Act, for
allegedly creating a false profile of a lady on the social
networking website ‘Facebook’. The said lady lodged
separate complaints before the Cyber Crime cell, Pune as
well as in the Wanavdi police station, Pune. Each complaint
was investigated by officers from the aforesaid branches of
the police. The cyber crime cell sent emails to Facebook
seeking first login details of the false profile, and received
a reply from Facebook containing the date, time and
Internet Protocol (IP) address from which the profile was
created. The said date was stated in a format used in the
United States of America, which is different from the
commonly used format in India, and was accordingly
misinterpreted by the police leading to the criminal case
against and the arrest of the Petitioner.
During investigation, the officer of the Cyber crime
cell, Pune sought information of the user of the IP address
given by Facebook from an internet service provider,
giving a date that was different from the date given by
Facebook. Moreover, the investigating officer of the
Wanavdi police station, while investigating into the near-
identical complaint of the lady, in fact sent three different
letters to the same internet service provider for three
different dates, all of which were different from the one
indicated by Facebook to the Cyber crime cell, Pune. The
internet service provider finally provided login details for
the IP address for an entirely different date altogether, on
which date the Petitioner’s name was shown as having
used the said IP address. Later, Facebook even clarified its
date format and informed the police the correct date of
creation of the false profile, but the police never requested
the internet service provider to provide login details for the
correct date. Instead the police chose to pursue the case
against the Petitioner, even though the record of
documents filed by the police themselves before the Ld.
Magistrate in Pune shows that the internet service provider
gave login details for a wrong date.
Such cases of gross negligence and ignorance and
police excesses are not unheard of. This Hon'ble Court is
currently seized of another public interest litigation over
the arrest of two girls in Thane for publishing a post on
Facebook criticizing a bandh called in Mumbai following
the death of a prominent political figure in Maharashtra. In
2010, a software engineer in Bengaluru was arrested and
kept in custody for over 50 days on account of a wrong IP
address given by an internet service provider during the
investigation of certain offending content on another social
networking website. The Petitioner has placed other
examples of such lapses before this Hon'ble Court in the
Petition.
In light of the urgent need for clarity in investigative
methods and procedures and the requirement of a proper
regulatory framework for investigating cyber crime, the
Petitioner has filed the present Petition under Article 32
and has raised substantial questions of law herein.
LIST OF DATES
The Petitioner has stated his own case of police harassment faced by him before
this Hon'ble Court to place the need of intervention of this Hon'ble Court. The
Petitioner has collected information from the criminal case and chargesheet filed
against him.
31.08.2010 A complaint is filed by a lady through a
letter to the Cyber crime cell, Pune alleging
that her husband who was seeking a divorce
from her had made a false Facebook profile
in her name and had uploaded her
photograph on to the said profile and was
posting defamatory things about her on
Facebook. The complaint is numbered as
Application No. 194 of 2010.
15.09.2010 The officer in the Cyber crime cell, while
investigating the Application No. 194 of
2010 filed by the Complainant, sent a Letter
to the Chief Technical Officer of Facebook
under Section 91 Cr.P.C. requesting certain
details in respect of two Facebook profiles,
including that made in the name of the
complainant lady.
25.09.2010 The officer in the Cyber Crime Cell, Pune
sent an email to Facebook containing an
identical request for information on the
given Facebook profiles.
17.10.2010 Facebook replied and provided the first login
dates for the two Facebook profiles for which
the Cyber Crime Cell had asked for details.
The date indicated by Facebook for both the
logins was “08/10/10”. Facebook also gave
the IP address 123.252.208.209 from which
the two profiles had been created.
21.10.2010 The officer in the Cyber Crime Cell, Pune
sent a Letter to the internet service provider
(ISP) asking for certain login details such as
physical address of the user of the IP
address 123.252.208.209, name of the
subscriber, type of internet connectivity, etc.
The date of login for which the Cyber Crime
Cell asked the details was given as August
10, 2010. Thus, the officer in the Cyber
Crime Cell had assumed that the date of first
login provided by Facebook, viz. “08/10/10”
was in the month-day-year format and
referred to August 10, 2010.
22.10.2010 The Cyber Crime Cell officer sought a
clarification via email from Facebook on the
format of the date given by Facebook in its
email dated October 17, 2010, i.e. whether
the date was given in day-month-year
format or month-day-year format, and
accordingly was the date indicated by
Facebook October 8, 2010 or August 10,
2010.
01.12.2010 The female complainant lodged another
complaint at the Wanavdi Police Station
which was numbered as Cr. No. 3265 of
2010 under Section 66C of the IT Act, Pune
over the same false Facebook profile.
18.12.2010 The Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi
Police station sent a Letter by email to
Facebook asking for login details of the
creator of the alleged false profile, giving
nothing more than the name of the
Complainant.
20.12.2010 Facebook replied that it could not provide
the required details based only the name of
the Complainant, and that the Investigating
Officer, Wanavdi Police station needed to
give additional identification information,
such as user ID number and email address.
24.12.2010 The Investigating Officer, Wanavdi Police
station sent a Letter to the ISP asking for
details of the user of the IP address
123.252.208.209 for the date “10/10/2010”.
30.12.2010 The Investigating Officer, Wanavdi Police
station sent another letter to the ISP asking
for details of the user of the same IP
address, i.e. 123.252.208.209, this time for
the date of use being “10/09/2010”. The
date of the Letter stated at the top of the
Letter is indicative of the fact that the
Investigating Officer was stating the date in
the day-month-time format and, therefore, it
appears that the Investigating Officer
requested the login details of the user of the
said IP address for the date September 10,
2010.
15.02.2011 Facebook replied to the email dated October
22, 2010 of the Cyber Crime Cell, Pune
informing the latter that the information
provided by it in respect of date of first login
of the false profiles was in a year-month-day
format. Therefore, the date of first login of
the false profiles created by the user of the
IP address 123.252.208.209, indicated by
Facebook to be “08/10/10” was in fact
October 10, 2008.
18.02.2011 The Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi
police station sent another Letter to the ISP
asking for login details once again of the
user of the same IP address, i.e.
123.252.208.209. This time, the
Investigating Officer gave the date of login
as August 10, 2010.
09.03.2011 The ISP gave details of the user of IP address
123.252.208.209. However, for reasons best
known to the ISP, the date for which the
information was given was October 9, 2010,
i.e. a completely different date from what
was requested. From the information
provided by the ISP, it is clear that on
October 9, 2010, between the hours
07:57:07 (i.e. 07:57 a.m.) and 18:20:06 (i.e.
06:20 p.m.) the IP address 123.252.208.209
was used by the internet dialer owned by
the Petitioner.
11.03.2011 The Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi
police station sent a Notice to the Petitioner
informing him that Cr. No. 3265 of 2011 was
registered against him under Section 66-C of
the Information Technology Act, 2000 and
that he was to remain present in the
Wanavdi Police station on March 14, 2011 at
11:00 a.m.
19.04.2011 The Petitioner was arrested and was taken
to JMFC, Cantonment, Pune.
27.04.2011 The police filed the chargesheet in the court
of the Ld. JMFC, Cantonment, Pune. The Ld.
JMFC Cantonment issued process against the
Petitioner on the same date.
The Petitioner has come across a rising
number of cases where the police have
harassed citizens in the name of cyber
crime. Hence, the present Petition filed by
the Petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. OF 2013
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mr. Dilipkumar Tulsidas Shah,
age: about 64 years,
Occu.: Industrialist,
residing at C-5, Lakshadweep Society,
PCNTDA, Bhosari, Pune …
PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through the Secretary (IT),
Department of Information
Technology, Ministry of
Communications &
Information Technology,
Government of India,
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO
Complex, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi 110003.
2. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai …
RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IN THE NATURE OF
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION FOR ISSUANCE
OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY OTHER WRIT ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS
INTER-ALIA TO THE RESPONDENTS TO FRAME
AN APPROPRIATE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
OF RULES, REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
FOR EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION OF CYBER
CRIMES, KEEPING IN MIND THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India
and His Companion Justices of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The Humble petition of the appellant above named: -
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1. That the petitioner is a citizen of India and seeks your
lordships leave to prefer a Writ Petition in this Hon'ble
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India as
the fundamental rights of the Petitioner as well as
other citizens enshrined in Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and
21 of the Constitution of India are infringed by
inaction on the part of the Respondents. The
Petitioner has not approached any authority for the
reliefs similar to the subject matter of the writ
petition as similar Writ Petition (Crl.) no.167/2012
titled as Shreya Singhal vs. UOI & ors. is pending
before Hon’ble Supreme Court.
2. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other
petition in any High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India on the subject matter of the present
petition seeking identical reliefs.
3. That the brief facts giving rise to the instant Writ
Petition are as follows:
A. That the petitioner is 63 years old and currently
resides at the address in the cause title. The
Petitioner runs a Private Limited Company by name
Decon Equipment & Systems Pvt. Ltd. having its
office at Plot No. 304, Sector No. 10, PCNTDA,
Bhosari, Pune. The Petitioner is the Managing Director
of the said Company. The said Company is engaged
into manufacturing of machinery.
B. That the Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India
through the Secretary (IT), Department of Information
Technology, Ministry of Communications &
Information Technology. The said Department is
generally responsible for implementation of the
Information Technology Act, 2000. The Respondent
No. 2 is the Home department of the State of
Maharashtra which has general control and
supervision over the police machinery in the State of
Maharashtra.
C. That the Petitioner has filed the present Petition to
place before this Hon'ble Court the near total lack of
procedures and existing safeguards currently
prevailing in the system of investigation of cyber
crime, leading to police harassment of citizens and
violation of fundamental rights, and the urgent need
for the intervention of this Hon'ble Court to direct the
appropriate authorities to frame rules and regulations
for the same. Therefore, the Petitioner states that the
above Respondents are necessary parties in the
Petition.
D. That there are several instances even in the past
where the police as well as private entities
purportedly cooperating with the police during
investigation of cyber offences have displayed blatant
negligence and total apathy towards innocent citizens
and have harassed citizens by following conventional
methods of investigation that are unsuited to the
specialized needs of cyber forensic investigation. As
and by way of illustrations, the Petitioner wishes to
place on record newspaper reports of certain cases
where the IT Act has been abused by investigating
agencies to the detriment of citizens and the same
are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure 'P-1'
Colly(Pages to ) are newspaper reports of recent
cases of police harassment. The Petitioner is himself
a victim of the gross ignorance, negligence and
callous attitude of the police who have acted against
him in total disregard of statutory or constitutional
safeguards.
E. That the city of Pune, for example, is considered as
one of the IT hubs of the world. There are thousands
of IT companies having operations in the city.
However, the Pune police lack the basic infrastructure
or even the knowledge to deal with cyber crime as
can be seen from the facts laid down in the present
Petition hereunder.
F. That the Petitioner, on account of lack of knowledge
of the police and cyber crime cell in Pune, touted to
be an I.T. hub, faced mental tension, agony and was
made to suffer the indignity and stress of being
arrested for an alleged cyber crime immediately after
he had undergone a coronary bypass surgery. The
Petitioner, on receipt of the chargesheet, came to
know that the entire case against him was on account
consistent and repeated mistakes and negligence on
the part of two separate branches of police, i.e. the
cyber crime branch of the Pune police and the
Investigating Officer, Wanavdi Police Station, Pune, in
reading the date of commission of the alleged
offence. The offence was of creation of a fake profile
on the social networking website Facebook, and the
said website had informed the cyber crime cell of the
date of creation of the profile. The said date was
stated in a format used in the United States of
America, which is different from the commonly used
format in India, and was accordingly misinterpreted
by the police leading to the criminal case against the
Petitioner.
G. The Petitioner, on coming to know of the police cases
against him, had initially approached the Hon'ble
Sessions Court, Pune as and by way of Cri. M.A. 1262
of 2011, seeking anticipatory bail apprehending
arrest. However, the Hon'ble Sessions Court was not
inclined to interfere and the bail application was
withdrawn considering that the offences that the
Petitioner was charged with under the I.T. Act were
bailable. However, when the Petitioner was later
produced before the Ld. Magistrate, Cantonment,
Pune, the police sought the custody of the Petitioner
by citing provisions under the Indian Penal Code. The
Petitioner was released on bail thankfully due to
adequate knowledge of the law by the Ld. Magistrate.
All of these events occurred within a period of 30
days from the coronary bypass surgery of the
Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the
present Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India, especially after seeing more examples of the
blatant violation of fundamental rights that have
come up recently.
H. That the Petitioner has raised the following Questions
of Law in the present Petition:
a. When technology is so advanced and misuse of the
advancement of technology is possible even by
minors, and where such misuse can directly affect the
fundamental rights of victims of misuse, whether the
Union and State Governments are duty bound to
provide safeguards to protect the fundamental rights
of citizens?
b. When investigating agencies such as the police are
duty bound to prevent unnecessary harassment of
citizens during the course of investigation or even
otherwise, can the Judiciary remain a silent spectator
when citizens are being harassed on account of
misuse of technology and ignorance of everybody
involved in the investigating mechanism and the
administration of justice?
c. Whether in the current state of lack of clarity in the
law and in investigative procedures, and lack of
safeguards against abuse of investigative procedures
not suited to tackle modern-day cyber crime, whether
the Judiciary is in a position to deal with offences of
misuse of Information technology and to protect the
fundamental rights of citizens?
d. Whether the Judiciary can remain a silent spectator
when fundamental rights of the freedom of speech
and expression, the right to life and personal liberty,
equality before the law and equal protection of the
law are being encroached upon regularly by the
investigative machinery either on account of
ignorance or mala fide intentions?
e. When Information technology is a part of everyday
life in society, and where inadvertent or intentional
misuse of such technology can lead to the
harassment of citizens for no fault of theirs, whether
the intervention of this Hon'ble Court has become
necessary in the public interest and whether
appropriate directions should be issued by the
Hon'ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India?
f. When it is the duty of this Hon'ble Court, as well as all
other courts in India to protect and safeguard the
fundamental rights of citizens, and where the same
are being violated by the police through arbitrary and
/ or ignorant exercise of power under the IT Act, or
through the misuse of its provisions by persons,
whether the intervention of this Hon'ble Court has
become necessary?
I. That India has over the years emerged as a global
hub for information technology. Computers and the
internet are no longer largely an urban phenomenon,
and with the advent of mobile internet using cellular
phones and internet dialers, the numbers of people
using computers and internet resources in India have
grown at a staggering rate. However, the Petitioner
states that though technology continues to advance
at a continually accelerating pace, the legal
framework within which the users of technology are
to operate is failing to catch up or keep up. This has
resulted in a complete lack of uniformity in cyber
security control and enforcement practices.
J. That the legislature has sought to make ambitious
strides in the field of information technology
regulation by augmenting the IT Act with
amendments and rules. The Act itself has given a
kind of global jurisdiction to the courts in India to try
cyber offences that take place even outside India.
Section 75 of the IT Act makes the Act applicable to
offences committed outside India, if such offences
involve computers, computer systems or computer
network located in India. The nature of cyber crime
and the ability of perpetrating cyber crimes from and
in remote or far off locations may have called for such
an approach of jurisdiction without boundaries.
However, even this aspect opens the field for
rampant misuse allowing miscreants or trouble
makers to harass people. The Petitioner states and
submits that when courts can try cyber offences in
such a flexible manner, there is an urgent need to
provide statutory or regulatory safeguards to prevent
abuse of the process of law by miscreants or
troublemakers seeking to exploit the possibility of
such jurisdictional ubiquity.
K. That, on account of the wide penetration and reach of
the internet, there can be instances where a person
based in say, Jammu is accused of a cyber crime in
say Kanyakumari, though he may not have
committed or even be aware of any such offence.
However, on account of the jurisdictional flexibility of
the IT Act, a criminal offence can be registered and
tried against him in Kanyakumari, and he will have to
face the utter humiliation of arrest, a criminal trial
and the cost and inconvenience of travelling to and
fro from his home or place of residence to another
place to attend court dates.
L. That the internet has facilitated communication and
exchange of information and services in an
unprecedented and incredibly widespread manner,
such that people from every part of the world can
easily connect and communicate with each other.
However, the easy availability and relative anonymity
of cyberspace have also led to a vast and ever
increasing cesspool of new offences loosely termed
as cyber offences. Moreover, the proliferation and
popularisation of user friendly services such as
electronic mail, social networking websites, internet
banking, e-commerce, e-governance, etc. have made
it not only possible, but also very easy for practically
anybody to commit a cyber offence, though that is
not the intention of such services. Often people are
even unaware that they may be committing an
offence through their activities, and on occasion
certain activities are categorised as offences only
after they come to light.
M. That, on the other hand, that there are countless
examples of misuse of information technology, and
the possibility of mala fide misuse has become
increasingly simpler with newer technologies. It is
possible today for a person sitting in any part of the
country to create trouble for others in any other part
of the country or indeed the world. The following
activities, for example, can be done easily by almost
anybody with some minimal knowledge of computers
and relevant software:
a. Hacking into someone’s computer system and using
his personal data, email ids, etc.;
b. Misusing email or other IDs in working organisations;
c. Sending emails / messages from someone else’s IT
system or cell phone;
d. Creating false profiles of persons on social networking
websites and putting up pornographic images or
spurious or scandalous messages in the name of such
persons;
e. Publicly defaming people over the internet
It is not only ordinary citizens that are victims of such
misuse. The Government and private enterprises also
face cyber attacks. The Petitioner submits that even
the website of the Tata Consultancy Services, a
premier IT services solutions company and India’s
largest software exporter, was hacked into in early
2010 and a message stating “This domain name is for
sale” was displayed on the website. It took three days
before the message could be removed from the
website, if media reports are to be believed. Another
major example as reported in newspapers is that on
December 9, 2011, hackers broke into the official
website of the Indian National Congress and put a
pornographic message in the profile page of Mrs.
Sonia Gandhi.
N. That in such circumstances, it is not merely logical
but also imperative that specialized law and
investigating procedures are required to be made to
effectively deal with cyber offences. Such law and
procedures must also be able to distinguish any
inadvertent lapses from mala fide offences without
harassing innocent citizens. The Petitioner submits
that to meet this requirement, the Government of
India enacted the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Thereafter, the ever changing landscape of
information technology and the increasing array of
cyber offences prompted the Central Government to
pass the Information Technology (Amendment) Act in
2008, wherein many new penal provisions were
introduced and an effort was made to empower the
police by allowing policemen of at least sub-inspector
rank to investigate cyber offences. However, no
investigation procedures were prescribed to tackle
complex cyber offences.
O. That while the threat of cyber crime is only
increasing, the threat to civil liberty in the name of
cyber crime is also becoming increasingly apparent,
though this is not an aspect that has been focused
upon in the prevalent law and investigative
mechanism. According to statistics recently released
by the National Crimes Record Bureau and the Indian
Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In),
over 14,000 websites have been hacked in India till
October in the year 2012 alone. 294 websites
belonging to various ministries and government
departments were hacked between January and
October 2012. In terms of cases registered, in 2009,
2010 and 2011, 696, 1322 and 2213 cases were
respectively registered under the IT Act and IPC
provisions used to tackle cyber crime. The Petitioner
submits that, in 2011, a total of 1,184 persons were
arrested for alleged cyber crimes under the I.T. Act,
and 446 persons were arrested under IPC sections
being used to tackle cyber crime. Thus, in 2011
alone, 1630 persons were arrested on allegations of
cyber crime. Out of these, 496 cases were registered
for alleged obscene publication / transmission in
electronic form, and 443 persons were arrested.
Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure 'P-2'
(Pages to )is a copy of a newspaper article with
the aforesaid statistics published on the website of
the Indian Express newspaper at the link
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/over-14000-
websites-hacked-in-this-year-till-oct-govt/1046050 as
last visited on 18.01.2013 at around 08:26 a.m.
P. That the official statistics that are placed in the
previous para only cover the reported cases of cyber
crime. However, most cases of cyber crime are never
reported to the police, and only a fraction of the
reported cases are lodged as FIRs.
Q. That for the specific purpose of the present Petition,
the Petitioner would like to place before this Hon'ble
Court the concept of Internet Protocol or IP
addresses. Accordingly, the Petitioner states as
under:
a. The Petitioner states that an IP address is a code
made up of numbers separated by three dots that
identifies a particular computer on the internet. Every
computer requires an IP address to connect to the
internet.
b. Internet service providers typically provide dynamic
IP addresses, i.e. IP addresses which change every
time a user logs on to the internet.
c. As of today, the system of IP addresses commonly
used is known as Internet Protocol Version 4 or IPv4,
and this system is also used by internet service
providers in India for the internet services provided
by them. The Petitioner states that as per the IPv4
system, theoretically the possible number of unique
IP address combinations is 4,294,967,296 (Four
Hundred Twenty Nine Crores Forty Nine Lakhs Sixty
Seven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Six), but in
practice the number of IP addresses actually used are
far less. Every internet service provider is provided
with a limited number of IP addresses which it can
then allot to its customer pool.
d. Since the IP addresses are limited in number and the
number of users of the internet is ever increasing, the
internet service providers provide dynamic IP
addresses so that the same IP address is allotted to
multiple users, and each user gets a different IP
address every time he logs onto the internet. Any
user who desires a fixed or static IP address has to
apply for the same from the internet service provider
and has to pay separate charges for the same.
e. Since every computer that connects to the internet
must have an IP address that can be traced,
therefore, the IP address of a user is such data which
can identify or purports to identify a person who is
using the said IP address at a given point of time.
R. That keeping the above technical information in
mind, the Petitioner humbly wishes to place his own
case before this Hon'ble Court as an illustration of
how the police and cyber crime investigative forces
and even internet service providers are following
haphazard methods of investigation with total
disregard to the fundamental and legal rights of an
unsuspecting public. The Petitioner is placing his case
before this Hon'ble Court to display the urgent and
imminent need for this Court to intervene and give
directions to the appropriate authorities to frame
proper rules of investigation and to safeguard the
rights of citizens from being abused by investigative
authorities, particularly in light of the stringent
provisions of the IT Act and their wide ambits.
S. That the Petitioner is a Managing Director of a small
scale company by name Decon Equipment & Systems
Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner purchased for official purpose
a data card / dialer issued by Tata Teleservices (Mah)
Ltd., which is an Internet Service Provider (for short
the ‘ISP’).
T. That the Petitioner had undergone a coronary artery
bypass grafting surgery in March 1, 2011 to clear 4
blockages in his heart. He was discharged from his
hospital in Pune on March 10, 2011. However, prior to
his discharge, he was approached by the police and
was told that an offence is registered under Section
66C of the IT Act for creating a false profile of a lady
(hereinafter the ‘Complainant’) on the social
networking website called Facebook. The Petitioner
has not disclosed the name of the Complainant in the
Memo of the Petition in order to protect her identity.
The police informed the Petitioner, to the latter’s
great shock and surprise, that the USB internet
dialer / data card purchased by the Petitioner from
the ISP was used to create a false account of the
Complainant on Facebook.
U. That the Petitioner deployed an officer from his
company to get details of the criminal case. The
Petitioner states that from the information gathered
by him he came to know that the Complainant is the
original complainant in CR. No. 3265 of 2010 lodged
in the Wanavdi police station, Pune. The Complainant
had also lodged a separate complaint before the
Cyber Crime Cell of the Crime Branch in Pune by
Letter dated August 31, 2010 alleging that her
husband who was seeking a divorce from her had
made a false Facebook profile in her name and had
uploaded her photograph on to the said profile and
was posting defamatory things about her on
Facebook. It was also further alleged in the complaint
that her husband was calling her on her landline
telephone and was abusing her with foul language.
The said written complaint was registered as
Application No. 194 of 2010 by the Cyber Crime Cell,
Crime Branch, Pune. The Petitioner is in possession of
the said Application No, 194 of 2010 and the same
can be tendered. However, the Petitioner has not
annexed the same at this time to protect the identity
of the Complainant. The Petitioner craves leave of
this Hon'ble Court to produce the said document if
required.
V. That from the case records gathered by the
Petitioner, it appears that on September 15, 2010,
the Cyber Crime Cell, while investigating the
Application No. 194 of 2010 filed by the Complainant,
sent a Letter to the Chief Technical Officer of
Facebook under Section 91 Cr.P.C. requesting certain
details in respect of two Facebook profiles, one
allegedly created in the name of one Mr. Karun
Malhotra and the other allegedly created in the name
of the Complainant. Thereafter, on September 25,
2010, the Cyber Crime Cell sent an email to Facebook
containing an identical request for information on the
given Facebook profiles. Hereto annexed and marked
as Annexure ‘P-3’ colly. (Page to )are copies
of the Letter dated September 15, 2010 and the
email dated September 25, 2010 of the Cyber Crime
Cell.
W. That by an email dated October 17, 2010, Facebook
replied and provided the first login dates for the two
Facebook profiles for which the Cyber Crime Cell had
asked for details. The date indicated by Facebook for
both the logins was “08/10/10”. Facebook also gave
the IP addresses from which the two profiles had
been created. From the information provided, it
seemed that the two profiles were created from the
same IP address, i.e. 123.252.208.209, on the same
day. However, Facebook stated that on account of
technical limitations, it could not attest to the
completeness of any IP logs provided. Hereto
annexed and marked as Annexure 'P-4' (Page to
)is a copy of the email dated October 17, 2010 of
Facebook.
X. That based on information received from Facebook,
the Cyber Crime Cell sent Letter dated October 21,
2010 to the ISP, asking for certain login details such
as physical address of the user of the IP address
123.252.208.209, name of the subscriber, type of
internet connectivity, etc. The date of login for which
the Cyber Crime Cell asked the details was given as
August 10, 2010. The Petitioner states that for the
purpose of the letter dated October 21, 2010 to the
ISP, the Cyber Crime Cell had assumed that the date
of first login provided by Facebook, viz. “08/10/10”
was in the month-day-year format and referred to
August 10, 2010. Hereto annexed and marked as
Annexure 'P-5' (Page no. to ) is a copy of letter
dated October 21, 2010 of the Cyber Crime Cell.
Y. That on October 22, 2010 the Cyber Crime Cell
sought a clarification via email from Facebook on the
format of the date given by Facebook in its email
dated October 17, 2010, i.e. whether the date was
given in day-month-year format or month-day-year
format, and accordingly was the date indicated by
Facebook October 8, 2010 or August 10, 2010. The
Cyber Crime Cell also sought a clarification on the
time format. Hereto annexed and marked as
Annexure 'P-6' (Pages no. to )is a copy of email
dated October 22, 2010 of the Cyber Crime Cell. The
Petitioner submits that the Cyber Crime Cell sought
the aforesaid clarification from Facebook only after
sending a request for details to the ISP as mentioned
in the preceding sub-para, thereby displaying
negligence at this stage of the investigation itself.
Z. That thereafter, on December 1, 2010, the
Complainant lodged a complaint at the Wanavdi
Police Station which was numbered as Cr. No. 3265 of
2010 under Section 66C of the IT Act, Pune. In the
said complaint, the Complainant alleged that an
unknown person had created a false Facebook
account profile in her name, had uploaded her
photograph onto the said profile and had posted
defamatory material in her name online. The
Petitioner states that in the said complaint, the
Complainant mentioned the marital problems with
her husband, but did not accuse him of creating the
false Facebook profile, although she had made this
accusation in her Application No. 194 of 2010 filed
with the Cyber Crime Cell, Pune. She also failed to
disclose the existence of the Application No. 194 of
2010 in the said complaint. The Petitioner is in
possession of the said FIR and the same can be
tendered. However, the Petitioner has not annexed
the same at this time to protect the identity of the
Complainant. The Petitioner craves leave of this
Hon'ble Court to produce the said document if
required.
AA. The Petitioner states that the offence for which the
said Cr. No. 3265 of 2010 was registered was Section
66C of the IT Act. The said Section 66C reads as
under:
“Section 66C. Punishment for identity theft. (Inserted Vide ITA 2008):Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the
electronic signature, password or any other unique
identification feature of any other person, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one
lakh.”
The Petitioner states that from the Section quoted
above, it is clear that for the offence to have been
committed there must be fraudulent or dishonest use
of an electronic signature, password, or any other
unique identification feature of a person.
BB. That the Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi Police
station sent a Letter dated December 18, 2010 to
Facebook asking for login details of the creator of the
alleged false profile, giving nothing more than the
name of the Complainant. By an email dated
December 20, 2010, Facebook replied that it could
not provide the required details based only the name
of the Complainant, and that the Investigating Officer
needed to give additional identification information,
such as user ID number and email address. From the
records obtained by the Petitioner, it appears that the
Investigating Officer did not correspond with
Facebook after this. The Petitioner is in possession of
the aforesaid correspondence between the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station
and Facebook and the same can be tendered.
However, since the same mention the name of the
Complainant, the Petitioner has not annexed the
same at this time to protect the identity of the
Complainant. The Petitioner craves leave of this
Hon'ble Court to produce the said document if
required
CC. That the aforesaid correspondence between the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station
and Facebook itself shows the level of ignorance and
the insufficiency of technical knowledge prevailing in
the police ranks, even in an IT hub like Pune, and the
need for urgent intervention of this Hon'ble Court to
regularize proper and appropriate procedures for
investigating cyber offences, and to direct the
appropriate ministries, departments and services to
spread awareness among investigating agencies.
DD. That thereafter, the Investigating Officer sent a Letter
dated December 24, 2010 to the ISP asking for details
of the user of the IP address 123.252.208.209 for the
date “10/10/2010”. The Petitioner states that the
Cyber Crime Cell had through its Letter dated October
21, 2010 (Annexure ‘P-5’ herein) had requested the
ISP to provide details for the same IP address, albeit
for a different date. The Petitioner states that the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station
obtained the said IP address or the login and logout
times indicated by him in his letter dated December
24, 2010 from the Cyber Crime Cell which had been
investigating the alleged offence under the
Application No. 194 of 2010. Hereto annexed and
marked as Annexure 'P-7'(Page no. to ) is a
copy of the letter dated December 24, 2010 of the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station.
EE. That the said Investigating Officer sent another letter
dated December 30, 2010 to the ISP asking for details
of the user of the same IP address, i.e.
123.252.208.209. However, in this letter the
Investigating Officer indicated the date of use of the
said IP address as “10/09/2010”. The Petitioner states
that the date of the Letter stated at the top of the
Letter is indicative of the fact that the Investigating
Officer was stating the date in the day-month-time
format and, therefore, it appears that the
Investigating Officer requested the login details of the
user of the said IP address for the date September 10,
2010. The Petitioner states that states that there is
nothing on record to indicate the basis for this date.
Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure 'P-8'
(Pages no. to )is a copy of letter dated December
30, 2010 of the Investigating Officer.
FF. That thereafter on February 15, 2011, Facebook
replied to the email dated October 22, 2010 of the
Cyber Crime Cell, informing the latter that the
information provided by it in respect of date of first
login of the false profiles was in a year-month-day
format. The Petitioner states that, therefore, it is clear
from the emails dated October 17, 2010 (Annexure
‘P-4’ herein) and February 15, 2011 that the date of
first login of the false profiles created by the user of
the IP address 123.252.208.209, indicated by
Facebook to be “08/10/10” was in fact October 10,
2008. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure 'P-
9'(Pages no. to ) is a copy of the email dated
February 15, 2011 of Facebook.
GG. That the Cyber Crime Cell & the Investigating Officer
of the Wanavdi police station had been working
together in the investigation of the Cr. No. 3265 of
2010. However, despite the clarification received
from Facebook in the email dated February 15, 2011
regarding the date of first login of the false profiles,
the said investigating agencies failed to investigate
the date given by Facebook, viz. October 10, 2008.
Instead the Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi
police station sent another Letter dated February 18,
2011 to the ISP asking for login details once again of
the user of the same IP address, i.e.
123.252.208.209. This time, the Investigating Officer
gave the date of login as August 10, 2010. Hereto
annexed and marked as Annexure 'P-10' (Pages to
)is a copy of the letter dated February 18, 2011 of the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station.
HH. That by an email dated March 9, 2011, the ISP gave
details of the user of IP address 123.252.208.209.
From the copy of the email dated March 9, 2011 of
the ISP that the Petitioner has obtained from the
record of the case, it is clear that the same was in
reply to the email of the Investigating Officer of the
Wanavdi police station containing the letter dated
February 18, 2011 (Annexure ‘P-10’ herein). However,
although in the letter dated February 18, 2011 the
Investigating Officer had specifically requested for
details of the user of the said IP address for the date
August 10, 2010, yet for reasons best known to the
ISP, the date for which the information was given was
October 9, 2010, i.e. a completely different date from
what was requested. From the information provided
by the ISP, it is clear that on October 9, 2010,
between the hours 07:57:07 (i.e. 07:57 a.m.) and
18:20:06 (i.e. 06:20 p.m.) the IP address
123.252.208.209 was used by the internet dialer
owned by the Petitioner. Hereto annexed and marked
as Annexure 'P-11'(Pages no.___ to ____) is a copy of
email dated March 9, 2011 of the ISP in reply to the
email / letter dated February 18, 2011 of the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station.
II. That from the above sub-paras it is clear that the
police had on numerous occasions requested the ISP
which is an intermediary under the IT Act to provide
information in respect of usage details of the IP
address 123.252.208.209. The investigating agencies
consistently provided wrong information to the ISP in
the form of incorrect dates of the alleged creation of
a fake profile of the Complainant. The ISP, in turn,
provided IP login details for a completely different
date that was never even requested by the
investigating agencies. The report of the ISP does not
appear to have been looked at with even a minimal
degree of care, as the Petitioner was arrested merely
because his name appeared on the said report,
despite it giving login details for the wrong date. The
Petitioner, therefore, states and submits that the
entire investigation is vitiated by the negligence and
complete disregard shown by the investigating
agencies and the ISP for the fundamental and legal
rights of the Petitioner.
JJ. That upon obtaining the information of the Petitioner
from the ISP, and without even checking if the
information pertains to the date for which the
information was asked, the Investigating Officer of
the Wanavdi police station sent a Notice to the
Petitioner dated March 11, 2011 informing him that
Cr. No. 3265 of 2011 was registered against him
under Section 66-C of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 and that he was to remain present in the
Wanavdi Police station on March 14, 2011 at 11:00
a.m.
KK. That the Petitioner does not know the Complainant
nor has he ever seen her or does he have any relation
with her. The Petitioner did an internal check in his
Company and discovered that none of his employees
knew her either. The Petitioner further states that he
has never been on Facebook and does not have an
account on Facebook or on any other social
networking website. He is not even aware of how to
use Facebook. The Petitioner, therefore, states that it
is inconceivable that he could have created a false
profile of a person he has never met, on a social
networking website that he does not know how to
use, in the space of 10 minutes, i.e. between 09:52
a.m. to 10:02 a.m. August 10, 2010 as informed by
the ISP.
LL. That the Petitioner has even tried to get information
from the ISP in order to prove his innocence and non-
involvement in any cyber crime. However, the ISP has
refused to provide information to the Petitioner of the
IP addresses for the Petitioner’s own account despite
repeated requests of the Petitioner, and even after
the Petitioner had specifically placed before the ISP
that the information had been provided by the ISP to
the police and the police were harassing the
Petitioner on account of the same. The unequal
treatment given by the ISP to the Petitioner is evident
from the correspondence between the Petitioner and
the ISP, which is annexed herewith at Annexure ‘P-
12’.
MM. That the Petitioner was being constantly harassed by
the police after the Investigating Officer was given his
name by the ISP. He was refused anticipatory bail on
account of the fact that the offence registered against
him under the IT Act is bailable. That the Petitioner
was arrested on April 19, 2011 and was taken to
JMFC, Cantonment, Pune. The Petitioner filed an
Application for bail, yet for reasons best known to the
Investigating Officer, custody of the Petitioner was
sought for recovery of the USB dialer / data card,
laptop computer of the Petitioner and other details as
the police required. However the Ld. Magistrate was
pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner. Thereafter the
police filed the chargesheet on April 27, 2011 in the
court of the Ld. JMFC, Cantonment, Pune. The
Petitioner is in possession of the said chargesheet
and the same can be tendered. However, the
Petitioner has not annexed the same at this time to
protect the identity of the Complainant. The
Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to
produce the said document if required.
NN. That the Ld. JMFC issued process against the
Petitioner on the same date, i.e. April 27, 2011,
without examining the documents on record which
clearly revealed that the Petitioner had been named
as an accused only on account of the negligence of
the investigating agencies and the ISP. The Petitioner,
therefore, states that the order of issue of process
was passed without application of mind, without
proper appreciation of the materials on record.
OO. That from the facts stated in the paras above and the
official record of Cr. No. 3265 of 2010 on the file of
the Ld. JMFC, Cantonment, Pune, the Petitioner
submits that the lapses and negligence of the
investigating agencies, the ISP and even the Ld. JMFC
are crystal clear. The Petitioner has had to suffer the
humiliation and severe mental distress and pressure,
together the physical stress immediately following his
major cardiac surgery, of a full-scale criminal
investigation for no fault of his own.
PP. That it is clear from the facts stated above that
investigations were carried out for the same alleged
offence by two investigating agencies, i.e. the Cyber
Crime Cell, Pune and the Investigating Officer,
Wanavdi police station. Both the aforesaid agencies
sought information in the form of login details of the
user of the IP address 123.252.208.209, but they
sought the details for different dates, none of which
were the actual date as communicated by Facebook
on which the false profiles were allegedly created. It
is clear that the two authorities were working
together on the case since an officer in the Cyber
Crime Cell is named as a witness sought to be
examined in the chargesheet filed by the
Investigating Officer of the Wanavdi police station.
Further, the ISP, which is an intermediary as defined
under the IT Act, and which is statutorily bound to
observe due diligence while discharging its duties
under Section 79(2)(c) of the IT Act, gave the login
details of the user of the said IP address for the wrong
date, which is the reason the Petitioner’s name came
into the picture in the first place. On account of the
negligence and disorganized investigations carried
out by the authorities and the further negligence of
the intermediary, as well as the faulty chargesheet
filed before the Ld. JMFC, Cantonment, Pune, the Ld.
JMFC, without applying his mind to the materials on
record, passed the order of issue of process against
the Petitioner. Consequently, the Petitioner continues
to suffer the stress and indignity of a full scale
investigation and criminal proceeding against him,
which is having an adverse impact on his fragile
health.
QQ. That in light of the repeated lapses on the part of the
police investigators and the terror and torment that
such lapses pose to the ordinary persons who
become victims of the same, it is absolutely essential
that the State Government and the Central
Government issue appropriate guidelines and
safeguards for investigating cyber crimes and ensure
that the same are being strictly adhered to so as to
reign in the investigation agencies and protect the
rights of innocent civilians. For this purpose, the
Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court seeking
orders directing the appropriate Government to issue
the said guidelines and safeguards for investigating
cyber crimes. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed the
present Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India.
RR. That internet service providers are nothing but
intermediaries as defined in Section 2(w) of the IT
Act. Section 79 of the IT Act provides that an
intermediary, inter alia, is not liable under the IT Act
under the circumstances prescribed under the said
Section. However, there is no specific provision in the
Act for punishing the intermediaries for negligence or
for giving wrong information to State investigating
agencies, despite the fact that such negligence or
wrong information can directly lead to infringement of
the fundamental and statutory rights of citizens, as
has happened in the case of the Petitioner. Therefore,
the Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court
seeking orders directing the appropriate Government
to issue rules of accountability of intermediaries such
as internet service providers and expressly provide
for punishing the intermediaries for negligence in the
discharge of their duties.
SS. That the Petitioner has been keeping himself abreast
of some of the latest examples of abuse of the IT Act
by investigative agencies and the consequent
injustice that has been perpetrated on citizens. If
media reports are to be believed, the Central
Government has given a kind of directive to the
police that arrests under Section 66A of the IT Act
should not be made without the approval of senior
police officers. However, there is no such directive
published by the Government, and in any case it is
very narrow and does not consider the possibility of
abuse of the other provisions of the IT Act. Being
aggrieved by the failure of the Central and State
Government to provide regulatory measures to give
adequate safeguards to citizens from harassment by
investigating agencies, and to check the lack of
accountability of intermediaries, the Petitioner has
filed the present Petition before this Hon'ble Supreme
Court on the following among other grounds, each of
which is distinct and without prejudice to any other:
GROUNDS
I. Because there is urgent need for the Central
Government and State Governments to provide
regulatory safeguards to prevent abuse of the IT Act
and the provisions of the IPC used to tackle cyber
offences in order to protect innocent citizens such as
the Petitioner from facing needless prosecution and
violation of fundamental rights;
II. Because the majority of the police force is not trained
or even aware of how to deal with cyber offences,
which results in their adopting conventional means of
investigation that are totally unsuited to dealing with
such offences, and also leads to arbitrary and
excessive exercise of state power and accordingly,
violate fundamental rights of citizens;
III. Because the Central and State Governments have not
provided any safeguards to protect the fundamental
rights and freedoms of citizens which are threatened
by rampant misuse, abuse and misplaced application
of penal provisions of the IT Act and the IPC used to
tackle cyber offences;
IV. Because as evidenced by the gross negligence of the
investigating agencies and the ISP in the case of the
Petitioner, even specialized units of the police set up
to tackle cyber crime are operating without following
any proper procedure with inherent checks and
balances and are initiating criminal proceedings
based on faulty or no proper evidence, which is
leading to gross abuse of fundamental rights of
citizens such as the Petitioner;
V. Because the lack of any concrete regulatory
provisions to ensure accountability of intermediaries
such as Internet Service Providers in case of
providing incorrect information to the police of cyber
offences is itself an instance of violation of the
fundamental rights of citizens, since such incorrect
information can and has led to the wrongful
deprivation of personal liberty of persons, with no
statutory repercussion on the intermediaries, as can
be seen from the case of Airtel providing the wrong IP
address leading to the arrest and incarceration of a
software engineer in Bangalore, as well as the case of
Tata Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. giving the name of the
Petitioner to the police for use of an IP address but for
the wrong date of use;
VI. Because the police department and intermediaries
such as internet service providers need to be
provided with concrete regulatory frameworks
designed to allow them the flexibility necessary to
effectively investigate cyber crime and to also restrict
and take them to task if they do not adhere to
properly established procedures that are not violative
of fundamental and legal rights of citizens;
VII. Because despite the most recent controversies and
arrests of citizens for seemingly innocuous
statements on social networking websites, or even
the attempts by the Government as well as politicians
to remove content from social networking websites or
the internet by deeming the same objectionable, the
executive will to spread education and awareness of
cyber laws is badly lacking, leading to abuse of the
law and violation of fundamental rights since the
citizens are uninformed and the police are untrained;
VIII. Because the Department of Electronics and
Information Technology, Ministry of Communications
and Information Technology, Government of India has
published various rules and guidelines on its website
located at the web address http://deity.gov.in.
However, the Petitioner apprehends, based on his
own experience and information gathered by him,
that the Government is not implementing the rules
framed by the Department and there is little or no
awareness of such rules among the law enforcement
agencies, the intermediaries or even the judiciary;
IX. Because while internet content regulation is
important to protect intellectual property, online
commercial transactions, to prevent trafficking,
defamation, sale of illegal drugs or items, etc., such
regulation cannot be done, at the cost of fundamental
and legal rights and privacy of citizens, through
draconian and / or ignorant application of provisions
of law;
X. Because the judiciary, particularly the lower judiciary
handling cyber offences at the first instance, must be
made aware of the specialized provisions of law
relating to cyber crimes, and there is an urgent need
for guidelines even for the judiciary in tackling cases
relating to cyber crime so that no citizen is made to
be a victim of criminal prosecution initiated on the
basis of vague or inadequate evidence, grossly
shoddy police work, personal and political vendettas,
moral policing or vested interests;
XI. Because the Respondents have not been proactive in
safeguarding the rights of citizens who are being
victimized by the draconian application of penal laws
relating to information technology and the
intervention of this Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
form of guidelines to protect innocent citizens from
undue harassment is urgently needed;
TT. That the present Petitioner has not filed any other
petition in any High Court or the Supreme Court of
India on the subject matter of the present Petition.
PRAYER
In the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner most
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of a
writ of mandamus, or any appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondents to frame an appropriate
regulatory framework of Rules, regulations and
guidelines for effective investigation of cyber crimes,
keeping in mind the fundamental rights of citizens;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ in the nature of a
writ of mandamus, or any appropriate writ, order or
direction to the Respondents to carry out proper and
widespread awareness campaigns particularly for
investigating agencies, intermediaries such as
internet service providers and the judiciary, regarding
the various forms of cyber crime sought to be
criminalized by the IT Act or any other penal law used
to tackle cyber crime;
c) Pending disposal of this Petition issue guidelines to be
followed by the investigating agencies and the
judiciary in handling cyber crime cases, so that the
fundamental rights of citizens can be protected from
needless abuse by investigating agencies and
intermediaries;
d) pass any other or further orders as may be deemed fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL, AS
IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.
Drawn by:- Mr. Abhya Nevagi, FILED BYAdvocate
( KRISHAN KUMAR)ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
New DelhiDrafted on : 21.12.2012Filed on : 24.12.2012