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