Information Technology Act 2000 Section 67: Publishing Obscene Material Electronically (2026)

Explainer · Cyber Law · IT Act

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 punishes publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form. "Obscene" means material that is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt those likely to see it. A first conviction can carry imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to five lakh rupees, and a repeat offence up to five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees. This explainer sets out what the section covers, how "obscene" is judged, the related sections 67A and 67B, the punishment, and the leading case. Last verified October 2026.

01The short answer

Section 67 makes it a crime to publish or transmit obscene material in electronic form, such as posting or sending obscene images, text or video online.

A first conviction can mean jail up to three years and a fine up to five lakh rupees. A second or later conviction can mean jail up to five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees. Sexually explicit and child content are dealt with more strictly under Sections 67A and 67B.

02What Section 67 says

Section 67 punishes any person who publishes or transmits, or causes to be published or transmitted, in electronic form, material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest, or whose effect is to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear it.

• Publishes covers making the material available online, such as uploading or posting it.
• Transmits covers sending it to others, such as through a message, email or group.
• Electronic form covers images, text, audio and video in any digital format.

The language carries forward the test for obscenity used in the Penal Code, applied to the online world.

03How "obscene" is judged

Indian courts no longer use the old Victorian test that judged a work by its effect on the most vulnerable reader. In Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014), the Supreme Court adopted the "community standards" test: material is judged as a whole, by the standards of a reasonable, contemporary Indian, and in its context, rather than by isolated passages or images.

So whether something is "obscene" under Section 67 depends on contemporary community standards and the context in which it appears, not on a single frame taken out of context.

04Section 67, 67A and 67B

The 2008 amendment split electronic obscenity into three sections of increasing seriousness.

Section 67B is the strict provision against child sexual abuse material, and it also punishes browsing, collecting and facilitating such content. These three sections are read together depending on how explicit the material is and whether a child is involved.

05Punishment and procedure

Under Section 67, a first conviction can carry imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to five lakh rupees. A second or subsequent conviction can carry imprisonment up to five years and a fine up to ten lakh rupees.

A police officer not below the rank of Inspector investigates offences under the Act under Section 78. The cognizable and bailable status follows Section 77B, under which offences punishable with three years or more are cognizable. Charges are often framed with Section 66E where privacy is also violated, and with the related provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

06Key case law

The leading case is Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2016). The Supreme Court held that where an obscene electronic record is involved, the IT Act is the special law and prevails over the general obscenity provision in Section 292 of the Penal Code. If a charge under Section 67 of the IT Act is not made out, the person cannot be prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for the same electronic record. The Court quashed the prosecution against the appellant.

This matters in practice: for obscene material in electronic form, Section 67 of the IT Act is the governing provision, not the general obscenity law. The earlier Avnish Bajaj v. State (the Baazee.com matter) and Aveek Sarkar round out how publishing liability and obscenity are judged online.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

How a Section 67 charge is likely to run, what counts as obscene, and when the IT Act displaces the Penal Code, all turn on rulings like Sharat Babu Digumarti and Aveek Sarkar. Claw lets you search more than 30 crore judgments and orders, with Supreme Court decisions from 1950 and High Court decisions from 1990, in under 5 seconds, so you can read these and later cases. You can also track a live FIR, charge sheet or appeal by party or advocate name across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, and get the next hearing date without scanning cause lists by hand. Claw does not use the documents you upload to train its AI models.

Create a free Claw account to track a Section 67 case or appeal and follow every hearing, and use case search across Indian courts to find how the offence has been applied in similar matters.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (Information Technology Act, 2000, bare text): indiacode.nic.in
• PRS Legislative Research (IT Act and amendments): prsindia.org
• Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY): meity.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions