Q.1.

Explain spamming in the light of the verdict of the apex court in the matter of shreya
singhal vs union of india.
Ans. In the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India struck down Section
66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section had provisions for the arrest of those who
posted allegedly offensive content on social media or on the internet.
The case was triggered when two girls were arrested by Mumbai police in 2012 for expressing their
displeasure on Facebook against a bandh declared by Shiv Sena due to the death of their leader, Bal
Thackeray. One girl posted a statement criticizing the bandh and the other liked the post on social
media. They were arrested under Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.
The court observed that the expressions used in Section 66A were completely open-ended and
undefined. It was not covered under Article 19 (2) of the Indian Constitution, which pertains to reasonable
restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression. The court found that Section 66A had no proximate
connection or link with causing disturbance to public order or with incitement to commit an
offence. Therefore, it was struck down.
In the context of spamming, this verdict implies that while spamming can be annoying and
disruptive, it cannot be penalized under Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, as it was declared
unconstitutional. However, other legal provisions may still apply depending on the nature and
impact of the spamming activity. It’s important to note that while the freedom of speech and
expression is upheld, it should be exercised responsibly and not infringe upon the rights of
others.
Q.2. Explain the coverage of cyber offences under the POCSO Act with special emphasis on
the role of NCPCR and SCPCR.
Ans. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a comprehensive law to
provide for the protection of children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and
pornography, while safeguarding the interests of the child at every stage of the judicial process.
Cyber offences under the POCSO Act include illegal access into databases, system interference, data
interference, misuse of devices, forgery, and electronic scams. The Act also covers the transmission or
publication of child pornography. The Information Technology Act, 2000, penalizes the publishing or
transmission of material containing sexually explicit acts in electronic form.
The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) and the State Commission for
Protection of Child Rights (SCPCR) play a crucial role in the implementation of the POCSO Act. They are
mandated to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the Act. This includes ensuring the protection
of children from various acts like sexual assault, various harassments, and web pornography.
The NCPCR and SCPCR also have the responsibility to ensure that any cases of sexual harassment of
children are reported to the special Juvenile police units or the local police stations. These reports should
be recorded as a complaint in very simple terms of language because it enables to understand the contents
of the complaint by the child.
In conclusion, the POCSO Act provides a legal framework for the protection of children from
sexual offences, including those committed online. The NCPCR and SCPCR play a pivotal
role in ensuring the effective implementation of this Act.