Cyber Laws & IT Act (Updated)
Cyber Laws & IT Act (Updated)
Cyber Laws & IT Act (Updated)
1
Fenstermaker, S., West, C. and Zimmerman, D.H., 2002. Gender inequality: New conceptual terrain. Doing
gender, doing difference: Inequality, power, and institutional change, pp.25-39.
2
Sneha Annavarapu, Hetero-Normativity in Rape: Mapping the Construction of Gender and Sexuality in the Rape
Legislations in India, International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences- Official Journal of the South Asian Society
of Criminology and Victimology, Vol. 8(2): 248-264.
1|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
Section 72A. Punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract. – Save
as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person
including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has
secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the
intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses,
without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to
any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.
FINDINGS- Section 72A of ‘THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000’
prescribes the punishment for disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract. Though it
uses ‘any person including an intermediary’, it becomes inconsistent when it uses the word
‘he’ while discussing wrongful loss or wrongful gain. The suggestive interpretation of the
provision becomes that only a ‘male’ is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain without
the consent of the person and shall be punished for the offence. This is flawed because it assumes
that the victim can be any person but the wrongdoer be only male.
2|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
3|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
Section 79. Exemption from liability of intermediary in certain cases. – (1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any law for the time being in force but subject to the provisions of sub-
sections (2) and (3), an intermediary shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or
communication link made available or hosted by him.
(2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply if–
(a) the function of the intermediary is limited to providing access to a communication system
over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored or
hosted; or
(b) the intermediary does not–
(i) initiate the transmission,
(ii) select the receiver of the transmission, and
(iii) select or modify the information contained in the transmission;
(c) the intermediary observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also
observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply if–
(a) the intermediary has conspired or abetted or aided or induced, whether by threats or promise
or otherwise in the commission of the unlawful act;
(b) upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its
agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer
resource controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the
intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource
without vitiating the evidence in any manner.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, the expression ―third party information‖ means
any information dealt with by an intermediary in his capacity as an intermediary.
FINDINGS- Section 79 of ‘THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000’ talks about
the exemption from liability of intermediary in certain areas. The first provision is a ‘Non-
Obstante’ clause. The conditions to be met in order to absolve liability on the part of
intermediary is specified in provisions (2) and (3). However, the usage of the word ‘him’
concretizes the fact that the intermediary is assumed to be a ‘male’. This is consistent throughout
the Section and can be observed in proviso (2) (c) as well as the ‘Explanation’ provided under
this Section. The Section suggests that if a person, who is a ‘female’ or a ‘third gender’ works
as an intermediary and fulfills all the conditions as laid down under provisions (2) and (3), they
could still he made liable. This section fails to recognize them under the ambit of law.
4|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
Section 85. Offences by companies. – (1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of
the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder is a company, every
person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible
to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be
guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to
punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he
exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the
provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a
company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance
of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other
officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to
be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly.
Explanation.–For the purposes of this section,–
(i) ―company‖ means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals;
and
(ii) ―director‖, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
FINDINGS- Section 85 of ‘THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000’ talks about
offences by companies. The provision 1 of this Section prescribes an exception which if met
would not render any liability upon the person. However, the provision is highly inconsistent. It
uses a gender specific term three times in the exception rule. The interpretation suggests that
only a ‘male’ can take the defence of this exception rule and absolve liability. If the person is
anyone, other than a male, this exception rule would fail to apply to that person.
5|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
6|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
7|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
Also, posting/informing content identified with sex entertainment against the desire of a
Women or mentioning sexual favours are deserving of a fine alongside three years of detainment
under a similar arrangement.
8|Page
Cyber Law & IT Act
Almost all the Above Sections of The IPC and IT Act are Women Centric and also some sections
are only Male-Female Oriented. The question that arises here is that how a person of different
gender than the later and former can file a suit and seek justice. Thus we need to achieve gender
neutrality and one of the best way is to use gender neutral language.
9|Page