q.1.

The IT Act, or the Information Technology Act, of 2000, is one of the most important laws in India that
governs cybercrime and electronic commerce. In the case described, artist X faces legal action from an
NGO under the IT Act for his painting titled 'Mother Teresa.' The IT Act provisions relevant to this case
include Section 67, which deals with the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic
form, and Section 69A, which provides for the power of the government to block public access to any
information online. Under Section 67 of the IT Act, any person who publishes or transmits any material
in electronic form that is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest, or is likely to deprave or corrupt
persons who are likely to read, see or hear the material, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to
three years and/or a fine. In the case of X, the painting of a nude woman in the form of the Indian map
with the Ashoka Chakra in her navel and the Himalayas on her hair can be considered obscene material
as it depicts a naked woman in a sexually suggestive manner. The fact that the painting is titled 'Mother
Teresa' may further worsen the situation, as Mother Teresa is a revered figure in India.

Under Section 69A of the IT Act, the government can order the blocking of access to any information on
the Internet if it considers it necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the
defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order or for
preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence. In the case of X, if the painting is
deemed to be against public order or incites the commission of a cognizable offence, the government
may block access to the website hosted by the painting. Therefore, X may face legal consequences under
both Section 67 and Section 69A of the IT Act for his painting titled 'Mother Teresa.'In several cases,
artists have faced legal action for obscenity under Section 67 of the IT Act. In the case of Aveek Sarkar v.
State of West Bengal (2014), the Supreme Court held that an image of a public figure with a black strip
covering their eyes and a tattoo of a Hindu goddess on their back was not obscene as it did not appeal to
prurient interests. However, in the case of Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1965), the Supreme
Court held that a book containing erotic literature was obscene and could be banned. In conclusion, X,
the artist, may face legal action under the IT Act for his painting titled 'Mother Teresa,' which may be
deemed as obscene material. The provisions of Section 67 and Section 69A may come into play, and the
artist may be liable for imprisonment and/or a fine.

Q2.

The Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 is the primary legislation in India that deals with cybercrimes,
including online harassment and stalking. In this scenario, W's ex-classmate, who runs a cyber café, is
responsible for posting W's photo, phone number, and email address on several websites and
forwarding the same to several WhatsApp groups to harass her. The provisions of the IT Act 2000 that
may be applicable in this case are:

Section 66C - Identity theft: The provision criminalizes the use of another person's identity to deceive or
defraud someone else. In this case, the accused used W's identity to post an advertisement, which
clearly violates this section.

Section 67 - Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form: The section criminalizes the
publication or transmission of any obscene material in electronic form. In this case, the accused posted
W's photo, phone number, and email address on several websites and forwarded the same to several
WhatsApp groups, which can be considered obscene material, making him liable under this section.
Section 67A - Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing the sexually explicit act,
etc., in electronic form: The provision criminalizes the publication or transmission of any material
containing sexually explicit acts in electronic form.

In this case, the accused posted an advertisement indicating that people could approach W for sexual
intimacy, which clearly violates this section. Substantiating with relevant case laws, in the case of Shreya
Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of Section 66A
of the IT Act, which criminalized the sending of offensive messages through a computer or other
communication devices. However, the Court also struck down this provision on the grounds of it being
vague, overbroad, and an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression. In
conclusion, W's ex-classmate, who posted W's photo, phone number, and email address on several
websites and forwarded the same to several WhatsApp groups to harass her, may be liable under
Section 66C, Section 67, and Section 67A of the IT Act, 2000. It is important to note that the IT Act is
comprehensive legislation, and other provisions may be invoked in cases of cybercrimes.

Q3.

Yes, P is liable under the IT Act for the unauthorized use of K's computer and digital signature to send an
email fraudulently. Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that "Whoever
fraudulently uses the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any
other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment of up to three years or with a fine which may
extend to two lakh rupees or with both." Here, P has used K's digital signature and computer without his
permission and has sent an email with the intention of deceiving his father into transferring a large sum
of money. This act is fraudulent and constitutes a punishable offence under the IT Act.

Moreover, Section 43 of the IT Act, 2000 also provides for compensation for damages caused by
unauthorized access to computer systems. Since P has accessed K's computer without authorization and
caused damages to K and his father, he is also liable to pay compensation for the same. In conclusion,
P's unauthorized access to K's computer and using his digital signature to send a fraudulent email
amount to a punishable offence under the IT Act, and he can be held liable for both imprisonment
and/or fine as compensation for damages.