Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today dismissed an advocate's public interest litigation seeking amendments in the Information Technology Act and Rules to provide stricter punishments for serious cyber crimes.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted that the petitioner was calling on the Court to "legislate" and therefore rejected the PIL as "misconceived".

During the hearing, the bench was amused when on a specific query, the petitioner (appearing in-person) conceded that he was seeking a "direction" to the Parliament. Justice Kant enquired from him about the number of years he had spent in practice, in response to which the petitioner informed that he had been practicing since a year.

Commenting that the Court does not have power to issue a direction to the Parliament, Justice Kant said in jest, "You want to confer Parliamentary power on us. We don't mind having that kind of power but unfortunately Constitution does not give it. We'd like you to come and enlighten us on that".

Ultimately, the bench dismissed the petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority to suggest what amendments, if any, are required.

The PIL was filed by one Harish Sharad Bhambare, an advocate practicing in Ahmednagar district court of Maharashtra. It sought a "direction" to the Parliament to amend the IT Act and Rules so that stricter punishment is prescribed for cyber offenses including financial fraud, data privacy violations, identity theft, offenses against children (e.g., cyber scamming, morphing, sextortion), and other emergent cybercrimes "to reflect their gravity, deter recidivism, and align with international best practices".

The petitioner further sought a direction mandating the Union government, in consultation with the Law Commission and Ministry of Electronics & IT, to prepare a statutory roadmap (within 6 months) for concrete legislative amendments, including:

- Tiered sentencing based on harm and severity;

- Mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders;

- Higher fines aligned with economic loss and global standards;

- Criminalization of possession of child pornography; and

- Provisions for digital restrictions and e-fencing post­ conviction.

Other reliefs sought by the petitioner included:

- A declaration that the current punishment ceilings under IT Act are arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and therefore void to the extent they fail to deter, punish, and rehabilitate cyber offenders;

- A direction to the Union government to establish specialized cyber courts and fast-track procedural mechanisms, supported by trained forensic and judicial personnel, to expedite trial of cyber offences in a time-bound manner.

As an interim measure, the petitioner demanded that no cybercrime defendant be released on bail without consideration of the gravity of economic or sexual offence and that high-value cyber fraud or child exploitation cases be designated as non-bailable offences, unless full restitution is made.

Case Title: ADV. HARISH SHARAD BHAMBARE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 711/2025