Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Government of NCT of Delhi: What the Supreme Court Really Said About Obscene Content Online

This case started because a dirty MMS clip of a schoolgirl and a boy was listed for sale on the now-defunct e-commerce platform, Bazee.com, back in 2004. It made national news at the time. The listing was up for around 38 hours, and the Delhi Police acted fast. They filed cases under various laws, including Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with selling obscene material.

One of the people caught in this was Sharat Babu Digumarti, a senior employee at Bazee.com in charge of “Trust and Safety.” In other words, he was supposed to keep illegal or offensive content off the site. He didn’t upload the clip, but since it went live and stayed there, he got booked for not stopping it.

Why Was This Even a Supreme Court Case?

At first, charges were filed under Section 292 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, which specifically covers obscene material shared online.

Later, the Delhi court dropped the IT Act charges. But strangely, the police continued prosecuting Digumarti under the IPC’s Section 292.

That’s where the Supreme Court stepped in.

What the Court Actually Said — Straight and Clear

Here’s what the Supreme Court decided in 2016:

• If a crime involves online content, then the Information Technology Act applies. 
• And if the IT Act applies, you can’t also charge the person under the IPC for the same offense. 
• The IT Act is a special law for all things electronic. IPC is a general law. 
• Special laws override general laws. That’s how Indian law works. 

So the Court said: Since Digumarti was already dealt with under the IT Act, he shouldn’t have been prosecuted again under IPC Section 292.

They called that “double jeopardy” — being punished twice for the same act. And it’s not allowed.

Verdict: The IPC charges were quashed (cancelled). Digumarti walked free on that front.

What This Case Means for Indian Cyber Law

This case wasn’t just about one guy and one video. It clarified something bigger:

1. You Can’t Mix Laws When It Comes to Online Offenses

If a crime involves the internet or electronic content, then the IT Act is what matters. You can’t mix it up with older, more general laws like the IPC. That would be confusing, unfair, and legally wrong.

2. You Can’t Charge a Person Under Two Laws for the Same Thing

Even if two laws seem to apply, courts must pick the one that directly deals with the issue. In this case, since the IT Act specifically talks about online obscenity, that’s the one to use — not the IPC’s more general rule about obscene material.

3. The Role of Company Employees Is Under a Microscope

This case also raised questions about how much responsibility a company’s employee holds, especially in big tech companies. Just because someone’s job is to monitor content doesn’t mean they’re guilty of every slip-up. Courts need proof of intent, not just job title.

Why This Matters Even Now

Today, with so much digital content floating around — from social media to e-commerce — this case sets a clear line for police, lawyers, and platforms:

• Online crimes must be dealt with using online laws. 
• You can’t cherry-pick which law to use to make prosecution easier. 
• And if a law like the IT Act is already in place for a certain kind of offense, you stick to that. 

That clarity helps prevent overreach and misuse — something Indian law desperately needs in a digital-first world.

Final Takeaway

The Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of NCT of Delhi case is one of those decisions that reshaped how Indian law treats cybercrimes. It wasn’t about whether obscene content was wrong — everyone agreed it was. It was about how you punish the people involved and what legal tools you’re allowed to use.

The Supreme Court’s answer was simple: Use the right law for the right kind of crime. Don’t double-dip. And don’t bend the rules just to go after someone.

That decision didn’t just help Digumarti. It helped clean up a very grey area in Indian internet law.

If you want, I can help turn this into a downloadable guide or create a visual flow of how the court reached its decision — just say the word.