When an Instagram post becomes a criminal complaint: defamation, Section 66A's ghost, and the takedown playbook that works in Gujarat
Section 66A of the IT Act is gone, but defamation under Sections 499/500 IPC, plus Section 67 IT Act for obscene material, are still actively prosecuted. A field guide to evidence, takedowns and intermediary notices.
The misconception
Many clients arrive convinced that 'Section 66A' will solve their online defamation complaint. It will not — the Supreme Court struck down 66A in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for being unconstitutionally vague. What remains, however, is a more nuanced and arguably more powerful set of provisions.
The instruments you can actually use
- Sections 499/500 IPC — criminal defamation. Imprisonment up to two years. Triable by Magistrate.
- Section 67 IT Act — publishing obscene material. Up to three years on first conviction.
- Section 67A IT Act — sexually explicit material. Up to five years.
- Section 354D IPC — stalking, including online stalking.
- Rule 3(1)(b) IT Intermediary Rules 2021 — mandatory takedown by platforms on receipt of grievance.
Evidence: the part where most cases are lost
Screenshots alone are no longer sufficient before a Magistrate. We instruct clients to: (a) preserve the original URL, (b) capture the page with a notarised hash (we use a court-recognised digital forensics partner), (c) record the screen with timestamp visible, and (d) issue a 65B Indian Evidence Act certificate at the time of preservation — not retrospectively.
The Gujarat-specific note
The Ahmedabad Cyber Cell at Sola Civil Court Road accepts complaints in person and via the citizen portal. We have observed faster pickup on FIRs filed with the proper Section 65B affidavit pre-attached.
Practical reading
A defamation complaint without preserved evidence will be dismissed at preliminary inquiry. Preserve first. File second. Negotiate takedown third. In that order.