Veena Malik Morphed and the law

Veena Malik has alleged that her "nude" pic is not real and is a morphed image that has been deviously created without her consent by some notorious person and has been published on numerous websites across the Internet.

I have been speaking on cyber morphing at various forums and have written about it in my recent book titled "The Fundamental Right to Internet".

It is unfortunate that our law of Information Technology (The I.T. Act, 2000) does not specifically deal with morphing which in my view should have been made one of the most serious crimes inviting exemplary punishment. Morphing is equivalent to stripping a person naked in public. Since the Internet is a global network with millions of users, morphing a person's image by creating a nude pic, is equivalent to stripping a person nude before the globe. This should be one of the most serious offences in the law.

Presently, taking the law as it is, morphing a nude image of a person, would be covered under section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2000 which punishes cyber pornography with imprisonment extending to 3 years with fine. In my view, morphing a nude image should be a distinct offence. Cyber pornography usually covers obscene material that is created, published or transmitted with the consent of the porn stars. On the other hand, morphing a nude image is the worst form of defamation that one can imagine. Hence, it is shameful to equate morphing a nude image with cyber pornography.

Morphing a nude image should be treated as serious as the offence of rape, in our law. The crime of rape invites imprisonment extending to 10 years and in some cases to life.

Morphing a nude pic of a person would be covered presently in our law, under section 500 IPC (defamation), section 509 IPC (outraging the modesty of a woman) and section 67 of the I.T. Act, 2000. The punishment for defamation is extends to 2 years imprisonment while it is 1 year for the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman. It would be adding insult to injury, by punishing the person convicted of morphing, with only an imprisonment of 1 or 2 years. Our law makers have not understood the magnitude and seriousness of the offence of morphing nude pics of a person which can be said to be a social death of the victim. Moreover, it is extremely difficult for the victim to prove to the world at large that the image is morphed and not real. Since morphing has become very common and it is easy to morph a person's image coupled with the global audience that the Internet provides, morphing should be one of the most serious offences inviting punishment extending to life imprisonment.

Section 66E of the I.T. Act, 2000 imposes punishment of imprisonment extending to 3 years with fine, upon a person who intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent. This provision deals with capturing, publishing or transmitting the real private area of a person (naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast). I fail to understand as to why morphing has not been made part of Section 66E of the I.T. Act, 2000.

I can only hope that the frequent cases of morphing will wake up our lawmakers.

Before I pen off, I must add a proviso: I have assumed that Veena Malik's nude pic is a morphed image and not her real image, and has been published without her consent.

The IIT Student, cyber pornography and Mumbai Police

The recent incident of an IIT student being harassed by a few Mumbai policemen, raises interesting legal and other issues. The Mumbai policemen alleged that the IIT student was carrying porn on his mobile phone, which was an offence under the law. Keeping and accessing pornography, on the mobile phone and other devices (computer and other electronic systems) are lawful and do not constitute any offence under the law. Under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, only transmission and publishing of pornographic material in electronic form, are criminal offences. Viewing, accessing, downloading, and collecting pornogrphic material, are not offences. These are lawful activities.

The case demonstrates lack of awareness amongst the people at large including the Mumbai policemen, with respect to the aforesaid law. Awareness of the law should be spread across the society so that no person can be harassed on account of such frivolous and flimsy allegations. Awareness would arm people with a response to an allegation such as the one made by the Mumbai police to harass the IIT student.

Even transmission of cyber porn between consenting adults, should have been excepted specifically from Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 67 of the I.T. Act does not recognize the legitimate rights of adults to share adult material. Section 67 is over-broad, impractical as it cannot be implemented in letter and spirit, and is amenable to misapplication and misuse. It is impossible to punish people transmitting and publishing cyber pornography, as the Internet is a global medium while laws are domestic and swing widely between liberal and conservative approaches. Can Section 67 be applied to cyber pornography that is originated from a foreign country where the law permits its publishing and transmission?

Kanimozhi sent to jail: A legal perspective

As a criminal lawyer with about 20 years experience at the Bar, I strongly feel that Kanimozhi as well as the other accused including Raja, should have been granted bail in the 2G Spectrum prosecution. Since the CBI did not arrest the accused during investigation of the case, as per well settled legal principles, bail should have been granted to the accused. Denial of bail in this case, I feel, amounts to punishment before trial.

Many people argue that bail has been rightfully denied to the accused. They feel that denial of bail to the accused, would serve as a strong signal against corruption and that even the high and mighty can be sent to jail. Though every person has a right to an opinion, I feel that legal principles should not be diluted from the larger perspective of the society.

Since the 2G Spectrum trial will take a very long time to conclude, as there are innumerable documents and witnesses for the prosecution, as a criminal lawyer, I wonder till when will the accused remain in custody and what is the purpose of keeping them custody as they are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Regulating Blog content: Murder of free speech

The recent proposal of the Indian Government to regulate content on blogs, is a direct attack on the freedom of speech and expression that is guaranteed as a fundamental right under our Constitution. Censorship of blogs, would kill the medium of blogging itself. Blogging is amongst the most democratic mediums of free speech and expression, that the humanity could ever imagine. Blogging is luxuriously simple for anyone including a small child of eight to an old lady of eighty who does not know more than the basics of computers and the Internet. Blogging is free of cost and also free from the control of publishers and editors. To publish a book or an article in the pre-Internet era, the author needed a publisher whose editorial staff would accept or reject the publication, on their whims and fancies. A Blogger does not need a publisher. Blogging is also the most spontaneous medium of free speech and expression, that has a global audience.

Regulating blog content would rob blogging of its spontaneity and kill this great democratic medium of free speech and expression. Hence, it is imperatively necessary for every member of the Internet community to protest against regulation of blog content.