The Gujarat High Court has ruled that the act of taking photos of an examination question paper and distributing them via WhatsApp does not constitute a privacy violation under Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This decision was rendered in the context of the case Rahul Babulal Purohit & Anr. v State of Gujarat & Anr., presided over by Justice PM Raval. The court’s order, issued on June 16, partially granted a petition to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against two individuals accused in the matter.
The case originated in November 2018 when an exam invigilator reported that a candidate used a mobile phone inside the exam hall to photograph the question paper and send it out. Upon investigation, the candidate admitted to sending the images to his brother via WhatsApp, who was subsequently named as a co-accused in the FIR. However, the court found that Section 66E of the IT Act, which addresses the capture and dissemination of private images, was not applicable in this scenario.
Justice Raval clarified, “What has been sent by applicant No.2 to applicant No.1 is the photograph of the question paper captured on a mobile phone, thus, the act of sending the photograph through WhatsApp to his brother cannot be termed as an act of intentionally or knowingly capturing, publishing, or transmitting the image of a private area of any person, so as to attract Section 66E of the IT Act.” Accordingly, the court decided that the provisions of Section 66E should be quashed and set aside.
Furthermore, the court addressed the application of Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to the disobedience of an order promulgated by a public servant. It concluded that exam guidelines, such as prohibiting mobile phones, do not equate to a formal legal order under this section. Even if Section 188 were applicable, the law requires a written complaint by a public servant for the court to proceed, a requirement not fulfilled in this case.
The court noted that the State prosecutor concurred that Sections 66E of the IT Act and 188 of the IPC were not pertinent to the matter at hand. Consequently, charges under these sections were dismissed. However, the court stressed that the FIR would persist for any other potential offenses identified.
More Read
In this proceeding, Advocate Maheshkumar K Purohit represented the applicants, Assistant Public Prosecutor Rohan N Ravel appeared for the State, and Advocate Yogini V Parikh represented the other respondent.
[Read Order]
