16. The original home page of a website belonging to a Government Department is substituted with another page by a computer miscreant. Disturbing images and offensive phrases are displayed in the process. It

1. Facts of the Case

A government department’s official website, which serves as a public information portal, was illegally accessed by a cyber miscreant. The attacker replaced the homepage with another page containing disturbing images and offensive language, possibly intended to mock or insult the institution or spread fear among the public.

The incident is a clear case of website defacement, which not only hampers public trust in government infrastructure but also exposes vulnerabilities in cybersecurity systems. The content displayed during the attack could provoke outrage, anxiety, or even social unrest.

Authorities are tasked with identifying whether such an act constitutes a punishable cybercrime under Indian law, especially the Information Technology Act, 2000.


2. Issues in the Case

1. Is unauthorized access to a government website a punishable offence?

Does the act of altering a website without permission fall under cyber offenses as per Indian law?

2. Does website defacement qualify as a cyberterrorism or anti-national activity?

If the attacker displays provocative or anti-government content, can the act be treated as a threat to national security?

3. What specific provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 are applicable?

Which sections deal with hacking, website modification, and public disturbance through digital means?

4. Can the offender face criminal charges under the Indian Penal Code as well?

Do traditional laws such as the IPC support the IT Act in prosecuting digital vandals?


3. Legal Principles Covered Under the Information Technology Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000 is India’s primary law addressing digital offenses, and several sections clearly apply in this case of website defacement.

Section 66 – Computer-Related Offences

Any person who, dishonestly or fraudulently, does any act referred to in Section 43 (like unauthorized access, data alteration, or disruption), is punishable under Section 66.

Penalty: Imprisonment up to 3 years or fine up to ₹5 lakhs or both.

Section 43 – Penalty and Compensation for Damage to Computer System

The miscreant:

  • Accessed the computer network without authorization
  • Altered the contents of the website
  • Caused disruption to normal operation

Such actions directly violate Section 43, even if no physical damage occurred.

Section 66F – Cyber Terrorism (in severe cases)

If the offensive content displayed threatens the sovereignty, integrity, or security of the state, or intends to spread fear among citizens, it may fall under cyber terrorism.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

This applies especially if the act:

  • Is targeted at critical government infrastructure
  • Aims to incite fear or disrupt public peace

Section 67 – Publishing Obscene Material in Electronic Form

If the substituted homepage contains obscene, lascivious, or offensive content, the person can be prosecuted under Section 67.

Penalty: Imprisonment up to 5 years for first conviction and fine up to ₹10 lakhs.


IPC Provisions That May Also Apply

Section 504 – Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace

If the content is inflammatory or intended to cause social unrest.

Section 505 – Statements Conducing to Public Mischief

If the defaced content incites hatred or fear among communities.

Section 120B – Criminal Conspiracy

If multiple individuals were involved in planning and executing the cyberattack.


4. Possible Judgement

If the Accused is Identified and Proven Guilty

  • The attacker will be punished under Sections 43 and 66 for unauthorized access and defacement.
  • If the inserted content is obscene, Section 67 will add an additional penalty.
  • If intent to spread panic or threaten national interest is proven, Section 66F (Cyber Terrorism) may apply, with life imprisonment as a possible sentence.
  • IPC sections such as 504, 505, and 120B may be added depending on the nature and impact of the content.

The court may also:

  • Direct enhanced cybersecurity audits of all government websites.
  • Recommend better tracking systems to detect and respond to unauthorized changes quickly.

If the Offender is Not Traceable

The government may still:

  • File a First Information Report (FIR)
  • Use cyber forensic tools to trace IP addresses and digital footprints
  • Involve CERT-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team) to investigate

The incident may prompt national-level policy changes for website security.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *