Introduction:

In the case of ADV. HARISH SHARAD BHAMBARE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 711/2025, the petitioner, Advocate Harish Sharad Bhambare, a young lawyer with just about a year of practice in the Ahmednagar district court of Maharashtra, filed a public interest litigation seeking wide-ranging amendments to the Information Technology Act and its Rules to impose stricter punishments for serious cybercrimes such as financial fraud, identity theft, data privacy breaches, and offenses against children including cyber scamming, morphing, and sextortion. His petition sought directions to Parliament and the Union government, in consultation with the Law Commission and the Ministry of Electronics & IT, to prepare a statutory roadmap within six months for reforms that would include tiered sentencing based on harm, mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders, higher fines proportionate to economic loss and aligned with global standards, criminalization of possession of child pornography, and provisions for digital restrictions and e-fencing after conviction. He also prayed for a declaration that the existing punishment ceilings under the IT Act were arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and requested the establishment of specialized cyber courts with fast-track procedures. As an interim measure, he sought denial of bail in high-value cyber fraud and child exploitation cases unless full restitution was made, along with stricter bail consideration in all grave cybercrime matters.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that India’s current cybercrime sentencing framework is outdated, disproportionately lenient, and incapable of deterring modern, technologically sophisticated offenders, resulting in an alarming rise in cases of financial fraud, data theft, identity misuse, and sexual exploitation of minors online. He asserted that punishments under the present IT Act fail to match the gravity of harm suffered by victims, thereby violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by depriving citizens of equal protection and adequate safeguards for their life, liberty, and dignity. He further contended that India should align its cybercrime penalties with international best practices, ensuring that laws are not only punitive but also preventative and rehabilitative. The petitioner proposed that a tiered sentencing model based on the severity of harm would ensure proportionate punishment, while mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders would act as a strong deterrent. Enhanced fines, criminalization of mere possession of child pornography, post-conviction digital access restrictions, and e-fencing were suggested to fortify enforcement. He emphasized the need for specialized cyber courts with trained judges and forensic experts to expedite trials and improve conviction rates. Regarding bail, he urged that courts must treat severe economic and sexual cyber offenses with heightened caution, denying bail unless restitution was provided, especially in high-value or child exploitation cases.

Arguments of the Respondents:

While detailed submissions of the respondents were not elaborated in the case record, the legal stance that would typically be taken by the Union government and other parties would center on the doctrine of separation of powers, highlighting that the judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply existing laws rather than to legislate. They would argue that decisions regarding legislative amendments, sentencing policies, and creation of specialized courts fall squarely within the legislative domain, and that such reforms require comprehensive stakeholder consultations, economic assessments, and procedural planning that are best handled by Parliament and the executive. The respondents would likely stress that while the concerns raised about cybercrime are genuine, the Constitution does not empower courts to issue binding directions to Parliament on what laws to enact or how to amend existing ones. Any statutory reforms must go through democratic channels, including parliamentary debate and law commission review, ensuring that diverse perspectives and practical considerations are incorporated. Thus, although the subject matter is important, the relief sought is constitutionally impermissible for the judiciary to grant.

Court’s Judgment:

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter and, after interacting with the petitioner—who candidly admitted he was asking the Court to direct Parliament—found the PIL to be misconceived because it essentially sought judicial legislation, which is beyond the Court’s constitutional mandate. Justice Kant, while making a humorous remark, observed that although the Court would not mind having the powers of Parliament, the Constitution does not grant them such authority. The bench emphasized that while cybercrime is a pressing issue requiring robust legislative measures, it is Parliament alone that can enact or amend laws to address such concerns. The Court noted that issuing a writ commanding Parliament to legislate would violate the separation of powers and set an impermissible precedent. In dismissing the PIL, the bench refrained from criticizing the intent behind the petition and instead encouraged the petitioner to present his proposals to the appropriate authorities, such as the Ministry of Electronics & IT, the Law Commission, or parliamentary committees, which are empowered to evaluate and recommend legislative reforms. The judgment thereby reaffirmed that judicial activism has constitutional limits and that the path to legal change must respect the distinct roles assigned to each branch of government.