Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking dedicated special courts for cybercrime cases, ruling that no statutory provision mandates their creation unlike in SC/ST or POCSO matters, while permitting the petitioner to approach relevant authorities directly.
No Legal Basis for Mandamus on Special Courts
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela questioned the petitioner’s demand for judicial directions to establish specialised cybercrime courts equipped with advanced infrastructure and technical support. “How can we issue any mandamus? Wherever special courts are enacted, the concerned statute provides for that,” the Chief Justice observed, citing legislative mandates under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and POCSO Act as examples absent in cybercrime laws.
The court clarified that without explicit statutory backing, courts cannot direct the creation of such tribunals, distinguishing cyber offences from legislatively-prescribed special mechanisms.
PIL Highlights Rising Cybercrime Adjudication Crisis
Petitioner advocate Vijay Bhaskar Verma argued that surging cyber offences—including financial frauds, data theft, cyberstalking, and online harassment—threaten privacy, national security, and economic stability. Delays in regular courts undermine public trust, embolden criminals, and hamper law enforcement, he contended. The plea targeted the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), and Delhi Police Cyber Cell, urging swift specialised adjudication pathways.
Directions for Administrative Representation
While dismissing the PIL, the Bench granted liberty for Verma—represented by advocates Manish Kumar and Neha Srivastava—to file representations with concerned authorities. “The same shall be attended to and decided by concerned authority with expedition,” the December 10 order directed, balancing judicial restraint with procedural access.
Broader Implications for Cyber Justice Delivery
The ruling underscores ongoing debates on judicial specialisation amid India’s cybercrime surge—over 1.5 million cases annually per NCRB data. Without legislative push, solutions may hinge on administrative upgrades like fast-track benches or tech-equipped existing courts. Critics argue this leaves victims vulnerable in a digital threat landscape, pressing for parliamentary intervention akin to NDPS or TADA tribunals.
