The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that unauthorised recording and sharing of internal official conversations constitutes a cyber offence under the Information Technology Act, while clarifying that such conduct does not amount to espionage under the Official Secrets Act.
The decision came in a case involving a Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd employee accused of secretly recording and circulating official conference calls.
Court Upholds Cybercrime Charges Under IT Act
Justice Urmila Joshi Phalke partly allowed a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered in 2019 but held that the accused could still face prosecution under provisions of the Information Technology Act.
According to the court, the alleged act of recording a conference call without authorisation and sharing it with another employee falls within Section 43 of the IT Act, which addresses unauthorised access and extraction of data, and attracts punishment under Section 66 when done dishonestly.
The court observed: “The petitioner employee has not only recorded communication between two officials, but also shared the same, which amounts to unauthorised communication.”
Incident Involved MahaMetro Employee
The case arose after allegations that an employee tasked with connecting conference calls between senior Maharashtra Metro Rail officials recorded one such conversation and later shared it with a colleague.
Law enforcement subsequently registered an FIR invoking sections of both the Information Technology Act and the Official Secrets Act. The employee later approached the High Court seeking quashing of the chargesheet and FIR.
Official Secrets Act Charges Quashed
While permitting cybercrime prosecution to continue, the High Court quashed charges under the Official Secrets Act, stating the facts of the case did not meet the threshold for espionage or threats to national security.
The bench held that the alleged conduct did not involve a “prohibited place” nor did it impact sovereignty, state security, or national interest, which are essential requirements for invoking the Official Secrets Act.
The ruling clarified that recording internal office conversations, while unlawful if unauthorised, cannot automatically be treated as spying unless national security considerations are involved.
Digital Forensic Evidence Supported Investigation
The High Court also noted that cyber forensic evidence including audio recordings, call logs, and digital exchanges recovered from seized devices played a significant role in establishing a prima facie case against the accused.
It further stated that merely invoking an incorrect statutory provision in an FIR does not invalidate proceedings if the alleged conduct otherwise constitutes an offence under law.
The prosecution will now continue under the relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act.
About the author – Ayesha Aayat is a law student and contributor covering cybercrime, online frauds, and digital safety concerns. Her writing aims to raise awareness about evolving cyber threats and legal responses.
