Offences by companies
Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with offences by companies. Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the comp The Act came into force on 17 Oct 2000.
(1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,--
(i) 'company" means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and
(ii) "director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.
Section 85, The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act 21 of 2000).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an alleged offence pertains to obscene material in electronic form, the offence falls exclusively under the special provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (specifically Sections 67, 67A, and 67B), and not under the general provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. The IT Act, being a special enactment with specific provisions for electronic records and containing an overriding effect clause (Section 81), prevails over the IPC. Therefore, an accused who has been discharged from prosecution under Section 67 of the IT Act cannot subsequently be prosecuted under Section 292 IPC for the same conduct involving obscene material in electronic form. The principle that special laws prevail over general laws, particularly when both contain non-obstante clauses, mandates that the IT Act provisions apply to electronic records, and the protection and effect of Section 79 (intermediary protection) cannot be ignored or negated.
On this section: Offences by companies - vicarious liability of persons in charge. Court held company must be an accused for vicarious liability of directors to attach
-
Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an ISP/marketplace MD is charged for an automated listing of obscene material, IT Act s.85 (offences by companies) does not automatically fasten criminal liability on the MD in his individual capacity without a specific case of consent, connivance or neglect; charge under IT s.67 r/w s.85 may continue for trial on company-offence footing while IPC 292/294 against the MD personally were quashed on the facts (no personal role in filtering/removal).
On this section: s.85 company offences — MD not automatically liable as individual without consent/connivance/neglect isolate
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 85
What have the courts held on Section 85 of the Information Technology Act?
Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi (14 Dec 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Offences by companies - vicarious liability of persons in charge. Court held company must be an accused for vicarious liability of directors to attach. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 85 of the Information Technology Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IT Act 85, section 85 IT Act, section 85 of the Information Technology Act. People searching for it also type income tax act 85 and income tax act subsection 85 1. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sharat Babu Digumarti vs Govt of Nct of Delhi (14 Dec 2016).
When did Section 85 of the Information Technology Act come into force?
Section 85 of the Information Technology Act, cited as IT Act 85, came into force on 17 Oct 2000, having been enacted on 09 Jun 2000. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1304 words
- 87. Power of Central Government to make rules877 words
- 43. Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc506 words
- 46. Power to adjudicate370 words
- 89. Power of Controller to make regulations345 words
- 70B. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team to serve as national agency for incident response326 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.