If you are stuck in such a situation, here is what to do.

Mr. Alok Verma, an investor from Jaipur, was conducting due diligence on a private limited company, “Innovatech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.” He visited the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) portal, paid the requisite fee, and downloaded the company’s annual return, Form MGT-7. This document contained detailed information, including the complete shareholding pattern, names of shareholders, their addresses, and the signatures of the directors.

Believing this to be public information, Mr. Verma considered posting the document on his social media blog to discuss corporate governance and transparency. However, he noticed a disclaimer at the bottom of the portal stating, “These documents are the property of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, and the re-use of these documents without authorization is prohibited.” This left him confused. If the information is accessible to the public for a fee, why would its reuse be prohibited? He had no commercial intent but was unsure about the legal ramifications of sharing it online.

Advice in such cases

The core of this issue lies in the distinction between information being “publicly accessible” and being in the “public domain” for unrestricted use. While the MCA makes certain corporate filings available for inspection to ensure transparency, it does not grant the user an unlimited license to republish this data, especially when it contains personal information.

• The MCA’s disclaimer is legally significant. By downloading the document, you implicitly agree to these terms. Unauthorized reuse can be seen as a breach of these terms.
• Sharing documents like MGT-7, which contain personal data such as addresses and signatures, can potentially violate the privacy of the individuals mentioned (directors and shareholders).
• Publishing such information, even without commercial intent, could be misconstrued. If your commentary is perceived as defamatory, the company or its directors could initiate legal action against you.
• Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation of come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think

Applicable Sections of Law

Several laws can be invoked in such a situation:

• The Companies Act, 2013: Section 399 allows any person to inspect documents kept by the Registrar of Companies by paying a prescribed fee. However, this section governs access, not the right to republish.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000: While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act is the new framework, provisions of the IT Act can still be relevant. Sharing personal information without consent could attract legal scrutiny.
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): If the act of publishing the document is coupled with commentary that harms the reputation of the company or its directors, Section 356 of the BNS, which deals with defamation, could be applicable.
• The Copyright Act, 1957: Government works have copyright protection. The MCA’s disclaimer reinforces its ownership and control over the documents. Unauthorized reproduction could be seen as a copyright infringement.

If you are the complainant

If you represent the company whose documents have been shared online without authorization:

• Send a Takedown Notice: Your first step should be to have a lawyer send a formal legal notice to the person who posted the document and the social media platform, demanding its immediate removal.
• File a Police Complaint: You can file a complaint with the local police or the Cyber Crime Cell, citing potential misuse of data, harassment, and defamation.
• Initiate Civil Proceedings: A civil suit can be filed seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the person from sharing the information in the future and to claim damages for any harm caused to the company’s reputation.
• Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation of come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think

If you are the victim

If you are the person who shared the document and are now facing legal action:

• Remove the Content Immediately: The first and most important step is to delete the post from all platforms. This shows good faith and can mitigate damages.
• Do Not Engage: Avoid getting into arguments or discussions with the company or its representatives online or offline. Direct all communication through your lawyer.
• Preserve Evidence: Keep a record of the MCA receipt, the document you downloaded, and any communication you have received regarding the matter.
• Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation of come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think

How the police behave in such cases

The police, particularly the Cyber Crime Cell, will investigate the matter. They will likely summon you to record your statement. Their primary focus will be on determining your intent—was it to inform, harass, defame, or extort? They will examine the content of your post and any accompanying text. While they might initially see it as a civil dispute, if elements of criminal defamation or harassment are present, they will proceed with registering an FIR under the relevant sections of the BNS and the IT Act.

FAQs people normally have

Here are some common questions that arise in this context:

• But the information is public, so why can’t I share it?
  Accessibility does not equal the right to republish. The fee you pay is for inspection, not for a license to distribute. The MCA’s terms of use explicitly prohibit unauthorized reuse.
• What if I blur sensitive details like signatures and addresses?
  While this is a better practice and reduces the risk of privacy violations, it may not completely absolve you of liability. The core data (shareholding pattern with names) is still being republished against the MCA’s terms. The company could still argue that this constitutes unauthorized use.
• Is it a violation of my freedom of speech?
  The right to freedom of speech and expression under the Constitution is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions, including the reputation of others (defamation), public order, and the privacy rights of individuals.

What evidence is required?

For the complainant (the company), key evidence includes:

• Screenshots and URLs of the social media posts where the document was shared.
• A copy of the original MGT-7 form to show the personal data that was exposed.
• Proof of communication with the poster asking for the content to be removed.

For the person who posted the document, evidence would include:

• The receipt from the MCA portal for downloading the document.
• The original, unaltered document downloaded from the portal.
• Any communication that demonstrates a lack of malicious intent.

How long will the investigation take?

The timeline can vary significantly. A police investigation by the Cyber Crime Cell could take anywhere from a few weeks to several months, depending on their workload and the cooperation of the social media platform. If the matter goes to court, a civil case for an injunction and damages can take several years to reach a final resolution due to procedural delays and the backlog in the judicial system.

Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India