One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
TL;DR: Reposting already publicly available government financial data, such as Gram Panchayat cashbook entries from the eGramSwaraj portal, is not inherently illegal under Indian law. There’s no criminal or civil liability when the information is accurate, unaltered, and already accessible to anyone on the internet. But aggressive complaints invoking the IT Act can still arise, and a well-drafted legal reply usually shuts them down fast.
In February 2025, a young RTI activist from Jaipur, Rishi Joshi, started a public Instagram page called ‘Panchayat Nazaar’. He’d pull cashbook vouchers of a Gram Panchayat in Ajmer district straight from the government’s eGramSwaraj portal. He posted them in neat tables—voucher date, voucher number, particulars, payee, and amount. Nothing hidden. Everything already open to anyone with an internet connection. One voucher had a line: “Shree Krishna Traders ko cheque number 987654 se paise diye.” He translated it into simple Hindi, fixing a small typo in the payee’s name—‘Tradres’ to ‘Traders’—but the meaning stayed untouched. That’s all. Then the Panchayat Secretary sent a legal notice. It waved the Information Technology Act, 2000, and alleged privacy violation because cheque numbers were displayed. Rishi tried to reason with them himself. He even showed the portal’s public nature. Their stance didn’t budge. A general practitioner he consulted first didn’t have much experience with digital transparency disputes and advised a bland “take down everything” approach. That didn’t sit right with Rishi. He wanted clarity, not panic. In early March 2025, he walked into the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao. That changed things. Advocate Sudhir Rao and his office dissected the notice, mapped the IT Act provisions the other side had cited, and crafted a precise reply. They demonstrated that data accessible without any password or login to every citizen simply cannot attract privacy claims under Section 66E. Cheque numbers, they argued, are part of transactional government records, not intimate personal data. The reply also reminded the complainant that misleading legal threats themselves carry consequences. Within three weeks, the notice was withdrawn. No FIR. No court case. Just a teachable moment.Key Facts of the Case
- A public Instagram account reposted cashbook data of a Gram Panchayat, sourced from the eGramSwaraj portal.
- The data—voucher dates, numbers, payee names, cheque numbers, and amounts—was already freely accessible online without any login.
- The person running the account merely translated entries into Hindi, correcting one minor spelling slip, without altering the substance.
- A legal notice from the Panchayat Secretary alleged violation of privacy under the IT Act solely because cheque numbers were visible.
- No complaint or FIR was ever filed; the matter remained at the notice stage.
- The portal itself had been launched under the Ministry of Panchayati Raj for proactive transparency.
- Expert handling of the legal notice, rooted in IT Act and RTI Act analysis, led to the notice being withdrawn within three weeks.
The Direct Legal Answer
Does reposting publicly available government financial data have legal consequences?
Not if it’s accurate and taken from a public source. The eGramSwaraj portal is designed for public disclosure. Republishing data that is already in the public domain, without distortion, doesn’t violate any criminal law. There’s no hacking, no unauthorised access, and no breach of confidentiality. The Information Technology Act has no section that criminalises sharing a public government record. Complaints can still come—but they lack legal legs.
Does including a cheque number create any problem?
It shouldn’t. Cheque numbers alone are not “personal sensitive data” under the IT Act or the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. They are part of the government’s financial records. And here’s the thing—anyone can already see those numbers on the portal. So posting them on Instagram changes nothing legally. A notice built around cheque numbers won’t survive serious legal scrutiny.
Advice in Such Cases
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 to 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.
Never delete the account or posts in a panic before taking legal advice. That can look like you’re admitting something wrong when you haven’t done anything illegal. Preserve screenshots, URL links, and the notice itself. And if you decide to reply, let the advocate draft it—a poorly worded response can escalate the situation. Matters involving digital transparency and government data need advocates who regularly handle IT Act and RTI disputes; general practitioners often misjudge the interplay between public records and privacy claims.
Applicable Sections of Law
While the cashbook reposting is itself lawful, parties relying on the Information Technology Act, 2000, may invoke specific provisions. Section 66E (punishment for violation of privacy) is often cited but requires capturing or publishing images of a private area without consent. Section 72 (breach of confidentiality and privacy) covers those who have been given access to data under a contract. The Right to Information Act, 2005, Section 4(2) encourages proactive disclosure of such records. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is not yet fully enforced and, in any case, excludes publicly available data from its purview.
Punishment and Penalties
If someone were to file an FIR under Section 66E of the IT Act for alleged privacy violation, the offence carries imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to two lakh rupees, or both. It is a cognizable and bailable offence, compoundable with the permission of the court. However, applying Section 66E to publicly available government vouchers is a legal non-starter. Courts are quick to see through such misuse of the provision.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
An IT Act complaint can typically be lodged at any cyber crime police station or the nearest police station with territorial jurisdiction—where the complainant resides or where the Instagram post was accessed. For a civil wrong, a defamation suit or an injunction application would lie before the District Court under territorial and pecuniary limits. In this type of matter, the aggrieved party, if any, would approach the police station in the area of the Panchayat office or the Instagram user’s location. Jurisdiction matters because a technical mistake in filing can delay things badly.
What if Police Refuse to File FIR?
- Approach the Superintendent of Police with a written complaint under Section 173(4) BNSS if the police refuse to register the FIR.
- File a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, who can then direct the police to investigate.
- In an extreme refusal, a writ petition can be moved in the High Court seeking a direction to register the FIR.
Rights of the Accused
- Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
- Right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to legal representation under Article 22.
- Right to be produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time.
- Right to obtain a copy of the FIR and all related documents.
Bail Provisions
Since Section 66E is bailable, an arrest in such a case would be unusual, but if arrest is made, the accused is entitled to bail as a matter of right upon furnishing sureties. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS can be sought if there is a genuine fear of arrest, though courts are likely to grant it easily given the weak nature of such privacy allegations against public data. Regular bail under Sections 480/483 BNSS involves furnishing a bond and complying with conditions like not leaving the jurisdiction without permission.
Quashing of FIR / Case
The High Court can quash proceedings under its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS when even if the allegations are taken at face value, no offence is made out. In a scenario where an FIR is registered solely for reposting public panchayat cashbook data, a quashing petition stands strong. Grounds include absence of a prima facie offence, legal absurdity of the complaint, and it being an abuse of the process of law. The strategy is highly viable when the data is demonstrably public.
How the Police Behave in Such Cases
Police stations rarely take such complaints seriously because the data is already on a government website. Often, the police informally tell the complainant that no offence has been committed. But if a local Panchayat functionary exerts influence, a summons may still be issued to call the Instagram user for an inquiry. Staying calm, cooperating, and presenting a copy of the advocate’s legal reply usually ends the matter. Panic reactions, on the other hand, can complicate things.
Timeline of Legal Process
- Legal notice reply: 1–2 weeks if drafted promptly.
- If FIR is filed: registration on the same day or within 1–3 days after police verification.
- Investigation: typically 60–90 days before a chargesheet is filed or a closure report submitted.
- Cognizance by Magistrate: 2–4 weeks from chargesheet.
- Framing of charges and trial: can take 6–12 months for such a minor IT Act case.
- Disposal of quashing petition: 1–3 months if filed early and the case is patently weak.
How Long Will the Investigation Take?
Investigation in a Section 66E IT Act matter arising from publicly available data is usually swift—within 60 days. The police have little to examine beyond confirming the source of the post and the public nature of the portal. Realistically, a closure report is more likely before 90 days, unless institutional pressure drags it out.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Absolutely. Before an FIR is registered, exchanging legal notices and reaching an informal understanding is common. Once a criminal complaint is filed, the offence under Section 66E is compoundable with the permission of the court—meaning the parties can settle and get the case closed. In a civil context, a mediation under Section 89 CPC or a formal compromise deed can resolve things without trial. In such transparency disputes, a sober conversation often does more than litigation.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Deleting the Instagram posts or account immediately upon receiving a notice, which can be painted as destruction of evidence even though no offence exists.
- Replying to the legal notice without an advocate—a confused amateur reply often invites escalation.
- Assuming that “publicly available” automatically means no legal risk and ignoring a formal notice altogether.
- Engaging a lawyer who doesn’t regularly handle IT Act and digital transparency matters; domain-specific experience is critical to spot the weak legal theory early and craft a pointed response.
- Posting the notice itself on social media to shame the sender, which can spark defamation or contempt issues.
- Waiting too long to respond; delay can make the other side believe you’re vulnerable and push them to file an FIR.
FAQs People Normally Have
Is eGramSwaraj data really public?
Yes. The portal is maintained under the Ministry of Panchayati Raj and allows anyone to view cashbooks and vouchers without any login. That’s its whole purpose—transparency.
Can I be arrested for reposting a cheque number from a government voucher?
Extremely unlikely. The law requires a privacy breach in a private setting; a public financial record doesn’t qualify. No arrest should happen, and if threatened, bail is a matter of right.
What if the Panchayat Secretary files an FIR anyway?
A strong reply, a copy of the eGramSwaraj page link, and a statement from a competent advocate will likely lead to a closure report. Quashing is a solid backup.
Should I take down my posts?
Don’t do it in haste. Take legal advice first. Unnecessary deletion can be wrongly interpreted. If an advocate advises removal after issuing a reply, do it then.
Does the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, apply?
Not yet enforced. And even when it takes effect, publicly available government records will likely remain outside its scope. No one knows for sure until rules are framed.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about your specific situation.
Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India
Facing a similar matter? Speak to a criminal advocate in Delhi — Advocate Sudhir Rao appears in bail, trial and appellate matters before the Delhi District Courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.