(later acquired by eBay), where the clip was listed for sale. He was arrested and charged under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, for allowing the publication of obscene material. Outcomes and Impact
The Delhi Police arrested Avnish Bajaj , the CEO of Baazee.com (now eBay India), for allowing the clip to be listed on his platform. He was charged under Section 67 of the IT Act (publishing obscene information) and sections of the IPC.
Baazee.com took down the listing on November 29, approximately 38 hours after it went live. However, the brief window was long enough to spark severe public outrage and prompt immediate intervention by the Delhi Police Crime Branch. Legal Fallout and Corporate Liability
The fallout compelled educational institutions across India to completely rewrite their student codes of conduct. DPS R.K. Puram and hundreds of other major Indian schools instituted drastic policy changes:
The DPS RK Puram MMS scandal of 2004 serves as an early example of the challenges posed by digital technology in maintaining privacy and security. It underscores the need for vigilance, education, and robust policies to protect individuals, especially vulnerable populations like students, from privacy violations and exploitation. dps rk puram mms scandal 2004 34
In December 2004, the Delhi Police arrested , the US citizen and CEO of Baazee.com. He was charged under Section 67 of India’s Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 (publishing obscene material in electronic form), alongside provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act.
: In an unprecedented move, the Delhi Police arrested Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Baazee.com, along with Sharat Digumarti, the content manager. Bajaj was charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the distribution of obscene material.
The corporate world was shocked by Bajaj's arrest. The central legal question emerged: Avnish Bajaj vs. State
Additionally, the incident forced Indian educational institutions to implement strict rules regarding technology. In the wake of the scandal, schools across the country enacted outright bans or highly restrictive policies regarding the possession and use of mobile phones by students on school grounds. Ethical and Societal Impact (later acquired by eBay), where the clip was listed for sale
The number "34" in your keyword is a common point of confusion. The exact length of the original video is . The "37" has often been misrepresented or misremembered as "34" over the years in popular discourse, but all authoritative reports confirm the length as 2:37.
: Both minors featured in the clip were promptly expelled by the school administration. The male student faced prosecution within the juvenile justice court framework.
The legal proceedings that followed became a cornerstone for Indian jurisprudence. The central question was whether an intermediary—a platform providing a marketplace—could be held criminally liable for the illegal content posted by its users. Bajaj was charged under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with the publication of obscene material in electronic form.
The enduring legacy of the 2004 scandal left a permanent mark on Indian pop culture. It served as the direct conceptual inspiration for director Dibakar Banerjee’s critically acclaimed 2010 anthology film , which explored voyeuristic technology, MMS leaks, and media sensationalism in contemporary Indian society. Share public link He was charged under Section 67 of the
In late 2004, a grainy video clip began circulating among students at Delhi Public School (DPS), RK Puram. The 2.5-minute video depicted two high school students in a compromising position. Within days, the clip transcended the school hallways, spreading via Bluetooth and infrared—the primary sharing technologies of the era. The Viral Spread and Baazee.com
Many users expressed alarm over how easily footage of minors can be recorded and disseminated without consent.
The two minors at the center of the storm were later identified in media reports as (the male student who filmed the act) and Aparna Bedi (the female student). While reports conflict on whether the act itself was consensual, the one point of universal agreement was that the video was shared without the girl's consent , turning a private act into a national spectacle. It is also worth noting that both students were minors, a factor that would profoundly influence the legal proceedings that followed.
This absence is by design. The Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) and local law enforcement acted with unusual speed. Citing the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) and IT Act Section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material), authorities flagged and removed every instance of the media.