case study on indian it act 2000

Landmark Cyber Law cases in India

Post author By ashwin
Post date March 1, 2021

By:-Muskan Sharma

Introduction

Cyber Law, as the name suggests, deals with statutory provisions that regulate Cyberspace. With the advent of digitalization and AI (Artificial Intelligence), there is a significant rise in Cyber Crimes being registered. Around 44, 546 cases were registered under the Cyber Crime head in 2019 as compared to 27, 248 cases in 2018. Therefore, a spike of 63.5% was observed in Cyber Crimes [1] .

The legislative framework concerning Cyber Law in India comprises the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the “ IT Act ”) and the Rules made thereunder. The IT Act is the parent legislation that provides for various forms of Cyber Crimes, punishments to be inflicted thereby, compliances for intermediaries, and so on.

Learn more about Cyber Laws Courses with Enhelion’s Online Law Course !

However, the IT Act is not exhaustive of the Cyber Law regime that exists in India. There are some judgments that have evolved the Cyber Law regime in India to a great extent. To fully understand the scope of the Cyber Law regime, it is pertinent to refer to the following landmark Cyber Law cases in India:

Shreya Singhal v. UOI [2]

In the instant case, the validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Facts: Two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act after they posted allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook concerning the complete shutdown of Mumbai after the demise of a political leader. Section 66A of the IT Act provides punishment if any person using a computer resource or communication, such information which is offensive, false, or causes annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, hatred, injury, or ill will.

The women, in response to the arrest, filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act on the ground that it is violative of the freedom of speech and expression.

Decision: The Supreme Court based its decision on three concepts namely: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. It observed that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, no matter how unpopular, is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression. It was found that Section 66A was capable of restricting all forms of communication and it contained no distinction between mere advocacy or discussion on a particular cause which is offensive to some and incitement by such words leading to a causal connection to public disorder, security, health, and so on.

Learn more about Cyber Laws with Enhelion’s Online Law firm certified Course!

In response to the question of whether Section 66A attempts to protect individuals from defamation, the Court said that Section 66A condemns offensive statements that may be annoying to an individual but not affecting his reputation.

However, the Court also noted that Section 66A of the IT Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution because there existed an intelligible difference between information communicated through the internet and through other forms of speech. Also, the Apex Court did not even address the challenge of procedural unreasonableness because it is unconstitutional on substantive grounds.

Shamsher Singh Verma v. State of Haryana [3]

In this case, the accused preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court after the High Court rejected the application of the accused to exhibit the Compact Disc filed in defence and to get it proved from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The Supreme Court held that a Compact Disc is also a document. It further observed that it is not necessary to obtain admission or denial concerning a document under Section 294 (1) of CrPC personally from the accused, the complainant, or the witness.

Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. [4]

Facts: The subscriber purchased a Reliance handset and Reliance mobile services together under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Scheme. The subscriber was attracted by better tariff plans of other service providers and hence, wanted to shift to other service providers. The petitioners (staff members of TATA Indicom) hacked the Electronic Serial Number (hereinafter referred to as “ESN”). The Mobile Identification Number (MIN) of Reliance handsets were irreversibly integrated with ESN, the reprogramming of ESN made the device would be validated by Petitioner’s service provider and not by Reliance Infocomm.

Questions before the Court: i) Whether a telephone handset is a “Computer” under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?

ii) Whether manipulation of ESN programmed into a mobile handset amounts to an alteration of source code under Section 65 of the IT Act?

Decision: (i) Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act provides that a “computer” means any electronic, magnetic, optical, or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic, or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network. Hence, a telephone handset is covered under the ambit of “computer” as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.

(ii) Alteration of ESN makes exclusively used handsets usable by other service providers like TATA Indicomm. Therefore, alteration of ESN is an offence under Section 65 of the IT Act because every service provider has to maintain its own SID code and give its customers a specific number to each instrument used to avail the services provided. Therefore, the offence registered against the petitioners cannot be quashed with regard to Section 65 of the IT Act.

Shankar v. State Rep [5]

Facts: The petitioner approached the Court under Section 482, CrPC to quash the charge sheet filed against him. The petitioner secured unauthorized access to the protected system of the Legal Advisor of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) and was charged under Sections 66, 70, and 72 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner cannot be quashed with respect to the law concerning non-granting of sanction of prosecution under Section 72 of the IT Act.

Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj & Ors . [6]

Facts: The Complainant, a Luxury shoes manufacturer filed a suit seeking an injunction against an e-commerce portal www.darveys.com for indulging in a Trademark violation with the seller of spurious goods.

The question before the Court was whether the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s mark, logos, and image are protected under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Decision: The Court observed that the defendant is more than an intermediary on the ground that the website has full control over the products being sold via its platform. It first identifies and then promotes third parties to sell their products. The Court further said that active participation by an e-commerce platform would exempt it from the rights provided to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act.

Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi [7]

Facts: Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com was arrested under Section 67 of the IT Act for the broadcasting of cyber pornography. Someone else had sold copies of a CD containing pornographic material through the bazee.com website.

Decision: The Court noted that Mr. Bajaj was nowhere involved in the broadcasting of pornographic material. Also, the pornographic material could not be viewed on the Bazee.com website. But Bazee.com receives a commission from the sales and earns revenue for advertisements carried on via its web pages.

The Court further observed that the evidence collected indicates that the offence of cyber pornography cannot be attributed to Bazee.com but to some other person. The Court granted bail to Mr. Bajaj subject to the furnishing of 2 sureties Rs. 1 lakh each. However, the burden lies on the accused that he was merely the service provider and does not provide content.

State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti [8]

The instant case is a landmark case in the Cyber Law regime for its efficient handling made the conviction possible within 7 months from the date of filing the FIR.

Facts: The accused was a family friend of the victim and wanted to marry her but she married another man which resulted in a Divorce. After her divorce, the accused persuaded her again and on her reluctance to marrying him, he took the course of harassment through the Internet. The accused opened a false e-mail account in the name of the victim and posted defamatory, obscene, and annoying information about the victim.

A charge-sheet was filed against the accused person under Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Decision: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore convicted the accused person under Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the IT Act. The accused was subjected to the Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 469 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 509 of the IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 4,000 under Section 67 of the IT Act.

CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

A website called www.sony-sambandh.com enabled NRIs to send Sony products to their Indian friends and relatives after online payment for the same.

In May 2002, someone logged into the website under the name of Barbara Campa and ordered a Sony Colour TV set along with a cordless telephone for one Arif Azim in Noida. She paid through her credit card and the said order was delivered to Arif Azim. However, the credit card agency informed the company that it was an unauthorized payment as the real owner denied any such purchase.

A complaint was therefore lodged with CBI and further, a case under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered. The investigations concluded that Arif Azim while working at a call center in Noida, got access to the credit card details of Barbara Campa which he misused.

The Court convicted Arif Azim but being a young boy and a first-time convict, the Court’s approach was lenient towards him. The Court released the convicted person on probation for 1 year. This was one among the landmark cases of Cyber Law because it displayed that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be an effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not exhaustive.

Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

Facts: In 2005, US $ 3,50,000 were dishonestly transferred from the Citibank accounts of four US customers through the internet to few bogus accounts. The employees gained the confidence of the customer and obtained their PINs under the impression that they would be a helping hand to those customers to deal with difficult situations. They were not decoding encrypted software or breathing through firewalls, instead, they identified loopholes in the MphasiS system.

Decision: The Court observed that the accused in this case are the ex-employees of the MphasiS call center. The employees there are checked whenever they enter or exit. Therefore, it is clear that the employees must have memorized the numbers. The service that was used to transfer the funds was SWIFT i.e. society for worldwide interbank financial telecommunication. The crime was committed using unauthorized access to the electronic accounts of the customers. Therefore this case falls within the domain of ‘cyber crimes”. The IT Act is broad enough to accommodate these aspects of crimes and any offense under the IPC with the use of electronic documents can be put at the same level as the crimes with written documents.

The court held that section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2000 is applicable because of the presence of the nature of unauthorized access that is involved to commit transactions. The accused were also charged under section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 and section 420 i.e. cheating, 465,467 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jogesh Kwatra [9]

Facts: In this case, Defendant Jogesh Kwatra was an employee of the plaintiff’s company. He started sending derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, abusive, and filthy emails to his employers and to different subsidiaries of the said company all over the world to defame the company and its Managing Director Mr. R K Malhotra. In the investigations, it was found that the email originated from a Cyber Cafe in New Delhi. The Cybercafé attendant identified the defendant during the enquiry. On 11 May 2011, Defendant was terminated of the services by the plaintiff.

Decision: The plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of perpetual injunction as prayed because the court did not qualify as certified evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Due to the absence of direct evidence that it was the defendant who was sending these emails, the court was not in a position to accept even the strongest evidence. The court also restrained the defendant from publishing, transmitting any information in the Cyberspace which is derogatory or abusive of the plaintiffs.

The Cyber Law regime is governed by the IT Act and the Rules made thereunder. Also, one may take recourse to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the IT Act is unable to provide for any specific type of offence or if it does not contain exhaustive provisions with respect to an offence.

However, the Cyber Law regime is still not competent enough to deal with all sorts of Cyber Crimes that exist at this moment. With the country moving towards the ‘Digital India’ movement, the Cyber Crimes are evolving constantly and new kinds of Cyber Crimes enter the Cyber Law regime each day. The Cyber Law regime in India is weaker than what exists in other nations.

Hence, the Cyber Law regime in India needs extensive reforms to deal with the huge spike of Cyber Crimes each year.

[1] “Crime in India – 2019” Snapshots (States/UTs), NCRB, available at: https://ncrb.gov.in/sites/default/files/CII%202019%20SNAPSHOTS%20STATES.pdf (Last visited on 25 th Feb; 2021)

[2] (2013) 12 SCC 73

[3] 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

[4] 2005 CriLJ 4314

[5] Crl. O.P. No. 6628 of 2010

[6] (2018) 253 DLT 728

[7] (2008) 150 DLT 769

[8] CC No. 4680 of 2004

[9] CM APPL. No. 33474 of 2016

Tags artificial intelligence courses online , aviation law courses india , best online law courses , business law course , civil courts , civil law law courses online , civil system in india , competition law , corporate law courses online , covaxin , covid vaccine , diploma courses , diploma in criminal law , drafting , fashion law online course , how to study law at home , indian law institute online courses , innovation , Intellectual Property , international law courses , international law degree online , international law schools , introduction to law course , invention , knowledge , labour law course distance learning , law , law certificate courses , law certificate programs online , law classes , law classes online , law college courses , law courses in india , law firms , law schools , lawyers , learn at home , legal aid , legal courses , online law courses , online law courses in india , pfizer , pleading , space law courses , sports law , sports law courses , study criminal law online , study later , study law at home , study law by correspondence , study law degree online , study law degree online australia , study law distance education , study law distance learning , study law online , study law online free , study law online uk , study legal studies online , teach law online , technology law courses , trademark

Engineering Mathematics
Discrete Mathematics
Operating System
Computer Networks
Digital Logic and Design
C Programming
Data Structures
Theory of Computation
Compiler Design
Computer Org and Architecture
Cyber Security Tutorial

Introduction

OSI Security Architecture
Active and Passive attacks in Information Security
Types of Security Mechanism
A Model for Network Security

Cyber Technology

Basics of Wi-Fi
The Internet and the Web
What is a Website ?
Cryptography and Network Security Principles
Public Key Infrastructure
What is Electronic Signature?
Identity and Access Management
What Is Cloud Computing ?

Cyber Ethics

Intellectual Property Rights
Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35): A Comprehensive Guide
Introduction to Ethical Hacking
What is a Scam?

Cyber Crimes

Psychological Profiling in Cybersecurity
Social Engineering - The Art of Virtual Exploitation
Cyberstalking
How to Defend Against Botnets ?
Emerging Attack Vectors in Cyber Security
Malware and its types
What is Phishing?
Cyber Crime - Identity Theft
What is Cyber Terrorism?
What is Proxy Server?

Cyber Crime Techniques

Worms, Viruses and beyond !!
Trojan Horse in Information Security

Keyloggers and Spyware

Types of SQL Injection (SQLi)
Buffer Overflow Attack with Example
Reverse Engineering - Software Engineering
Difference Between Vulnerability and Exploit
Basic Network Attacks in Computer Network
Kali Linux - Hacking Wi-Fi
Web Server and its Types of Attacks
Types of VoIP Hacking and Countermeasures
How to Spoof SMS Message in Linux ?
Difference between Backup and Recovery
Manual Code Review : Security Assessment
Penetration Testing - Software Engineering

Prevention and Protection

What is Vulnerability Assessment?
Secure coding - What is it all about?
Chain of Custody - Digital Forensics
Digital Forensics in Information Security
Introduction of Computer Forensics
What is Network Forensics?

Cyber Forensics

Cybercrime Causes And Measures To Prevent It
Digital Evidence Collection in Cybersecurity
Digital Evidence Preservation - Digital Forensics
Computer Forensic Report Format
How to Stop Phishing?

Cyber Crime Investigation

Intellectual Property in Cyberspace
Cyber Security Policy
History of Cyber Security
What is Internet? Definition, Uses, Working, Advantages and Disadvantages
Cyber Security Metrics
What is Cybersecurity Framework?
What is Cyber Security? Types and Importance

Cyber security Evolution

Substitution Cipher
Difference between Substitution Cipher Technique and Transposition Cipher Technique
Difference between Block Cipher and Transposition Cipher

Cyber security Objectives

Data encryption standard (DES) | Set 1
Strength of Data encryption standard (DES)
Differential and Linear Cryptanalysis

Classical Encryption Techniques

Difference between AES and DES ciphers
Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)

Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard

Implementation of RC4 algorithm
Introduction to Chinese Remainder Theorem
Discrete logarithm (Find an integer k such that a^k is congruent modulo b)
Public Key Encryption

Advanced Encryption Standard

Key Management in Cryptography
Implementation of Diffie-Hellman Algorithm

Moreon Symmetric Ciphers

Message Authentication Requirements
How message authentication code works?
Hash Functions in System Security

Introduction to Number Theory

Whirlpool Hash Function in Python
HMAC Algorithm in Computer Network

Public-Key Cryptography and RSA

Types of Authentication Protocols
Digital Signature Standard (DSS)

Key Management:OtherPublic-Key Cryptosystems

X.509 Authentication Service
PGP - Authentication and Confidentiality

Message Authentication and Hash Functions

IP security (IPSec)
IPSec Architecture
Internet Protocol Authentication Header

Hashand MAC Algorithms

Web Security Considerations
Secure Socket Layer (SSL)
Transport Layer Security (TLS)

Digital Signatures and Authentication Protocols

Intruders in Network Security
Password Management in Cyber Security

Authentication Applications

Electronic mail security, ip security, web security, malicious software, information technology act, 2000 (india).

The Information Technology Act, 2000 also Known as an IT Act is an act proposed by the Indian Parliament reported on 17th October 2000. This Information Technology Act is based on the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996 (UNCITRAL Model) which was suggested by the General Assembly of the United Nations by a resolution dated 30th January 1997. It is the most important law in India dealing with Cybercrime and E-Commerce.

The main objective of this act is to carry out lawful and trustworthy electronic, digital, and online transactions and alleviate or reduce cybercrimes. The IT Act has 13 chapters and 94 sections. The last four sections which start from ‘section 91 – section 94’, deal with the revisions to the Indian Penal Code 1860.

The IT Act, of 2000 has two schedules:

First Schedule: Deals with documents to which the Act shall not apply.
Second Schedule: Deals with electronic signature or electronic authentication method.

What are the Features of The Information Technology Act, 2000?

The features of The IT Act, 2000 are as follows:

The digital signature has been changed to an electronic signature to make it a greater generation-impartial act.
It elaborates on offenses, penalties, and breaches.
It outlines the Justice Dispensation Systems for cyber crimes.
The Information Technology Act defines in a new segment that a cyber cafe is any facility wherein access to the net is offered by any person inside the normal business to the general public.
It offers the constitution of the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee.
The Information Technology Act is based totally on The Indian Penal Code, of 1860, The Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, of 1891, The Reserve Bank of India Act, of 1934, and many others.
It adds a provision to Section 81, which states that the provisions of the Act shall have overriding effect. The provision states that nothing contained inside the Act shall limit any person from exercising any right conferred under the Copyright Act, of 1957.

The Offenses and the Punishments in IT Act 2000

The offenses and the punishments that fall under the IT Act, of 2000 are as follows:-

Tampering with the computer source documents.
Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information.
Publishing of information that is obscene in electronic form.
Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy.
Hacking for malicious purposes.
Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars.
Penalty for misrepresentation.
Confiscation.
Power to investigate offenses.
Protected System.
Penalties for confiscation are not to interfere with other punishments.
Act to apply for offense or contravention committed outside India.
Publication for fraud purposes.
Power of Controller to give directions.

Sections and Punishments under the Information Technology Act, of 2000 are as follows :

SECTION	PUNISHMENT
Section 43	This section of the IT Act, 2000 states that any act of destroying, altering, or stealing a computer system/network or deleting data with malicious intentions without authorization from the owner of the computer is liable for the payment to be made to the owner as compensation for damages.
Section 43A	This section of the IT Act, 2000 states that any corporate body dealing with sensitive information that fails to implement reasonable security practices causing the loss of another person will also be liable as a convict for compensation to the affected party.
Section 66	Hacking a Computer System with malicious intentions like fraud will be punished with 3 years imprisonment or a fine of Rs.5,00,000 or both.
Section 66 B, C, D	Fraud or dishonesty using or transmitting information or is punishable with 3 years imprisonment or a Rs. 1,00,000 fine or both.
Section 66 E	This Section is for Violation of privacy by transmitting an image of a private area is punishable with 3 years imprisonment or a 2,00,000 fine or both.
Section 66 F	This Section is on affecting the unity, integrity, security, and sovereignty of India through digital mediums is liable for life imprisonment.
Section 67	This section states publishing obscene information or pornography or transmission of obscene content in public is liable for imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of Rs. 10,00,000 or both.

It is an act to show misconduct behavior for transactions executed by way of electronic information interchange and another approach of electronic conversation, usually referred to as “electronic commerce”, which contains the usage of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate digital submission of documents with the Government agencies.

Frequently Asked Questions on Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) -FAQs

Which ministry is under the it act.

Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology , Government of India.

What is covered under the IT Act?

This act covers electronic signatures , data protection, and the creation of certifying authorities. The Act legalises electronic governance and covers various cybercrimes and penalties.

What is the IT Act, of 2000 not applicable to?

According to Section 1 (4) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Act is not applicable to the following documents: Execution of Negotiable Instrument under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, except cheques . Execution of a Power of Attorney under the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

IT ACT 2000 – PENALTIES, OFFENCES WITH CASE STUDIES From

Related Papers

Bhartiya Shodh

Crime, in whatever forms it is, directly or indirectly, always affects the society. In today’s world, there is immense increase in the use of Internet in every field of the society and due to this increase in usage of Internet, a number of new crimes have evolved. Such crimes where use of computers coupled with the use of Internet is involved are broadly termed as Cyber Crimes.

International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Shrikant Sarda

Now a dayrsquos most of the activities and financial transactions uses internet, since internet is accessible from anywhere, perpetrator takes advantage of this and commit a crime.nbsp Cybercrime is a term used to broadly describe criminal activity in which computers or computer networks are a tool, a target, or a place of criminal activity and include everything from electronic cracking to denial of service attacks. It is also used to include traditional crimes in which computers or networks are used to enable the illicit activity. Cyber criminals take full advantage of the anonymity, secrecy, and interconnections provided by the Internet. In this paper we have tried to provide information about Cyber crime, its nature, Perpetrators, Classification of cyber crime, Reasons for its emergence, In next section of this paper we have given an information about cyber law, IT legislation in India. Further in next section we have discuses about Cyber crime scenario in India. Finally Last tw...

Dr. Manoj Kumar

BANGLADESH RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS JOURNAL

Dr. Md. Nayem Alimul Hyder

The advent of internet technology and the use of ICT tools in every human activity has facilitated people to live in a boundary less, borderless world that is known as cyber world. Computer today are being misused for illegal activities like e-mail espionage, credit card fraud, spams and software piracy and so on which invade our privacy. The objective of this article are; to know the basic concept of cyber crime and reasons for cyber crime, evaluate different provisions relating to computer and computer related crimes under ICT Act,2006 (amended 2013), analyze the role of police power of arrest without warrant under this Act etc. Secondary sources have been used during the time of the research. However this article has revealed some issues such as; cyber crime are increasing day by day, police can misuse their power regarding arrest without warrant, only few cyber tribunal have been established that's why it cannot provide adequate justice for the victims, police are not trained properly, there is no digital forensic laboratory etc. Later on this article has provided some recommendations such as; provisions relating to section 57 of the ICT Act should need to change, the government have to establish one digital forensic laboratory, a well trained cyber police force is needed in order to detect cyber criminals, adequate cyber tribunals are to be established, police power of arrest are to be removed by amending ICT Act and minor and major offences are to be tackled and penalized accordingly.

SSRN Electronic Journal

Danish ashraf Khan

International Journal IJRITCC

—No stones are untouched by technology which gives rise to various refined crimes performed by so called intellectual criminals. The crimes performed using technology is termed as cybercrime. This paper tries to give insight on the broader areas effected by cybercrime in India. It also tries to associate various laws under various sections of IT Act 2000 which can be levied upon the culprit. It focuses on three categories of crime, viz. crime against individual, crime against property and crime against government. The paper tries to give insight on the loopholes as well as statistics of various cybercrimes in India.

Dr-Prashant Kumar Srivastava

Fast growing internet has its own advantages as well as disadvantages. The increasing use of information technology facilitate common people to get information, store information, share information etc. Internet provides great facilities to society but same time it present opportunities for crime also. Credit card frauds, spams, defamation or hate expression on the social networking sites and piracies are some of disadvantages due to illegal activities on internet. Cyber Law has emerged due to proliferation of misuse of the computer and internet in the cyber space. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. In present paper there is brief discussion about cyber law and cyber crime and legal provisions to overcome cyber crimes and penalty there for.

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

As we all know that this is the era where most of the things are done usually over the internet starting from online dealing to the online transaction. Since the web is considered as worldwide stage, anyone can access the resources of the internet from anywhere. The internet technology has been using by the few people for criminal activities like unauthorized access to other's network, scams etc. These criminal activities or the offense/crime related to the internet is termed as cyber crime. In order to stop or to punish the cyber criminals the term " Cyber Law " was introduced. We can define cyber law as it is the part of the legal systems that deals with the Internet, cyberspace, and with the legal issues. It covers a broad area, encompassing many subtopics as well as freedom of expressions, access to and utilization of the Internet, and online security or online privacy. Generically, it is alluded as the law of the web.

anuranjan misra

In the today’s era of rapid growth, Information technology is encompassing all walks of life all over the world. These technological developments have made the transition from paper to paperless transactions possible. We are now creating new standards of speed, efficiency, and accuracy in communication, which has become key tools for boosting innovations, creativity and increasing overall productivity. Computers are extensively used to store confidential data of political, social, economic or personal nature bringing immense benefit to the society. The rapid development of Internet and Computer technology globally has led to the growth of new forms of transnational crime especially Internet related. These crimes have virtually no boundaries and may affect any country across the globe. Thus, there is a need for awareness and enactment of necessary legislation in all countries for the prevention of computer related crime. Globally Internet and Computer based commerce and communications cut across territorial boundaries, thereby creating a new realm of human activity and undermining the feasibility and legitimacy of applying laws based on geographic boundaries. This new boundary, which is made up of the screens and passwords, separate the “Cyber world” from the "real world" of atoms. Territorially based law-making and law-enforcing authorities find this new environment deeply threatening.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

Landmark Judgments On Cyber Law

1. Introduction - The term "Cyber Law" refers to the legal framework that governs cyberspace.

2. Landmark Judgments 1. Shreya Singhal Vs UOI AIR 2015 SC 1523. - Section 66A

3. M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Mr Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs Union of India 2014 (1) Kar L J 121.

4. Shamsher Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

5. 4. CBI Vs Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

6. State of Tamil Nadu Vs SuhasKatti CC No. 4680 of 2004

7. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Jogesh Kwatra CM APPL No. 33474 of 2016

8. Avnish Bajaj Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2008) 150 DLT 769

9. Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

10. Christian Louboutin SAS Vs Nakul Bajaj &Ors (2018) 253 DLT 728

11. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 1

12. Conclusion - The Cyber Law system is governed by the IT Act and the rules that have been established.

Key Takeaways

The Information Technology Act of 2000 is part of India's legal framework for cyber law. It is the primary legislation that intends to provide penalties for a variety of cybercrimes.
As India moves toward digitalization and artificial intelligence, there has been a huge increase in cybercrime.
Some historic judgments have helped to shape India's Cyber Law system, and some of the most important ones are discussed in this article.

Introduction

The term "Cyber Law" refers to the legal framework that governs cyberspace. With India's move toward digitalization and artificial intelligence, there has been a considerable increase in Cyber Crime. In Cyber Crimes, a 63.5 percent increase was noted.

The Information Technology Act of 2000 is part of India's legal framework for Cyber Law. It is the parent legislation that intends to provide penalties for a variety of Cyber Crimes. Some historic judgements have helped to shape India's Cyber Law regime, and a few significant decisions are highlighted here.

Landmark Judgments

1. shreya singhal vs uoi air 2015 sc 1523.

Background Facts

The two women were arrested under Section 66A of the IT Act, alleged to have posted objectionable comments on Facebook regarding the complete shutdown of Mumbai after the demise of a political leader.

Section 66Aof IT Act states that whoever by using a computer resource or communication provides information that is offensive, false, or causes inconvenience, danger, annoyance, insult, hatred, injury, or ill will, be punished with imprisonment.

The women filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act on the grounds that it is violative of the freedom of speech and expression.

The validity of Section 66A of the IT Act was challenged before the Supreme Court.

While pronouncing the decision court discussed three concepts and they were discussion, advocacy, and incitement. The court was of the view that mere discussion or even advocacy of a cause, irrespective of how unpopular the same is at the heart of the freedom of speech and expression.

The court held that section 66A is ambiguous, and is violative of the right to freedom of speech and it takes within its range the speech that is innocent as well. It removed an arbitrary provision from IT Act, 2000 and upheld citizens’ fundamental right to free speech in India. It was of the view that even though section 66A is struck down, provisions in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 will continue to be applicable prohibiting racist speech, any speech that outrages the modesty of a woman or speech aimed at promoting enmity, abusive language, criminal intimidation, racism, etc.

2. M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Mr Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs Union of India 2014 (1) Kar L J 121

Petitioners had asked Respondent to designate a Chairperson to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT) in order to ensure that the tribunal's proceedings were convened on a regular basis. It was submitted beforecourt that the agency would take all necessary measures to fill the vacancy.

Within six months, a chairperson will be appointed, and every effort will be made to do so.

It was further submitted that for the public interest, the chairperson should be appointed even before the end of the time.

The petitioners have asked this Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the respondent to appoint a Chairperson to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT), in order to ensure that the CAT's proceedings are held on a regular basis.

There is no need to offer any directions. However, it is expected that, after a period of more than two years, the respondent will take up the question of appointing a Chairperson to the CAT with urgency and do so as quickly as possible, taking into account Section 53 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petition is dismissed with these observations and no cost order.

3. Shamsher Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

The accused filed an appeal before SC after his application was rejected by the HC to exhibit the Compact Disc filed before the court for defence and to get the same proved from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

Whether Compact Disc requires a personal admission or denial from the complainant or witness regarding a document under Section 294 (1) of the CrPC?

The Supreme Court concluded that a Compact Disc is likewise a document and is admissible, and that the accused, complainant, or witness does not need to personally admit or deny a document under Section 294 (1) of the CrPC .

4. CBI Vs Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

The website www.sony-sambandh.com allowed NRIs to send Sony products to their Indian friends and relatives after paying online for the same. Someone logged in May 2002 into the website under the name of Barbara Campa and a Sony Colour TV set along with a cordless telephone was ordered for Arif Azim in Noida. The payment was made by her through a credit card and the said order was delivered to Arif Azim. Though the credit card agency informed the company that it was an unauthorized payment, the purchase was denied by the actual owner.

The complaint was lodged with CBI and a case under Section 419, 418, and 420 of IPC,1860 was registered. An investigation was held, and it was concluded that Arif Azim while working at the Noida Call Centre, got access to the credit card details of Barbara Campa which he misappropriated.

Whether IPC, 1860 can be reliable and effective legislation to rely on when the IT Act is not exhaustive?

Court Decision

The court found Arif Azim guilty, but because he was a young boy and a first-time offender, the court was lenient. The convicted person was given a one-year probationary period.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, was cited by the court as an effective piece of legislation to depend on when the IT Act was not sufficient.

5. State of Tamil Nadu Vs SuhasKatti CC No. 4680 of 2004

The accused was the victim’s family friend and wanted to marry her but she married another man which resulted in a divorce. After her divorce, the accused influenced her again and, on her unwillingness to marry him, he took the course of harassment through the Internet. He opened a false e-mail account in the victim's name and posted obscene, defamatory, and annoying information about the victim.

Chargesheet was filed under Section 67 of the IT Act and Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused.

The accused was convicted under Section 469 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 67 of the IT Act by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. He was punished with a Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 469 of the IPC, Simple Imprisonment of 1 year along with a fine of Rs. 500 under Section 509 of the IPC, and Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years along with a fine of Rs. 4,000 under Section 67 of the IT Act.

The present case is a landmark case in Cyber Law as it ensured efficient handling of the case by making conviction possible within 7 months from filing the FIR.

6. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Jogesh Kwatra CM APPL No. 33474 of 2016

The defendant, Jogesh Kwatra, was an employee in the plaintiff’s company. He started sending vulgar, abusive, derogatory, and filthy emails to his employers and to subsidiaries of the company all over the world to defame the company and its Managing Director. The investigation took place, and it was found that the email originated from a Cyber Cafe in New Delhi. The defendant was identified by the Cyber Cafe attendant during the inquiry. The defendant was terminated from service on May 11, 2011.Following that, he became vindictive and attempted to settle scores by sending emails attempting to ruin the reputation of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and to libel them, among other things. As a result, a lawsuit has been filed against the defendant, seeking a perpetual injunction.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunctions sought in the plaint's prayer clause?

Is it true that the plaintiffs did not come to court with clean hands?

Because the court did not qualify as certified evidence under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a perpetual injunction. There was no concrete evidence as to who was sending these emails. The defendant, on the other hand, was barred from posting or transmitting any information in Cyberspace that was insulting to the plaintiffs by the court.

7. Avnish Bajaj Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2008) 150 DLT 769

In this case, Avnish Bajaj, the CEO of Bazee.com, was arrested for screening cyber pornography under Section 67 of the IT Act. Someone else, however, was using the Bazee.com website to sell copies of a CD containing pornographic material.

Mr. Bajaj was not involved in the airing of pornographic content, according to the court. Such material could not be read on the Bazee.com website, which receives a commission and makes money from sales and adverts made on its pages.

The court points out that the evidence gathered demonstrates that the cyber pornographic offence was committed by someone other than Bazee.com.

The CEO has granted bail on the condition that two sureties of Rs1 lakh each be provided.

However, the onus is on the accused to show that he was only a service provider and not a content creator.

8. Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

In 2005, $ 3,50,000 was fraudulently moved from four Citibank accounts in the United States to a few fictitious accounts via the internet. The staff acquired the customers' trust and collected their PINs under the belief that they would be able to assist them in dealing with challenging situations. Instead of decoding encrypted software or breaching firewalls, they were looking for flaws in the MphasiS system.

The defendants in this case are MphasiS call centre ex-employees, according to the court. Every time an employee enters or exits, they are examined. As a result, it's apparent that the employees had the numbers memorised. SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, was utilised to transfer the cash. Unauthorized access to the consumers' electronic accounts was used to commit the crime. As a result, this case is classified as a "Cyber Crime."

The IT Act is wide enough to cover these types of crimes, and any offence under the IPC involving the use of electronic documents can be prosecuted in the same way as crimes involving traditional documents.

Because of the nature of illegal access that is involved in committing transactions, the court ruled that section 43(a) of the IT Act, 2000 is applicable. The defendants were additionally charged under sections 66 and 420 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as sections 465,467, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

9. Christian Louboutin SAS Vs Nakul Bajaj &Ors (2018) 253 DLT 728

A luxury shoe company filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against an e-commerce portal for facilitating trademark infringement with a seller of counterfeit goods.

Whether the defendant is permitted to utilise the plaintiff's logos, marks, and images, which are protected under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act?

The defendant is more than an intermediary, according to the Court, because the website has complete control over the products supplied through its platform. It recognises and promotes third-party vendors to market their wares. The Court also stated that an e-commerce platform's active participation would insulate it from the rights granted to intermediaries under Section 79 of the IT Act.

10. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 1

The Supreme Court evaluated whether the charges could be brought under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code for the publication of a poem including historically significant figures.

Whether the poem "Gandhi Mala Bhetala" published among members of the All-India Bank Association Union could lead to the author being charged with a crime punishable under section 292 IPC?

The court quashed the accusations since the poem was already performed and published by others, and after hearing the comments of specific employees, he tendered an unqualified apology before initiation of the proceedings, and for these reasons, the court quashed the charges.

The community standard test is used to identify obscenity, according to the court.

Once the matter has been determined to be obscene, the question of whether the contested issue comes within any of the section's exceptions may arise.

The Cyber Law system is governed by the IT Act and the rules that have been established. When the IT Act cannot offer a specific offence or does not contain exhaustive provisions relating the offence, resort might be given to the IPC provisions.

Even still, it is clear that Cyber Law is insufficient to cope with the current offence.As India moves closer to being a digital nation, crime is on the rise, and new forms of Cyber Crime are emerging every day. As a result, the need to improve and advance legislation to deal with Cyber Crime is growing, as India's Cyber Law has been found to be inadequate in comparison to other states.

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

45876 Views

Category Others , Other Articles by - Shreya Taneja

Browse by Category

Business Law
Constitutional Law
Labour & Service Law
Legal Documents
Intellectual Property Rights
Property Law

Top Members
Share Files
LCI Online Learning

Member Strength 9,61,867 and growing..

We are Hiring
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

IAS Preparation
UPSC Preparation Strategy
Information Technology Act, 2000

Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000)

Important enactments of the Indian Parliament are crucial topics coming under the polity and governance segments of the UPSC syllabus . The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as the IT Act 2000 in short) is an important legislation that is frequently referred to in the daily news. In this article, you can read the salient features of the act and also about the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act 2000.

Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000):- Download PDF Here

IT Act, 2000

The Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 2000. It is the primary law in India for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce.

The act was enacted to give legal sanction to electronic commerce and electronic transactions, to enable e-governance, and also to prevent cybercrime .
Under this law, for any crime involving a computer or a network located in India, foreign nationals can also be charged.
The law prescribes penalties for various cybercrimes and fraud through digital/electronic format.
It also gives legal recognition to digital signatures.
The IT Act also amended certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) , the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to modify these laws to make them compliant with new digital technologies.
In the wake of the recent Indo-China border clash, the Government of India banned various Chinese apps under the Information Technology Act. Read more about this in an RSTV titled, ‘TikTok, Other Chinese Apps Banned’ .

Given below are the links of relevant topics that will help aspirants prepare for their UPSC examination-

IT Act – 2008 Amendments

The IT Act 2000 was amended in 2008. This amendment introduced the controversial Section 66A into the Act.

Section 66A

Section 66A gave authorities the power to arrest anyone accused of posting content on social media that could be deemed ‘offensive’.
This amendment was passed in the Parliament without any debate.
As per the said section, a person could be convicted if proven on the charges of sending any ‘information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character’.
It also made it an offence to send any information that the sender knows to be false, but for the purpose of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill-will, through a computer or electronic device.
The penalty prescribed for the above was up to three years’ imprisonment with a fine.

Arguments against Section 66A

Experts stated that the terms ‘offensive’, ‘menacing’, ‘annoyance’, etc. were vague and ill-defined or not defined at all.
Anything could be construed as offensive by anybody.
There was a lot of scope for abuse of power using this provision to intimidate people working in the media.
This also curbed the freedom of speech and expression enshrined as a fundamental right in the Constitution.
The section was used most notably to arrest persons who made any uncharitable remarks or criticisms against politicians.

The government contended that the section did not violate any fundamental right and that only certain words were restricted. It stated that as the number of internet users mushroomed in the country, there was a need to regulate the content on the internet just like print and electronic media. The Supreme Court, however, in 2015, struck down this section of the IT Act saying it was unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This was in the famous Shreya Singhal v Union of India case (2015) .

Section 69A

Section 69A empowers the authorities to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource if it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence or for investigation of any offence.
It also empowers the government to block internet sites in the interests of the nation. The law also contained procedural safeguards for blocking any site.
When parties opposed to the section stated that this section violated the right to privacy, the Supreme Court contended that national security is above individual privacy. The apex court upheld the constitutional validity of the section. Also read about privacy laws and India .
The recent banning of certain Chinese Apps was done citing provisions under Section 69A of the IT Act.
Note:- The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows the government to tap phones. However, a 1996 SC judgement allows tapping of phones only during a ‘public emergency’. Section 69A does not impose any public emergency restriction for the government.

Read all the important acts and laws for UPSC & other govt. exams in the linked article.

Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules, 2018

The Rules have been framed under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. This section covers intermediary liability.

Section 79(2)(c) of the Act states that intermediaries must observe due diligence while discharging their duties, and also observe such other guidelines as prescribed by the Central Government.
An intermediary is a service that facilitates people to use the Internet, such as Internet Services Providers (ISPs), search engines and social media platforms.
Conduits: Technical providers of internet access or transmission services.
Hosts: Providers of content services (online platforms, storage services).
Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules were first released in 2011 and in 2018, the government made certain changes to those rules.
In 2018, there was a rise in the number of mob lynchings spurred by fake news & rumours and messages circulated on social media platforms like WhatsApp.
To curb this, the government proposed stringent changes to Section 79 of the IT Act.

What do the Rules say?

According to the 2018 Rules, social media intermediaries should publish rules and privacy policies to curb users from engaging in online material which is paedophilic, pornographic, hateful, racially and ethnically objectionable, invasive of privacy, etc.
The 2018 Rules further provide that whenever an order is issued by government agencies seeking information or assistance concerning cybersecurity , then the intermediaries must provide them the same within 72 hours.
The Rules make it obligatory for online intermediaries to appoint a ‘Nodal person of Contact’ for 24X7 coordination with law enforcement agencies and officers to ensure compliance.
The intermediaries are also required to deploy such technologies based on automated tools and appropriate mechanisms for the purpose of identifying or removing or disabling access to unlawful information.
The changes will also require online platforms to break end-to-end encryption in order to ascertain the origin of messages.
Online Intermediaries are required to remove or disable access to unlawful content within 24 hours. They should also preserve such records for a minimum period of 180 days for the purpose of investigations.

Rationale behind the Rules

The government intends to make legal frameworks in order to make social media accountable under the law and protect people and intermediaries from misusing the same.
The government wants to curb the spread of fake news and rumours, and also pre-empt mob violence/lynching.
There is a need to check the presentation of incorrect facts as news by social media, that instigates people to commit crimes.

There has been criticism of the Rules from certain quarters, that says that the State is intruding into the privacy of the individual. Some also say that this law widens the scope of state surveillance of its citizens. These criticisms are notwithstanding the fact that the new Rules are in line with recent SC rulings.

Tehseen S. Poonawalla case (2018): SC said that authorities have full freedom to curb the dissemination of explosive and irresponsible messages on social media, that could incite mob violence and lynchings.
Prajwala Letter case (2018): SC ordered the government to frame the necessary guidelines to “eliminate child pornography, rape and gang rape imagery, videos, and sites in content hosting platforms and other applications”.

Frequently Asked Questions Related to Information Technology Act 2000

What is the main provision of it act 2000, what are the features of it act 2000.

Features of the Information Technology Act, 2000

All electronic contracts created through secure electronic channels were legally valid.
Legal recognition for digital signatures.
Security measures for electronic records and conjointly digital signatures are in place.

How many sections are in the IT Act 2000?

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

First Conviction Case under Sec 67 of the IT ACT, 2000

Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu, was the first case in India where a conviction was handed down in connection with the posting of obscene messages on the internet under the controversial section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case was filed in 2004 and within a short span of about seven months from the filing of the FIR, the Chennai Cyber Crime Cell achieved the conviction .The Case of Suhas Katti is a notable case where the conviction was achieved successfully within 7 months from filing of the FIR. The efficient handling of the case which happened to be the first case of the Chennai Cyber Crime Cell going to trial deserves a special mention.

The accused originated an obscene message on 7.02.04 from Bombay at a browsing centre and went on to surf Yahoo Web Site and created an email in the name of Roselind (the victim) as “ [email protected] ”. He went into five different Sex Groups through Yahoo website (Radha lovers, Beautiful Tamil Actresses, Tamil girls showing their P***ai, Tamil **** Babes, and Tamil girls showing everything ) and became a member. He started making obscene and defamatory messages about the victim as if she is soliciting sex work and gave her office phone numbers and residence phone number and her email ID- “ [email protected] ”. On seeing such messages in the Yahoo group, several people from different places made offending calls to the victim through phones and emails. The accused also started forwarding emails received in the fake account opened by him in the victim’s name. Again on 9.02.04, the accused posted another similar obscene message about the victim. After suffering defamation due to all such acts of the accused, victim filed a complaint against the accused. The police traced the accused that was the victim’s friend to Mumbai and was interested in marrying her. She married to another person, but that marriage ended in divorce and the accused started convincing her once again and her reluctance to marry him, he started harassing her through the internet. A Charge sheet was filed under section 67 of the IT Act 2000, 469 and 509 IPC against him.

The issues before the honorable court was –

Whether the accused was liable of the charges under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Whether the accused was liable of the charges under Section 469 of IPC, 1860.
Whether the accused was liable of the charges under Section 509 of IPC, 1860.
Whether the documentary evidence under Sec 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was sustainable.

Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution analyzed

It is evident from the facts of the case presented before the honorable court about the relationship between the accused and the victim. Before the marriage of the victim with her ex-husband Prajapathi, the accused wanted to marry her and after the victim secured divorce, the accused expressed his desire to marry the victim but she refused his marriage proposal. In order to seek revenge of her refusal, he took the medium of Internet to abuse her by making a false ID in her name, projecting to be soliciting sex-work.

Sec.67 of the IT Act, 2000 provides the punishment for the person who transmits obscene content on an electronic form. From the evidence submitted, it is evident that the accused intentionally published obscene content in the victim’s name. The posting of such messages resulted in annoying phone calls and emails to the victim in the belief that she was soliciting sex-work. Creating a fake ID in the victim’s name and transmitting obscene content over the Yahoo groups revealing her personal details was completely an offence under the said section. The accused misused the medium of Internet and took revenge on the victim and is liable to be punished under the said section. Sec.498 of IPC talks about the Forgery for purpose harming reputation. Whoever commits forgery, [intending that the document or electronic record forged ] shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished. It is evident that the accused has chosen to post the obscene message for a reason that she refused to marry him. Unknown persons contacted her through phone and email and harmed her dignity which was very defamatory in nature resulting in harm in her reputation at her office and among her peer groups. The mental sufferings and humiliation undergone by the victim is irreversible.

Section 509 says that any person intending to insult the modesty of any woman through uttering any words, gesture, or exhibits any object intending that such gesture or words shall be seen by such woman intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, & shall be punished under this section. The accused posted such obscene messages over different sex groups through fake Yahoo ID in her name and tried to insult the modesty of the victim by portraying her as a call-girl which definitely became intruding for the victim’s privacy as he also shared her personal details for contacting. The documentary evidence under Sec 65B of the Evidence Act is sustainable before the court. Counsel for the Accused contended that as per sec.65B, to make an output admissible in evidence, the certificate of the person having lawful control over the use of computer is essential and that evidence produced before the court is invalid. This section doesn’t not suggest that the certificate should be issued by an expert, it is enough if the person issuing the certificate stated that any matter covered by the certificate was to be of his best knowledge. The victim herself has taken out the computer output from her systems and speaks about them in her evidence.

Arguments on behalf of the Accused discussed

The documentary evidence was not sustainable under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 85B of the IEA states that only in the case of secured electronic record, the court shall presume that such records have not been altered. In the case of other electronic records section 65B insists for a certificate. The legislative wisdom itself accepts that electronic records can be altered and hence the certificate. The accused is neither liable under sec.469 nor 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant has blocked the ID of the alleged accused so that she doesn’t receive messages from him, in the same document produced it is seen that the email ID of her ex-husband was also blocked. Question arises why she blocked his messages that too after blocking the ID of the accused. The prosecution has no answers to these questions. Such obscene messages can also be made by her ex-husband too.

The accused is not liable under Sec.67 of the IT Act, 2000. The offending mails are sent by the lady herself to implicate the accused as accused alleged to have refused her marriage proposal. It is submitted from the evidence that the warning message and the blocking of E-mail ID of accused was done from the computer system installed at prosecution’s house and computer system installed at her office respectively. The Investigation Officer has failed to inspect the computer system at the residence and office nor took any precaution to establish the chain of custody required in computer forensics.

With the evidences and arguments proposed on behalf of the prosecution, and the witnesses produced, Ld. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, delivered the judgment on 5-11-04 as follows - the accused was found guilty of offences under s.469, 509 IPC and under s.67 of the I.T. Act and the accused is convicted and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years u/s 468 IPC and pay a fine of Rs-500/- and for offences u/s 509 IPC sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and pay fine Rs-500/- and for offence u/s 67 of IT Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs-4000/-.

Internet has played a vital role in our lives in an unprecedented manner. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti was the first case in India where a conviction was handled in connection with the posting of obscene messages on the Internet under sec.67 of the I.T. Act, 2000. Cases like Avnish Bajaj v. State [1] , National Association Of Software v. Ajay Sood And Ors. [2] are some noteworthy cyber law cases in India. There is a heavy toll in the growing number of cybercrimes across India. The law enforcement agencies should be made aware about the various facets of cybercrimes and that there should be an effective redressal mechanism taking cognizance of such cyber crime activities effectively.

NB - The case of Suhas Katti vs. State of Tamil Nadu is not available in any of the online legal databases. If you wish to read the original scanned judgement of the case, kindly mail us : [email protected]

[1] Avnish Bajaj v. State of N.C.T of Delhi , 116 (2005) DLT 427.

[2] National Association Of Software v. Ajay Sood And Ors ., 119 (2005) DLT 596

Article 21 and Victim Compensation Scheme- Case Analysis of Serina Mondal Judgement

Uniform Victim Compensation Scheme a necessity - Analysing the landmark case of Tekram

IRAC Analysis of a lesser-known landmark case on Mandatory Filing of FIR

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

Info. Technology Law

A. Section 2: Definitions – Computer, Computer Network, etc

1. K. Ramajayam V. The Inspector Of Police [The DVR is an electronic record withinn the meaning of Section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as it stores data in electronic form and is also capable of output]

2. Syed Asifuddin And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh [2005 CriLJ 4314]

Summary: Reliance model handsets were to be exclusively used by Reliance India Mobile Limited but the TATA Indicom staff members who were figured as an accused tampered with pre-programmed CDMA digital handsets belonging to Reliance Infocomm and activated with TATA Indicom network with all dubious means. Offence was held to be made out under Section 65 of IT Act.

3. Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax [2006 144 STC 59 Kar]

B. Section 43: Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc

1. Poona Auto Anillaries Pvt. Ltd., Pune Versus Punjab National Bank, HO New Delhi & Others Summary: In 2013, in one of the largest compensation awarded in legal adjudication of a cyber crime dispute, Maharashtra’s IT secretary Rajesh Aggarwal had ordered PNB to pay Rs 45 lakh to the Complainant Manmohan Singh Matharu, MD of Pune-based firm Poona Auto Ancillaries. A fraudster had transferred Rs 80.10 lakh from Matharu’s account in PNB, Pune after Matharu responded to a phishing email. Complainant was asked to share the liability since he responded to the phishing mail but the Bank was found negligent due to lack of proper security checks against fraud accounts opened to defraud the Complainant.

C. Section 65: Tampering with Computer Source Document

1. Syed Asifuddin And Ors. vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh [2005 CriLJ 4314]

2. Bhim Sen Garg vs State Of Rajasthan and Others. on 13 June, 2006 [2006 CriLJ 3643]

E. Section 66: Computer Related Offences

1. A. Shankar vs State Rep. [2010] The petitioner had secured access unauthorisedly to the protected system of the Legal Advisor.

E. Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.

1. Supreme Court Judgment (in PDF) as to scrapping of Section 66A in the matter of Shreya Singhal V Union of India (2015)

Summary: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2). )Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid. Further, Section 79 is valid subject to Section 79(3)(b) being read down and so on.

F. Section 67: Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form

1. Avnish Bajaj vs State, famously known as Bazee.com case (2005) Summary : CEO of E-Commerce Portal was arrested and given bail later under Section 67 of IT Act on account of an obscene video uploaded on Bazee.com for sale. He proved Due Diligence but in 2005, Information Technology Act did not have any provisions related to ‘Intermediary’ !

2. Sharat Babu Digumarti vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Bazee.com Case, Appeal) Summary: Petitioner was working as Senior Manager, Trust and Safety, BIPL on the day when DPS MMS was put up for sale on Bazee.com. That is, the office responsible for the safety of the Portal, taking action on suspect lists when reported by our users, and block the user or close items listed accordingly. It was held that there is prima-facie sufficient material showing petitioner‟s involvement to proceed against him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 292 IPC. Though he was alrady discharged of offences only under Section 67 read with Section 85 of IT Act and Section 294 IPC.

3. Dr. L. Prakash vs State Of Tamil Nadu (2002) Summary: Petitioner was arrested by the Inspector of Police, R8 Vadapalani Police Station, Chennai for various offences, particularly Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Mohammed vs State on (2010) Summary: Section 67 of Information Technology Act analyzed and held it is not applicable to the case of threatening email received by Chief Minster of Gujarat, hence ordered to be deleted from the matter.

5. Sreekanth C.Nair vs Licensee/Developer (2008) [Blocking of Website] Summary: A student of ASCL, came across the website “www.incometaxpune.com”, and on visiting the said site, the complainant was taken to a pornographic site and move the court for blocking order against the website. The court ordered that only when the authorities enumerated under Clauses (i) to (vii) when moved were either not inclined or had refused to prefer a complaint to the Director, CERT-In, then the court could be moved for a direction to the officer concerned.

F. Section 70: Protected system

2. Firos vs State Of Kerala (2006)

G. Section 79: Exemption of Liability of Intermediary in certain cases and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011

1. CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN SAS Versus NAKUL BAJAJ & ORS (Intermediary Liability as an E-commerce Operator – November 2018)

Great analysis of section 79 of IT Act, 2000 and the Intermediary Guidelines done by honorable Judge Ms Pratibha M Singh. Importantly, it lays down the circumstances, in which the Intermediary will be assumed to be abetting the sale of online products/services and therefore, cannot go scott free. In the said matter, the Complainant, a manufacturer of Luxury Shoes filed for injunction against an e-commerce portal www.darveys.com for indulging in Trademark violation, along with the seller of spurious goods.

2. KENT RO SYSTEMS LTD & ANR Versus AMIT KOTAK & ORS (EBAY – January 2017)

Kent RO had lodged Complaint with eBay as to IPR violation of its rights by a seller on later’s platform and wanted Ebay to verify the products before it is uploaded on it’s platform. Court said the IT Intermediary Rules only require the intermediary to publish the Rules and Regulations and Privacy Policy and to inform the users of its computer resources not to host, display, uphold or publish any information that infringes any Intellectual Proprietary Rights. Further, the IT Rules require the eBay as an intermediary to, upon any person as the plaintiffs approaching it in writing, of products infringing that person’s patent, trademark or copyright rights to within 36 hours disable the infringing information. Court held that hosting of information on such portals is automatic and it is not expected of the eBay to screen each and every information except when the same is brought to it’s knowledge. Therefore, to require an intermediary to do such screening would be an unreasonable interference with the rights of the intermediary to carry on its business.

3. Google India Pvt Ltd VS. Visaka Industries Limited (2009) [Google liable as Intermediary (if proved guilty) as criminal complaint instituted before the Information technology (Amendment) Act 2008 came into force]

4. Gaussian Network Pvt. Ltd V Monica Lakhanpal & Another (2012) [Whether there is any restriction on playing the Games of Rummy, Chess, Golf, Poker, Bridge, and Snooker of skill with stakes on the websites making profit and whether wagering and betting on games of skill make the activity “Gambling”, as covered under Rule 3 of Intermediary Guidelines ?]

5. Vyakti Vikas Kendra & other vs Jitender Bagga & Google (2012) [Art Of Living Foundation filed for interim relief against a blogger and the intermediary Google owned Blogger.com for cyber defamation. The latter was ordered to remove all the defamatory content within 36 hours]

H. Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Admissibility Of Electronic Records

1. Anvar P.V vs P.K. Basheer & Others [An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under Section 65B are satisfied]

2. SC: Harpal Singh V. State of Punjab (2016) – Electronic Evidence [November 2016] [Apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65B(2) had been complied with, in absence of a certificate under Section 65B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence]

3. K. Ramajayam V. The Inspector Of Police [If an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance with the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In this case, DVR which contains the information is before the Court]

I. Effects Test – Jurisdiction

1. Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr (2009) [While courts have more readily applied the “effects” test in defamation cases, there have been problems in its application to trademark infringement cases]

2. United States Supreme Court in the matter of CALDER v. JONES, (1984) [The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas applied the “effects test” set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), to deny a defendant’s motion to dismiss an Internet defamation case for lack of personal jurisdiction]

J. Blocking of Website

1. Sreekanth C.Nair vs Licensee/Developer (2008) [Blocking of Website]

K. Domain Names – Domain & Trademark issues

1. Infosys Technologies Limited vs Akhil Gupta (2005)

2. Yahoo! Inc. vs Akash Arora (1999)

3. Satyam Infoway Ltd vs Siffynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd (2004)

L. .COM Domain Name Disputes

1. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. Ramzan Arif, Vertex Medical (pvt) Ltd. [WIPO Case No. D2020-2334] (Domain: VertexMedical.com)

M. Software Piracy

1. Adobe Systems Inc. vs Sachin Naik (Delhi High Court – 2013)

| | | |

Information Technology Rules

In exercise of the powers conferred by respective sections of Information Technology Act 2000, the Central ...

Further Section

Information Technology Act, 2000

1. Cyber Crime in India 2. Check Domain Name WHOIS Info 3. Section 63B of Copyright Act, ...

Cyber Crime in India

Artificial Intelligence
Generative AI
Business Operations
IT Leadership
Application Security
Business Continuity
Cloud Security
Critical Infrastructure
Identity and Access Management
Network Security
Physical Security
Risk Management
Security Infrastructure
Vulnerabilities
Software Development
Enterprise Buyer’s Guides
United States
United Kingdom
Newsletters
Foundry Careers
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy
Member Preferences
About AdChoices
E-commerce Links
Your California Privacy Rights

Our Network

Computerworld
Network World

India’s IT Act 2000 a toothless tiger?

The recent whatsapp breach turned the spotlight yet again on india’s dated, ineffectual it act, 2000. cyberlaw experts pavan duggal, prashant mali and puneet bhasin tell us everything that’s wrong with the act and what the government ought to do to fix it..

The recent fiasco around the that accessed confidential information via WhatsApp on Indian government officials, scientists and journalists caused a fair bit of outrage with heated debates around privacy and data protection.

However, the Facebook-owned messaging app got away scot-free with a light rap on the knuckles. This isn’t the first time a tech major has been found guilty of compromising data and getting away without being penalized – all thanks to India’s infecund two-decade-old IT Act, 2000.

Drafted in an age when the internet penetration in India stood at 0.5 percent, the IT Act is not built to accommodate technologies like AI, cloud, mobility, IoT, and quantum computing. Adding to the complexity is the multitude of social media apps and unregulated content from news websites and online discussion forums.

[Note to the reader: Internet penetration in India currently stands at over 40 percent and is projected to reach 627 million users by the end of 2019]

“The IT Act also doesn’t address privacy issues – privacy is now a fundamental right and the law needs to specifically address privacy concerns, but that’s not the case.”

— Dr Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India & Founder-Pavan Duggal Associates

CSO India talks to the country’s eminent cyber law experts to get a read on the deficits in the IT Act, 2000 and how global tech majors view the Indian demographic as a perfect hunting ground to gather and monetize humongous amounts of unregulated data.

Loopholes in the Indian IT Act, 2000

Simply put, the Indian IT Act is not a cybersecurity law and therefore does not deal with the nuances of cybersecurity, explains Dr Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India and founder of Pavan Duggal Associates. “The IT Act also doesn’t address privacy issues – privacy is now a fundamental right and the law needs to specifically address privacy concerns, but that’s not the case,” he points out.

So was the IT Act, 2000 flawed to start with? Not really, opines international cyber law expert and founder of Cyberjure Legal Consulting, Adv. Puneet Bhasin. She believes that when the IT Act 2000 came into being, it was actually a good piece of legislation. She explains that the surface of cyber-attacks has exponentially increased and this was not foreseen by the government.

“WhatsApp and Facebook are covered by the ‘safe harbour’ provision under Sec-79 of the IT Act, 2000, which exempts intermediaries from liability in certain instances.”

–Adv (Dr) Prashant Mali, cyber & privacy law expert, Bombay High Court

The penalties levied by the IT Act are minimal compared to GDPR, and the manner of implementation is even more dismal. For instance, the IT Act has provided for damages of up to INR 5 crore, under section-43 of the IT Act. However, Duggal reveals that there hasn’t been a single case when the penalty levied has exceeded INR 12-13 lakh.

To add some perspective, Facebook makes INR 18 crore per day , so the maximum penalty amount levied by the Indian IT Act is roughly what the company makes in three-and-a-half hours.

How Facebook and WhatsApp got away without having to pay a penny

Adv (Dr) Prashant Mali, cyber & privacy law expert at the Bombay High Court explains that the companies are covered within the definition of the “Intermediary” under Section 2(1) (w) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000.

“WhatsApp and Facebook are covered by the ‘safe harbour’ provision under Sec-79 of the IT Act, 2000, which exempts intermediaries from liability in certain instances,” says Mali.

Simply put, the law states that intermediaries will not be liable for any third party information, data or communication link made available by them. Furthermore, the guidelines do not specify any penalty or damage to be borne by a company if the rules are not followed.

In addition, the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) does not penalize intermediaries to report a breach or unauthorized access on their own accord.

10 takeaways for the Indian government

An amendment that did more harm than good

The Indian IT Act, 2000 was formed to grant legality to electronic transactions and to promote e-commerce. However, the Act hasn’t been amended in 20 years, barring once in 2008.

Contrary to what one might expect, Duggal reveals that the 2008 amendment further debilitated the Act by making cyber-crime a cognizable (bail-able) offence. This explains the near absence of cyber-crime convictions.

“The 2008 amendment was built on an erroneous presumption that it would be better to reduce the quantum of punishment and increase the fine,” reveals Duggal. Now, this was a bad idea as it eliminated the deterrents from the IT Act.

India – a data goldmine for major league tech giants

Indian citizens have been victims to numerous instances of data breach and privacy violations – take for instance the Cambridge Analytica incident, or the Aadhaar account breach of 1.1 billion citizens, or for that matter the 2018 personal data leak incident of 5 lakh Google+ users.

“Why do you think the trends like business analytics, business intelligence, and digital marketing have seen such rapid growth in India? We’ve been sitting ducks for the last 20 years.”

–Puneet Bhasin, International cyber law expert, Founder-Cyberjure Legal Consulting

The absence of strict data protection and privacy laws coupled with insipid, inconsequential penalties has made India a data-rich demographic for global heavyweights. “Why do you think the trends like business analytics, business intelligence, and digital marketing have seen such rapid growth in India? We’ve been sitting ducks for the last 20 years,” says Bhasin.

Seconding Bhasin’s observation, Duggal opines that the absence of stringent cyber laws makes India a fertile ground for large companies to carry out all kinds of experimentation. “These experiments invariably land up making guinea pigs out of Indian citizens, simply because we don’t have a data protection law,” he says.

The fundamental right to privacy is only enforceable against state action and not against private entities. Also, a lot of service providers are companies located outside the territorial boundaries of the country and therefore are not required to comply with India’s IT Act.

More from this author

Air india data breach highlights concerns around third-party risk and supply-chain security, the biggest data breaches in india, gomeet pant joins abb as vice president and global head of infosec services, personal information and exam results of 1.9 lakh cat aspirants leaked on dark web, payment companies should open up about breach allegations, says npci ciso, upstox shows mobikwik how to manage a data breach incident, redecho taps into india’s power grid, getting the right certifications: advice from indian csos, most popular authors.

Show me more

At&t confirms arrest in data breach of more than 110 million customers.

Mobile surveillance software firm mSpy suffers data breach

Known SSH-Snake bites more victims with multiple OSS exploitation

CSO Executive Session India with Charanjit Bhatia, Head of Cybersecurity, COE, Bata Brands

CSO Executive Sessions: Data protection in Malaysia

CSO Executive Session India with Mrinal Kanti Roy, CISO, Cairn Oil and Gas

Cybersecurity Insights for Tech Leaders: Addressing Dynamic Threats and AI Risks with Resilience

Evolution of Cyber Law in India: IT Act 2000 vs. the 2008 Amendment

Aug 5, 2023 | Article

Shivendra Pratap Singh

The world of technology is one of constant change and evolution, and this dynamism necessitates a similar fluidity and adaptability in the realm of cyber laws. In India, this has been distinctly exemplified by the transformation of the Information Technology (IT) Act from its inception in 2000 to its significant amendment in 2008. In this post, we will delve into the key differences between the original IT Act, 2000 and its subsequent amendment in 2008.

The IT Act, 2000: A Digital Legal Landmark

Introduced at the dawn of the new millennium, the IT Act, 2000 was India’s first comprehensive legislation designed to tackle the legal challenges arising from the burgeoning field of information technology. It covered various issues, including digital signatures, electronic records, and cybercrime.

Salient Features

The original IT Act was primarily designed to provide legal recognition to electronic commerce and to facilitate filing of electronic records with the government. It also defined several cybercrimes, such as hacking and tampering with computer source documents, and prescribed penalties for these offences.

IT Act Amendment, 2008: Rising to New Challenges

However, with the rapid evolution of the digital landscape, it became clear that the original Act was not equipped to deal with the increasing variety and sophistication of cybercrimes. This necessitated a more robust legal framework, leading to the introduction of the IT Amendment Act, 2008.

Expanded Scope

The 2008 amendment significantly expanded the scope of the original Act. It added several new types of cybercrimes to the statute, including identity theft, phishing, cyber terrorism, and child pornography. This reflected a greater understanding of the many forms that cybercrime can take and a commitment to combat them.

Enhanced Penalties

The amendment also introduced stiffer penalties for certain offences. For example, the punishment for hacking was increased from three years imprisonment and a fine of INR 2 lakh under the original Act to three years imprisonment or a fine of up to INR 5 lakh, or both, under the amendment.

Data Protection

One of the most significant additions was the inclusion of provisions related to data protection. The amendment introduced penalties for unauthorized disclosure and misuse of personal data, signaling a move towards a more comprehensive data protection regime.

Intermediary Liability

The 2008 amendment also introduced rules regarding the liability of intermediaries, such as internet service providers and website hosting companies, for unlawful content. This was an important development given the increasing role of these entities in the digital ecosystem.

The journey from the IT Act, 2000 to the 2008 amendment represents a significant evolution in India’s cyber law framework. The amendment reflected an understanding of the changing nature of cybercrimes and the need for stronger and more comprehensive legislation.

Yet, the digital world continues to evolve, and with it, so does the nature of cyber threats. Going forward, India’s cyber law framework will need to continue adapting and evolving to ensure it remains effective in safeguarding the nation’s digital landscape. It’s a perpetual testament to the dynamic interplay between technology and law.

Office Address

Opening hours.

Monday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
Tuesday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
Wednesday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
Thursday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
Friday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
Saturday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM
Sunday	8:00 AM - 8:00 PM

Offences Under IT Act, 2000

By Rahul Deo, CNLU Patna

Editors Note: The high and speedier connectivity to the world from any place has developed many crimes and these increased offences led to the need of law for protection. The IT Act was the result of such a need and this paper analyzes the offences under this Act.

INTRODUCTION

The introduction of the internet has brought tremendous changes to our lives. People of all fields are increasingly using the computers to create, transmit and store information in the electronic form instead of the traditional papers, documents. Information stored in electronic forms has many advantages, it is cheaper, easier to store, easier to retrieve and for speedier to connection. Though it has many advantages, it has been misused by many people in order to gain themselves or for the sake or otherwise to harm others. The high and speedier connectivity to the world from any place has developed many crimes and these increased offenses led to the need for a law for protection. Some countries have been rather been vigilant and formed some laws governing the net. In order to keep in pace with the changing generation, the Indian parliament passed the law – Information Technology Act , 2000. [i] The IT Act 2000 has been conceptualized on the United Nations Commissions on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model law [ii] .

The Government of India enacted its Information Technology Act, 2000 with the objectives stating officially as: “to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as “electronic commerce”, which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” [iii]

Cybercrime is a generic term that refers to all criminal activities done using the medium of computers, the Internet, cyberspace and the worldwide web. Computer crime, or Cybercrime, refers to any crime that involves a computer and a network.[iv] The computer may have been used in the commission of a crime, or it may be the target.[v] Netcrime is criminal exploitation of the Internet.[vi]

Dr. Debarati Halder and Dr. K. Jaishankar (2011) define Cybercrimes as: “Offences that are committed against individuals or groups of individuals with a criminal motive to intentionally harm the reputation of the victim or cause physical or mental harm to the victim directly or indirectly, using modern telecommunication networks such as Internet (Chat rooms, emails, notice boards and groups) and mobile phones (SMS/MMS)”.[vii] Such crimes may threaten a nation’s security and financial health.[viii] Issues surrounding these types of crimes have become high-profile, particularly those surrounding cracking, copyright infringement, child pornography, and child grooming. There are also problems of privacy when confidential information is lost or intercepted, lawfully or otherwise.

An Australian nationwide survey conducted in 2006 found that two in three convicted cyber-criminals were between the ages of 15 and 26.

Internationally, both governmental and non-state actors engage in cybercrimes, including espionage, financial theft, and other cross-border crimes. Activity crossing international borders and involving the interests of at least one nation-state is sometimes referred to as cyber warfare. The international legal system is attempting to hold actors accountable for their actions through the International Criminal Court. [ix]

A report (sponsored by McAfee ) estimates the annual damage to the global economy at $445 billion. [x]

There isn’t really a fixed definition for cybercrime. The Indian Law has not given any definition to the term ‘cybercrime’. In fact, the Indian Penal Code does not use the term ‘cybercrime’ at any point even after its amendment by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, the Indian Cyberlaw. But “Cyber Security” is defined under Section (2) (b) means protecting information, equipment, devices computer, computer resource, communication device and information stored therein from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction. [xi]

Cyber Crime is not defined officially in the IT Act or in any other legislation. In fact, it cannot be too. Offense or crime has been dealt with elaborately listing various acts and the punishments for each, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and related legislation. Hence, the concept of cybercrime is just a “combination of crime and computer”.

Cybercrime in a narrow sense (computer crime) : Any illegal behavior directed by means of electronic operations that targets the security of computer systems and the data processed by them. [xii]

Cybercrime in a broader sense (computer-related crime ):

Any illegal behavior committed by means of, or in relation to, a computer system or network, including such crimes as illegal possession and offering or distributing information by means of a computer system or network.
Any contract for the sale or conveyance of immovable property or any interest in such property;
Any such class of documents or transactions as may be notified by the Central Government Confidential.

CLASSIFICATION OF CYBER OFFENCES

The increased rate of technology in computers has led to the enactment of Information Technology Act 2000 . The converting of the paperwork into electronic records, the storage of the electronic data, has tremendously changed the scenario of the country. [xiii]

Offenses: Cyber offenses are the unlawful acts which are carried in a very sophisticated manner in which either the computer is the tool or target or both. Cybercrime usually includes:

(a) Unauthorized access of the computers (b) Data diddling (c) Virus/worms attack (d) Theft of computer system (e) Hacking (f) Denial of attacks (g) Logic bombs (h) Trojan attacks (i) Internet time theft (j) Web jacking (k) Email bombing (l) Salami attacks (m) Physically damaging computer system.

The offenses included in the IT Act 2000 are as follows [xiv] :

Tampering with the computer source documents.
Hacking with computer system.
Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.
Power of Controller to give directions
Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information
Protected system
Penalty for misrepresentation
Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy
Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars
Publication for fraudulent purpose
Act to apply for offense or contravention committed outside India
Confiscation
Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments.
Power to investigate offenses.

Offenses UNDER THE IT ACT, 2000

1. tampering with computer source documents:.

Section 65 of this Act provides that Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer Programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the being time in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three year, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation:

For the purpose of this section “computer source code” means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.

The object of the section is to protect the “intellectual property” invested in the computer. It is an attempt to protect the computer source documents (codes) beyond what is available under the Copyright Law.

This section extends towards the Copyright Act and helps the companies to protect the source code of their programmes.

Section 65 is tried by any magistrate. This is cognizable and non- bailable offense.

Imprisonment up to 3 years and or Fine up to Two lakh rupees.

Frios v. State of Kerela [xvi] :

Facts: In this case, it was declared that the FRIENDS application software as a protected system. The author of the application challenged the notification and the constitutional validity of software under Section 70 . The court upheld the validity of both. It included tampering with source code. Computer source code the electronic form, it can be printed on paper.

Held: The court held that Tampering with Source code is punishable with three years jail and or two lakh rupees fine of rupees two lakh rupees for altering, concealing and destroying the source code.

Syed Asifuddin case [xvii] :

Facts: In this case, the Tata Indicom employees were arrested for manipulation of the electronic 32- bit number (ESN) programmed into cell phones theft were exclusively franchised to Reliance Infocom. Held: Court held that Tampering with source code invokes Section 65 of the Information Technology Act .

Parliament Attack Case :

Facts: In this case, several terrorists attacked Parliament House on 13 December 2001. In this Case, the Digital evidence played an important role during their prosecution. The accused argued that computers and evidence can easily be tampered and hence, should not be relied. In Parliament case, several smart device storage disks and devices, a Laptop was recovered from the truck intercepted at Srinagar pursuant to information given by two suspects. The laptop included the evidence of fake identity cards, video files containing clips of the political leaders with the background of Parliament in the background shot from T.V news channels. In this case design of Ministry of Home Affairs car sticker, there was game “wolf pack” with user name of ‘Ashiq’, there was the name in one of the fake identity cards used by the terrorist. No back up was taken. Therefore, it was challenged in the Court.

Held: Challenges to the accuracy of computer evidence should be established by the challenger. Mere theoretical and generic doubts cannot be cast on the evidence.

2. Hacking with the computer system:

Section 66 provides that- (1) Whoever with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person destroys or deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means, commits hacking.

(2) Whoever commits hacking shall be punished with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation : The section tells about the hacking activity.

Punishment: Imprisoned up to three years and fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees Or with both.

R v. Gold & Schifreen [xviii] :

In this case, it is observed that the accused gained access to the British telecom Prestl Gold computers networks file amount to dishonest trick and not a criminal offense.

R v. Whiteley [xix] :

In this case, the accused gained unauthorized access to the Joint Academic Network (JANET) and deleted, added files and changed the passwords to deny access to the authorized users. The perspective of the section does not merely protect the information but to protect the integrity and security of computer resources from attacks by unauthorized person seeking to enter such resource, whatever may be the intention or motive.

Cases Reported In India:

Official website of Maharastra government hacked. The official website of the government of Maharashtra was hacked by Hackers Cool Al- Jazeera, and claimed them they were from Saudi Arabia.

3. Publishing of obscene information in electronic form:

Section 67 of this Act provides that Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstance, to read see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees.

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti.

Facts: This case is about posting obscene, defamatory and annoying message about a divorcee woman in the Yahoo message group. E-mails were forwarded to the victim for information by the accused through a false e-mail account opened by him in the name of the victim. These postings resulted in annoying phone calls to the lady. Based on the complaint police nabbed the accused. He was a known family friend of the victim and was interested in marrying her. She married to another person, but that marriage ended in divorce and the accused started contacting her once again. And her reluctance to marry him he started harassing her through the internet. [xx]

Held: The accused is found guilty of offenses under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of the IT Act 2000 and the accused is convicted and is sentenced for the offense to undergo RI for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-and for the offense u/s 509 IPC sentenced to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and for the offense u/s 67 of IT Act 2000 to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/- All sentences to run concurrently.”

The accused paid fine amount and he was lodged at Central Prison, Chennai. This is considered the first case convicted under section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 in India.

In a recent case, a groom’s family received numerous emails containing defamatory information about the prospective bride. Fortunately, they did not believe the emails and chose to take the matter to the police. The sender of the emails turned out to be the girl’s step-father, who did not want the girl to get married, as he would have lost control over her property, of which he was the legal guardian.

Avnish Bajaj (CEO of bazzee.com – now a part of the eBay group of companies ) case.

Facts: There were three accused first is the Delhi schoolboy and IIT Kharagpur Ravi Raj and the service provider Avnish Bajaj.

The law on the subject is very clear. The sections slapped on the three accused were Section 292 (sale, distribution, public exhibition, etc., of an obscene object) and Section 294 (obscene acts, songs, etc., in a public place) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 67 (publishing information which is obscene in electronic form) of the Information Technology Act 2000 . In addition, the schoolboy faces a charge under Section 201 of the IPC (destruction of evidence), for there is apprehension that he had destroyed the mobile phone that he used in the episode. These offenses invite a stiff penalty, namely, imprisonment ranging from two to five years, in the case of a first-time conviction, and/or fines.

Held: In this case, the Service provider Avnish Bajaj was later acquitted and the Delhi schoolboy was granted bail by Juvenile Justice Board and was taken into police charge and detained into Observation Home for two days.

4. Power of Controller to give directions:

Section 68 of this Act provides that (1) The Controller may, by order, direct a Certifying Authority or any employee of such Authority to take such measures or cease carrying on such activities as specified in the order if those are necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act, rules or any regulations made thereunder.

(2) Any person who fails to comply with any order under sub-section (1) shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding two lakh rupees or to both.

Explanation: Any person who fails to comply with any order under subsection (1) of the above section, shall be guilty of an offense and shall be convicted for a term not less than three years or to a fine exceeding two lakh rupees or to both.

The offense under this section is non-bailable & cognizable.

Punishment: Imprisonment up to a term not exceeding three years or fine not exceeding two lakh rupees.

5. Directions of Controller to a subscriber to extend facilities to decrypt information:

Section 69 provides that- (1) If the Controller is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense; for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government to intercept any information transmitted through any computer resource.

(2) The subscriber or any person in charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to decrypt the information.

(3) The subscriber or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in subsection shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. Punishment: Imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. The offense is cognizable and non- bailable.

6. Protected System:

Section 70 of this Act provides that –

(1) The appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any computer, computer system or computer network to be a protected system. (2) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing, authorize the persons who are authorized to access protected systems notified under sub-section (1). (3) Any person who secures access or attempts to secure access to a protected system in contravention of the provision of this section shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: This section grants the power to the appropriate government to declare any computer, computer system or computer network, to be a protected system. Only authorized person has the right to access to protected system.

Punishment: The imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.

7. Penalty for misrepresentation:

Section 71 provides that- (1) Whoever makes any misrepresentation to, or suppresses any material fact from, the Controller or the Certifying Authority for obtaining any license or Digital Signature Certificate, as the case may be, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or which fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

Punishment: Imprisonment which may extend to two years or fine may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.

8. Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy:

Section 72 provides that- Save as otherwise provide in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person who, in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulation made thereunder, has secured assess to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation: This section relates to any person who in pursuance of any of the powers conferred by the Act or it allied rules and regulations have secured access to any: Electronic record, books, register, correspondence, information, document, or other material.

If such a person discloses such information, he will be punished. It would not apply to disclosure of personal information of a person by a website, by his email service provider.

Punishment: Term which may extend to two years or fine up to one lakh rupees or with both.

9. Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars:

Section 73 provides that – (1) No person shall publish a Digital Signature Certificate or otherwise make it available to any other person with the knowledge that-

(a) The Certifying Authority listed in the certificate has not issued it; or (b) The subscriber listed in the certificate has not accepted it; or (c) The certificate has been revoked or suspended unless such publication is for the purpose of verifying a digital signature created prior to such suspension or revocation. (2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation: The Certifying Authority listed in the certificate has not issued it or, The subscriber listed in the certificate has not accepted it or the certificate has been revoked or suspended.

The Certifying authority may also suspend the Digital Signature Certificate if it is of the opinion that the digital signature certificate should be suspended in public interest.

A digital signature may not be revoked unless the subscriber has been given opportunity of being heard in the matter. On revocation, the Certifying Authority need to communicate the same with the subscriber. Such publication is not an offense it is the purpose of verifying a digital signature created prior to such suspension or revocation.

Punishment: Imprisonment of a term of which may extend to two Years or fine may extend to 1 lakh rupees or with both.

Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India [xxi]

In this case, the publication has been stated that ‘publication means dissemination and circulation’. In the context of the digital medium, the term publication includes and transmission of information or data in electronic form.

10. Publication for fraudulent purpose:

Section 74 provides that- Whoever knowingly creates, publishes or otherwise makes available a Digital Signature Certificate for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which extends to one lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation: This section prescribes punishment for the following acts:

Knowingly creating a digital signature certificate for any

fraudulent purpose or,
unlawful purpose.

Knowingly publishing a digital signature certificate for any

fraudulent purpose or
unlawful purpose

Knowingly making available a digital signature certificate for any

Punishment: Imprisonment for a term up to two years or fine up to one lakh or both.

11. Act to apply for offense or contravention committed outside India:

Section 75 provides that- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offense or contravention committed outside India by any person irrespective of his nationality.

For the purposes of sub-section (1), this Act shall apply to an offense or Contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offense or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.

Explanation: This section has a broader perspective including cyber crime, committed by cyber criminals, of any nationality, any territoriality.

R v. Governor of Brixton prison and another [xxii]

Facts : In this case the Citibank faced the wrath of a hacker on its cash management system, resulting in illegal transfer of funds from customers account into the accounts of the hacker, later identified as Valdimer Levin and his accomplices. After Levin was arrested he was extradited to the United States. One of the most important issues was the jurisdictional issue, the ‘place of origin’ of cyber crime.

Held: The Court held that the real-time nature of the communication link between Levin and Citibank computer meant that Levin’s keystrokes were actually occurring on the Citibank computer. It is thus important that in order to resolve the disputes related to jurisdiction, the issue of territoriality and nationality must be placed by much broader criteria embracing principles of reasonableness and fairness to accommodate overlapping or conflicting interests of states, in spirit of universal jurisdiction.

12. Confiscation:

Section 76 provides that- Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which any provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder has been or is being contravened, shall be liable to confiscation. :

Provided that where it is established to the satisfaction of the court adjudicating the confiscation that the person in whose possession, power or control of any such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories relating thereto is found is not responsible for the contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules orders or regulations made thereunder, the court may, instead of making an order for confiscation of such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, make such other order authorized by this Act against the person contravening of the provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder as it may think fit.

Explanation: The aforesaid section highlights that all devices whether computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other storage, communication, input or output device which helped in the contravention of any provision of this Act, rules, orders, or regulations made under there under liable to be confiscated.

13. Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments:

Section 77 provides that – No penalty imposed or confiscation made under this Act shall prevent the imposition of any other punishment to which the person affected thereby is liable under any other law for the time being in force.

Explanation: The aforesaid section lays down a mandatory condition, which states the Penalties or confiscation not to interfere with other punishments to which the person affected thereby is liable under any other law for the time being in force.

Power to investigate offenses:

Section 78 provides that – Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offense under this Act.

Due to the increase in digital technology, various offenses are increasing day by day. Therefore, the IT Act 2000 need to be amended in order to include those offenses which are now not included in the Act. In India, cybercrime is not of high rate. Therefore, we have time in order to tighten the cyber laws and include the offenses which are now not included in the IT Act 2000. [xxiii]

Since the beginning of civilization, man has always been motivated by the need to make progress and better the existing technologies. This has led to tremendous development and progress which has been a launching pad for further developments. Of all the significant advances made by mankind from the beginning to date, probably the most important of them is the development of the Internet.

However, the rapid evolution of the Internet has also raised numerous legal issues and questions. As the scenario continues to be still not clear, countries throughout the world are resorting to different approaches towards controlling, regulating and facilitating electronic communication and commerce.

Formatted on 1st March 2019.

[i] http://www.mit.gov.in . last visited on 14-08-2014

[ii] http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/electrcom/ last visited on 16-08-2014

[iii] http://www.mit.gov.in/about.htm . last visited on 16-08-2014

[iv] Moore, R. (2005) “Cyber crime: Investigating High-Technology Computer Crime,” Cleveland, Mississippi: Anderson Publishing.

[v] Warren G. Kruse, Jay G. Heiser (2002). Computer forensics: incident response essentials . Addison-Wesley. p. 392. ISBN 0-201-70719-5 .

[vi] David Mann And Mike Sutton (2011-11-06). “Netcrime” . Bjc.oxfordjournals.org. Retrieved 2011-11-10.

[vii] Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2011) Cyber crime and the Victimization of Women: Laws, Rights, and Regulations. Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. ISBN 978-1-60960-830-9

[viii] Internet Security Systems. March-2005.

[ix] “Cyber Warfare And The Crime Of Aggression: The Need For Individual Accountability On Tomorrow’S Battlefield” . Law.duke.edu. Retrieved 2011-11-10.

[x] “Cyber crime costs global economy $445 billion a year: report” . Reuters. 2014-06-09. Retrieved 2014-06-17.

[xi] http://www.csi-india.org last visited on 15-08-2014

[xii] http://www.cyberlawsindia.net/internet-crime.html last visited on 10-08-2014

[xiii] http://www.legalservicesindia.com last visited on 12-09-2014

[xv] http://www.mpcyberpolice.nic.in last visited on 17-09-2014

[xvi] AIR 2006 Ker 279, 2006 (3) KLT 210, 2007 (34) PTC 98 Ker.

[xvii] 2005 CriLJ4314

[xviii] [1988] 2 WLR 984

[xix] [1991] 93 cr App rep 25

[xx] http://cyber-law-web.blogspot.in/2009/07/case-study-cyber-law-state-of-tamil.html last visited on 28-08-2014

[xxi] AIR 1973 SC 106

[xxii] [1969] 2 QB 222, [1969] 2 All ER 347, [1969] 2 WLR 618, 133 JP 407

[xxiii] http://www.cyberlawsindia.net/internet-crime.html last visited on 10-09-2014

IT Act 2000: Objectives, Features, Amendments, Sections, Offences and Penalties

Updated on : Apr 17th, 2024

21 min read

Over the past decade, the rise of technology and electronic commerce has led to a surge in cybercrimes and data-related offences in India. As per the latest news by a renowned paper house, the cybercrime cases increased from 3,693 in 2012 to 65,893 in 2022, recording the highest spike rate. The situation became alarming as even data crucial to national security and integrity was at risk. In response, the government opted to regulate activities on electronic mediums and the data stored therein.

Thus, the Information Technology Act or IT Act 2000 was introduced. In this article, we will provide a comprehensive overview of this Act, highlighting all the associated factors that you need to know.

What Is the Information Technology Act 2000?

A legal framework proposed by the Indian Parliament, the Informational Technology Act of 2000 , is the primary legislation in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce . It was formulated to ensure the lawful conduct of digital transactions and the reduction of cyber crimes, on the basis of the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996 (UNCITRAL Model). This legal framework, also known as IT Act 2000 , comes with 94 sections, divided into 13 chapters and 2 schedules.

When IT Act 2000 Came Into Effect?

The bill of this law was passed in the Budget by a group of Parliament members, headed by the then Minister of Information Technology and signed by the President on 9 May 2000. It finally came into effect on October 17, imposing restrictions on all individuals regardless of their nationality and geographic location.

Importance of IT Act 2000

Read the pointers highlighted below to understand the importance of formulating Information Technology Act 2000:

The Act provides legal recognition to electronic records, resulting in the growth of e-commerce and digital transactions in India.
It has established electronic signatures as the legal equivalent of physical signatures.
The formulation of this act has come up with the establishment of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA), a government body that is responsible for issuing and maintaining the security of digital signatures as well as certificates.
The Act has made it mandatory for companies to obtain consent from consumers when it comes to collecting or using their personal information.
With the Act becoming effective, individuals have the right to seek compensation in case of damage or misuse of their personal data by an unauthorised party.
Through the Act, the Government of India can criminalise cybercrime, hacking and spreading of computer viruses.
The Information Technology Act 2000 also authorised the establishment of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, a specialised official body hired to address the appeals against orders passed by Adjudicating Officers under the Act.
It contains provisions that safeguard the critical information infrastructure, including communication networks and power grids.

Objectives of the Information Technology Act 2000

The following are the main objectives of the Information Technology Act of 2000 that you should know:

Promote efficient delivery of government services electronically or facilitate digital transactions between firms and regular individuals
Impose penalties upon cybercrimes like data theft, identity theft, cyberstalking and so on, in order to create a secure cyber landscape
Formulate rules and regulations that monitor the cyber activity and electronic mediums of communication and commerce
Promote the expansion and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in the Indian IT/ITES sector

Features of the Information Technology Act 2000

Take a look at the salient features of the Information Technology Act 2000:

The provisions of this Act are implemented by the Central Government to regulate electronic commerce and penalise cybercrime.
The Act states the roles and responsibilities of intermediaries as well as conditions under which their liability can be exempted.
The Information Technology Act is associated with CERT-In (Indian Computer Emergency Response Team), a nodal agency that is responsible for cybersecurity and cyber incident response.
There have been 2 amendments associated with this Act, addressing the technological advancements, implementability concerns and anomalies.

IT Act 2000 and Its Amendments

As technology evolved over time, the Indian Parliament recognized the need to revise the Act in order to align it with societal needs, resulting in its amendment. Two significant amendments were made to the IT Act 2000 that you should know about.

1. Amendment of 2008

The 2008 amendment came up with modifications to Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. The section outlined penalties for sharing offensive messages electronically. This includes any message or information that incited hatred or compromised the integrity and security of the nation. However, the lack of clarity in defining 'offensive' messages led to unnecessary punishment of several individuals, ultimately resulting in the striking down of the section.

2. Amendment Bill 2015

In 2015, another bill was initiated to amend Section 66A with the aim of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens by the country's Constitution. This was later accomplished by declaring it as violative of Article 19 of the Constitution.

Digital Signature Under IT Act 2000

The Information Technology Act 2000 includes provisions that legally introduce the use of digital signatures for submitting crucial documents online, ensuring their security and authenticity. The Act further mandates all companies/LLPs under the MCA21 e-Governance programme to utilise digital signatures for document filing.

Electronic Governance Under IT Act 2000

Electronic Governance or E-Governance involves the application of legal rules and regulations for managing, controlling, and administering government processes that are conducted through electronic means. Keep reading to find out how electronic governance is dealt with under the Information Technology Act 2000:

Section 4: This Section grants legal recognition to electronic records, making it an equivalent of paper-based documents.
Section 5: In Section 5 of the Indian IT Act, 2000, digital signatures get equal legal recognition as handwritten signatures. However, the authentication of these digital signatures is determined by the Central Government.
Section 6: Eliminating red tapism, Section 6 promotes use of the electronic records and digital signatures by all agencies of the Indian Government. This involves online filing of documents, issuance of licences/approvals electronically and digital receipt/payment of money.
Section 7: This Section authorises the retention of electronic records for fulfilment of legally retaining records.

IT Act 2000 Sections

The Information Technology Act 2000 has 94 sections focusing on the regulation of electronic exchanges. These sections collectively establish a comprehensive framework for electronic governance, digital signatures, and the legal recognition of electronic records. All these sections play a crucial role in facilitating the use of digital technologies in governance.

Section 43 of IT Act 2000

Section 43 of Chapter IX of the IT Act, 2000 outlines various actions for which a penalty is imposed if done without permission from the person in charge of the computer system. These actions are discussed below.

Access information from the system
Download or copy data with proper authorisation
Introduce virus or other malicious software into the system
Cause damage to a computer network or database
Prevent an authorised user from accessing the system
Assist others in breaching the provisions of the law
Charge someone for services they have not utilised
Alter or remove information to reduce its value or cause harm
Steal or mess with the code that makes a computer program work

Section 66 of IT Act 2000

If an individual engages in any action outlined in Section 43 with dishonest or fraudulent intent, he/she shall be subject to punishment. As per Section 66 of the IT Act 2000 , this punishment may include imprisonment for a period of up to 3 years, a fine of up to Rs. 5 lakh, or both.

Section 66A of IT Act 2000

The Information Technology Act of 2000 was amended to introduce a new section, Section 66A in order to address instances of cybercrime arising from the emergence of technology and the internet. This section imposes penalties for sending offensive messages through communication services.

As per this section, a person will face punishment in the following scenarios:

Sending information that is highly offensive or has a menacing character
Using a computer resource or communication device to send false information with the intent of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will
Sending any electronic mail or message with the intention of causing annoyance, inconvenience, deception, or misleading the recipient

Section 66B of IT Act 2000

Section 66B outlines the punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resources or communication devices. As per this section, anyone who knowingly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device shall be liable to imprisonment for up to 3 years, or a fine of up to Rs. 1 lakh, or both.

Section 67A of the IT Act 2000

Section 67A deals with the punishment for publishing or sharing material containing sexually explicit acts in electronic form. On 1st conviction, individuals who publish such material shall face imprisonment for up to 5 years and a fine of up to Rs. 10 lakh. In the event of a 2nd or subsequent conviction, the punishment may extend to imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine of up to Rs. 10 lakh.

Offences and Penalties Under IT Act 2000

There are provisions in the Information Technology Act 2000 that outline different offences and penalties related to the misuse of technology and electronic communication. Let us take a look:


Section 65	Tampering documents stored within a computer system	Imprisonment of 3 years or a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs or both
Section 66	Offences associated with computers or any act outlined in Section 43	Imprisonment of 3 years or a fine that extends to Rs. 5 lakhs or both
Section 66B	Dishonestly receiving a stolen computer source or device	Imprisonment for 3 years or a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or both
Section 66C	Identity theft	Imprisonment of 3 years or a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or both
Section 66D	Cheating by personation	Either imprisonment for 3 years or a fine of Rs. 1 lakh or both
Section 66E	Invading privacy	Either imprisonment up to 3 years or a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs or both
Section 66F	Cyber terrorism	Life imprisonment
Section 67	Sending explicit or obscene material in electronic form	Imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs
Section 67A	Sending material containing sexually explicit acts through electronic means	Imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs
Section 67B	Depicting children in sexually explicit form and sharing such material through electronic mode	Imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs
Section 67C	Failure to preserve and retain the information by intermediaries	Imprisonment for 3 years and a fine

Cyber Crime Under IT Act 2000

When it comes to cybersecurity , there are 5 main types of laws followed in India . These include the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act), the Indian Penal Code of 1860 (IPC), the Information Technology Rules (IT Rules), the Companies Act of 2013, and the Cybersecurity Framework (NCFS).

The cyber law established under the IT Act of 2000 stands as the first cyber law approved by the Indian Parliament. It highlights penalties and sanctions enacted by the Parliament of India that safeguard the sectors of e-governance, e-banking and e-commerce.

Advantages and Disadvantages of IT Act 2000

While the IT Act of 2000 offers numerous benefits, it also carries certain disadvantages. Let us begin by exploring its advantages.

Before the Act was enacted, emails, messages and such other means of communication were not legally recognised and thus not admissible as evidence in court. However, with the introduction of the IT Act of 2000, electronic communications gained legal recognition.
By leveraging the legal infrastructure provided by this Act, companies can engage in e-commerce or e-business.
With the legalisation of digital signatures, it has become easier to carry out transactions online or verify the identity of an individual on the internet.
Corporations get statutory remedies in the event of unauthorised access or hacking into their computer systems or networks.
Individuals get monetary assistance or compensation as a remedy for damages of any kind incurred in computer systems.
The Act identifies and penalises various cybercrimes such as hacking, spamming, identity theft, phishing, and so on, which were previously not addressed in any legislation.
The Act permits companies to serve as certifying authorities and issue digital certificates.
It empowers the Indian Government to issue notices on the internet through e-governance.

Let us now walk through a list of disadvantages that came forth after the enactment of the Information Technology Act 2000:

The Information Technology Act of 2000 fails to address the issues involving domain names, and the rights, and liabilities of domain owners.
Despite the prevalence of copyright and patent issues in India, the Act still does not protect Intellectual Property Rights when it comes to computer programs and networks.
Various kinds of cybercrimes such as cyberstalking, cyber fraud, chat room abuse, theft of internet hours, and many more are not covered by this Act.
The IT Act has also failed to address critical issues such as privacy and content regulation.

With the rapid escalation of cybercrime cases in India, there emerged an urgent need for a mechanism to detect and control them. The IT Act 2000 is a step towards safeguarding the data and sensitive information stored with online intermediaries. In addition, this Act comes with various provisions that benefit citizens and protect their data from misuse.

Frequently Asked Questions

As of March 2024, the IT Act contains 2 schedules. Initially, the Act included 4 schedules, with 2 of them being omitted over time.

The Information Technology Act 2000 is a legal framework focusing on the legal recognition of digital certificates and the regulation of certification authorities as its components.

The primary feature of the IT Act of 2000 is to facilitate lawful electronic, digital, and online transactions while mitigating cybercrimes.

There are 94 sections in the Information Technology Act of 2000.

A digital signature is the authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber through an electronic method or procedure. It serves as the digital equivalent of a traditional handwritten signature or stamped seal.

The Information Technology Act 2000 has a primary objective to regulate and control the prevalent cybercrime cases in India.

Section 67A of the Information Technology Act states the punishment for publishing or sharing material that contains sexually explicit acts through electronic means.

About the Author

Mayashree Acharya

I am an advocate by profession and have a keen interest in writing. I write articles in various categories, from legal, business, personal finance, and investments to government schemes. I put words in a simplified manner and write easy-to-understand articles. Read more

Quick Summary

Was this summary helpful.

Clear offers taxation & financial solutions to individuals, businesses, organizations & chartered accountants in India. Clear serves 1.5+ Million happy customers, 20000+ CAs & tax experts & 10000+ businesses across India.

Efiling Income Tax Returns(ITR) is made easy with Clear platform. Just upload your form 16, claim your deductions and get your acknowledgment number online. You can efile income tax return on your income from salary, house property, capital gains, business & profession and income from other sources. Further you can also file TDS returns, generate Form-16, use our Tax Calculator software, claim HRA, check refund status and generate rent receipts for Income Tax Filing.

CAs, experts and businesses can get GST ready with Clear GST software & certification course. Our GST Software helps CAs, tax experts & business to manage returns & invoices in an easy manner. Our Goods & Services Tax course includes tutorial videos, guides and expert assistance to help you in mastering Goods and Services Tax. Clear can also help you in getting your business registered for Goods & Services Tax Law.

Save taxes with Clear by investing in tax saving mutual funds (ELSS) online. Our experts suggest the best funds and you can get high returns by investing directly or through SIP. Download Black by ClearTax App to file returns from your mobile phone.

Cleartax is a product by Defmacro Software Pvt. Ltd.

Company Policy Terms of use

Data Center

SSL Certified Site

128-bit encryption

Classroom Programme
Interview Guidance
Online Programme
Drishti Store
My Bookmarks
My Progress
Change Password
From The Editor's Desk
How To Use The New Website
Help Centre

Achievers Corner

Topper's Interview
About Civil Services
UPSC Prelims Syllabus
GS Prelims Strategy
Prelims Analysis
GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
CSAT Strategy
Previous Years Papers
Practice Quiz
Weekly Revision MCQs
60 Steps To Prelims
Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

Mains GS Syllabus
Mains GS Strategy
Mains Answer Writing Practice
Essay Strategy
Fodder For Essay
Model Essays
Drishti Essay Competition
Ethics Strategy
Ethics Case Studies
Ethics Discussion
Ethics Previous Years Q&As
Papers By Years
Papers By Subject
Be MAINS Ready
Awake Mains Examination 2020
Interview Strategy
Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

Daily News & Editorial
Daily CA MCQs
Sansad TV Discussions
Monthly CA Consolidation
Monthly Editorial Consolidation
Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

To The Point
Important Institutions
Learning Through Maps
PRS Capsule
Summary Of Reports
Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

NCERT Books
NIOS Study Material
IGNOU Study Material
Yojana & Kurukshetra
Chhatisgarh
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

UPSC Prelims Test Series
UPSC Mains Test Series
UPPCS Prelims Test Series
UPPCS Mains Test Series
BPSC Prelims Test Series
RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
Daily Editorial Analysis
YouTube PDF Downloads
Strategy By Toppers
Ethics - Definition & Concepts
Mastering Mains Answer Writing
Places in News
UPSC Mock Interview
PCS Mock Interview
Interview Insights
Prelims 2019
Product Promos
Daily Updates

Make Your Note

Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000

13 Oct 2022
GS Paper - 2
Fundamental Rights
Judgements & Cases

For Prelims: Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, Article 19(1)(a)

For Mains: Freedom of Speech and Expression, Issues Arising Out of Design & Implementation of Policies, Government Policies & Interventions

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court ordered States and their police forces to stop prosecuting free speech on social media under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

However, the court clarified that this direction would apply only to a charge under Section 66A and not extend to other offences in a case.

What is Section 66A of the IT Act?

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000 made it a punishable offence for any person to send offensive information using a computer or any other electronic device.
Section 66A had prescribed three years' imprisonment if a social media message caused "annoyance" or was found "grossly offensive".
Even sending emails for causing annoyance, inconvenience, or to deceive or mislead the recipient about the origin of the message was punishable under this section.
The section relating to restrictions on online speech was declared unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority.
The weakness of Section 66A lay in the fact that it had created an offence on the basis of undefined actions: such as causing “inconvenience, danger, obstruction and insult”, which do not fall among the exceptions granted under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech.
Local authorities could proceed autonomously, literally on the whim of their political masters.
Right to know is the species of the right to speech and expression provided by the Article 19(1) (a) of the constitution of India.

Way Forward

Enforcing unconstitutional laws is sheer wastage of public money.
They will suffer the indignity of lawless arrest and detention, for no reason other than their poverty and ignorance, and inability to demand their rights.

ISSUES AND CONCERNS OF CYBERSPACE JURISDICTION IN INDIA

Published by admin on october 21, 2023 october 21, 2023.

This article is written by Kirtika Sarangi, a Law Graduate from ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, in Hyderabad, Telangana, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

This legal article delves into the intricate domain of Cyberspace Jurisdiction in India, comprehensively examining its Legal Framework, including its pivotal Acts and Regulations. Analysing Landmark Cases and Judgments elucidates the evolution of jurisprudence in this field. The article illuminates the Challenges posed by the borderless nature of cyberspace, emphasising the critical issues of data protection and privacy. Furthermore, it explores International Perspectives on Cyberspace Jurisdiction, comparing India’s approach with global counterparts and drawing vital lessons. Examining International Treaties and Agreements, notably India’s active participation, offers insights into the nation’s role in shaping global cybersecurity cooperation. Concluding with practical Recommendations for Future Treaties and scrutiny of Government Notifications and Initiatives, this article is a comprehensive guide to understanding and navigating the complex landscape of cyberspace jurisdiction in India.

Keywords- Cyberspace Jurisdiction, Legal Framework, Landmark Cases, International Treaties, Government Initiatives

Table of Contents

Introduction

The exponential growth of cyberspace in India has ushered in an era of unprecedented connectivity, innovation, and economic potential. However, this digital transformation has created a complex web of legal challenges that demand meticulous attention. At the forefront of these challenges is cyberspace jurisdiction—an intricate and evolving landscape encompassing governments’ legal authority in the virtual realm. As cyberspace permeates every aspect of modern life, from e-commerce to social interactions and national security, the imperative for effective regulation becomes increasingly evident. This article embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the “Issues and Concerns of Cyberspace Jurisdiction in India.” It seeks to dissect the Legal Framework, Relevant Acts and Regulations, Landmark Cases and Judgments, and the myriad Challenges in cyberspace jurisdiction. Furthermore, the article ventures into International Perspectives on Cyberspace Jurisdiction, delving into India’s participation in International Cybersecurity Agreements and offering Recommendations for Future Treaties. By examining Government Notifications and Initiatives, this article aims to provide valuable insights into a critical and ever-evolving facet of India’s legal landscape.

Outlining Jurisdictional Concerns In Cyber Law

The dynamic landscape of cyberspace jurisdiction presents myriad intricate concerns within cyber law. Central to these concerns is the challenge of defining and asserting jurisdiction in an environment that transcends physical boundaries. The internet’s borderless nature complicates matters related to territorial jurisdiction, leaving legal experts grappling with questions of where a cybercrime or dispute originates, where it affects, and consequently, which legal framework should apply. Privacy and data protection concerns loom large, with the need to balance individual rights against the necessity for state surveillance and law enforcement. Moreover, the jurisdictional landscape is further complicated by the rapid evolution of technology, including emerging areas like artificial intelligence and blockchain, a necessitating continuous adaptation of laws and regulations. As we delve into the intricacies of cyberspace jurisdiction in India, these jurisdictional concerns serve as focal points for analysis and discussion. [1] Below is a brief of the case; [2]

Cyberspace Jurisdictional Approaches:

Legal authorities have developed several key approaches in navigating the intricate domain of cyberspace jurisdiction. One prominent model is territorial jurisdiction, where a nation asserts its legal authority over activities that originate within its geographical borders or substantially impact its residents. This approach, however, often falters in the borderless realm of the internet, giving rise to conflicts and ambiguities. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is another significant approach, allowing a nation to extend its legal reach beyond its boundaries to address cybercrimes that affect its citizens or interests abroad. However, extraterritoriality can raise questions of sovereignty and lead to diplomatic disputes. Additionally, cyber sovereignty emphasises a nation’s right to govern its cyberspace independently, even when dealing with global internet platforms. As we explore the challenges and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction in India, these various approaches will be dissected to illuminate their applicability and implications in a digitally interconnected world. [3]

Issues between jurisdictions and how to resolve them:

Issues between jurisdictions in cyberspace jurisdiction can be complex and multifaceted. One primary challenge is the lack of clear boundaries in the digital landscape, making it difficult to determine where a cyber incident originated or where its effects are most strongly felt. This ambiguity can lead to conflicts when multiple jurisdictions claim authority over the same case. To resolve these conflicts, international cooperation and treaties often play a crucial role. Bilateral or multilateral agreements can establish frameworks for sharing information, evidence, and responsibilities in cross-border cybercrime investigations. Additionally, the principle of comity, which encourages nations to respect each other’s laws and judicial decisions, can aid in mitigating jurisdictional disputes. However, achieving consensus among different jurisdictions remains complex, requiring ongoing diplomatic efforts and legal harmonisation to ensure effective cyberspace governance. [4]

Cyberlaw Extraterritorial Jurisdiction:

Cyberlaw extraterritorial jurisdiction is critical to addressing cross-border cybercrimes and ensuring justice is served in the digital age. This legal principle allows a nation to extend its jurisdiction beyond its geographical boundaries, asserting authority over individuals or entities involved in cybercrimes that impact its citizens or interests, even if the activities occur in another country. While extraterritorial jurisdiction is a powerful tool for combating cyber threats that transcend borders, it can also lead to complexities and diplomatic tensions. Concerns may arise regarding the infringement of a foreign nation’s sovereignty or conflicts in legal approaches. Striking a balance between the pursuit of cybercriminals and respecting international norms and laws is a central challenge in the realm of extraterritorial jurisdiction within the evolving landscape of cyberspace governance. [5]

Global Cyber Crime Jurisdiction:

Global cybercrime jurisdiction is a pressing concern in the interconnected world of cyberspace. As cybercrimes know no borders and often involve actors from multiple nations, determining which jurisdiction has authority over a particular case can be immensely challenging. This issue becomes particularly pronounced when cybercriminals operate from one country but victimise individuals or organisations in others. Achieving a coordinated global response to cybercrime is crucial, as fragmented jurisdictional approaches can hinder investigations and prosecutions. International treaties and agreements play a pivotal role in facilitating cooperation among nations, allowing for the extradition of cybercriminals, sharing evidence, and harmonising legal frameworks to address this global challenge effectively. However, achieving consensus on these matters remains a complex endeavour, and the evolving nature of cyberspace constantly tests the limits of existing legal norms and cooperation mechanisms. [6]

Information Technology Act of 2000 jurisdiction:

The Information Technology Act of 2000 [7] is the foundational legislation in India governing cyberspace jurisdiction. This landmark act provides the legal framework for regulating electronic transactions, digital signatures, and the security and integrity of data within the country. Under this act, Indian authorities have the jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes occurring within its territorial boundaries, ensuring that the law applies to offences committed using digital means. However, challenges arise when dealing with cross-border cybercrimes, as the act’s jurisdiction is limited to India. To address these concerns, the act’s extraterritorial application has been discussed, especially in cases where Indian citizens are affected by cybercrimes outside the country. The Information Technology Act 7 , as an essential component of India’s cyberspace jurisdiction, continues to evolve to meet the challenges and concerns of the digital age. [8]

Cyberspace Jurisdiction in India: Legal Framework

The legal framework governing cyberspace jurisdiction in India is primarily outlined in the Information Technology Act of 2000 7 . This legislation provides the foundation for regulating electronic transactions, data security, and digital signatures within the country’s borders. It grants Indian authorities jurisdiction over cybercrimes occurring within the nation but faces challenges in addressing cross-border cyber incidents, prompting discussions on the act’s extraterritorial applicability. As cyberspace jurisdiction continually evolves, the Information Technology Act 7 remains a critical pillar in India’s efforts to navigate the complex legal landscape of the digital realm. [9]

Relevant Acts and Regulations

In the realm of cyberspace jurisdiction in India, several relevant acts and regulations contribute to addressing issues and concerns. The Information Technology Act 2000 7 provides legal frameworks for electronic transactions, cybersecurity, and data protection. The Indian Penal Code 1860 [10] defines offences and penalties for cybercrimes. The Digital Signature Act [11] establishes the legal validity of digital signatures, while the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 [12] governs the admissibility and evaluation of electronic evidence. The Telecommunication Act [13] regulates telecommunication networks and services, including internet service providers. Additionally, the recently introduced Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [14] outline requirements for digital intermediaries and digital media platforms. These acts and regulations collectively offer a comprehensive legal framework to address the challenges and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction in India. [15]

Landmark Cases and Judgments

The shreya singhal case [16] and section 66a [17].

The Shreya Singhal Case 16 is a landmark judgement passed by the Supreme Court of India in 2015. The case challenged the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 17 , which criminalised sending “offensive” messages using a computer or any other communication device. The Court struck down Section 66A 17 , stating that it violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The judgement played a crucial role in defining the legal parameters for regulating online speech and ensuring that internet users in India can freely express their opinions without fear of arbitrary or vague restrictions. The verdict is viewed as a significant victory for freedom of speech and expression in cyberspace jurisdiction in India.

Internet Shutdowns: A Case Study of Jammu and Kashmir [18]

The Jammu and Kashmir case study provides significant insight into the issues and concerns surrounding internet shutdowns in India. In 2019, the region witnessed a prolonged internet shutdown following the revocation of its special status. The case raised important questions about the balance between national security and the fundamental right to access information and freedom of expression in cyberspace jurisdiction. The shutdown severely impacted the lives of millions of individuals, hindering their access to essential services, communication, and the flow of information. The case study highlights the need for clear guidelines and legal frameworks that balance security concerns and the protection of civil liberties in the context of internet shutdowns in India. It brings attention to the challenges and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction, emphasising the importance of upholding fundamental rights in the digital realm.

The WhatsApp Traceability Case

The WhatsApp Traceability Case [19] in India is a significant legal battle that revolves around the issue of traceability of messages on the messaging platform. The case emerged from concerns regarding the spread of fake news, misinformation, and illegal content through WhatsApp. The Indian government had proposed measures to enforce traceability, requiring WhatsApp to disclose the originator of messages. However, WhatsApp argued that implementing such measures would violate user privacy and end-to-end encryption. The case raises important questions about balancing law enforcement requirements and individual privacy rights in cyberspace jurisdiction. It has broader implications on the role of technology platforms and the responsibility of intermediaries in ensuring a secure and free digital environment. The outcome of the WhatsApp Traceability Case 19 is eagerly anticipated and will contribute to shaping the legal landscape of cyberspace jurisdiction in India.

Jurisdictional Challenges in E-commerce Disputes

One landmark case highlighting the jurisdictional challenges in e-commerce disputes is the Amazon.com, Inc. v. Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. case [20] . This case revolved around the question of jurisdiction in disputes about online transactions. The Court held that in e-commerce transactions, jurisdiction could be established where the cause of action arises, such as where the transaction was initiated or the breach occurred. This case sheds light on the complexities in determining jurisdiction in the virtual world, where parties may be located in different locations. It highlights the need for clear legal frameworks and guidelines to address jurisdictional challenges in e-commerce disputes, ensuring fair and efficient resolution of such cases in the digital era.

Territoriality vs. Borderless Cyberspace

One of the primary challenges in cyberspace jurisdiction is the conflict between territoriality and the internet’s borderless nature. Traditional legal systems are built upon territorial jurisdiction, where the law applies within the boundaries of a specific jurisdiction. However, in cyberspace, it becomes difficult to define clear territorial boundaries due to the global and interconnected nature of the internet. The borderless nature of cyberspace raises questions about which jurisdiction should have the authority to regulate and enforce laws in online activities. This challenge becomes more evident in cross-border cybercrimes, where perpetrators may operate from one jurisdiction while targeting victims in another. Addressing these challenges requires international cooperation, harmonisation of laws, and the development of mechanisms to enforce cross-border regulations in cyberspace jurisdiction effectively. [21]

Data Protection and Privacy Concerns

Cyberspace jurisdiction poses several challenges regarding data protection and privacy concerns.

Aadhar data security and privacy concerns

Aadhaar is a national identification system introduced by the Indian government to provide a unique identification number for all residents. Despite its potential benefits, the Aadhaar database has raised concerns about data security and privacy. Critics have raised concerns about collecting, storing, and using biometric data on a massive scale, citing the potential for misuse, hacking, and identity theft. To address these concerns, the government has implemented various security measures, such as multi-factor authentication and encryption. However, it remains to be seen whether these measures are effective in safeguarding Aadhaar data and ensuring user privacy. [22]

The Personal Data Protection

Challenges in cyberspace jurisdiction for personal data protection encompass various aspects that require attention in India. Firstly, jurisdictional issues arise due to the global nature of the internet, where personal data is often stored and processed across international boundaries. Determining which jurisdiction’s laws apply to data protection becomes complicated. Secondly, balancing privacy rights with the legitimate interests of law enforcement and national security poses challenges. Striking the right balance between data protection and the need for access to personal data for investigative purposes is crucial.

Additionally, the adequacy of legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms is essential to ensure adequate personal data protection. Harmonising data protection laws with international standards and ensuring organisations’ compliance with data protection regulations remain significant challenges. Addressing these concerns is imperative for establishing robust cyberspace jurisdiction for personal data protection in India. [23]

Cross-border data flow issues

Cross-border data flow issues have emerged as a significant challenge for cyberspace jurisdiction in India. The increasing digitisation of global commerce has made it essential for companies to transfer data across borders. However, cross-border data flows raise concerns about data localisation, privacy, and sovereignty. Various Indian regulations, such as the RBI’s data localisation requirements and the proposed Personal Data Protection Bill’s [24] cross-border data transfer provisions, impose restrictions and challenges on cross-border data flow. These restrictions may increase business compliance costs and raise questions about India’s compatibility with global data flows. To ensure India’s continued participation in the global digital economy, there is a need for a balanced and nuanced approach to cross-border data flow issues in cyberspace jurisdiction. [25]

International Perspectives on Cyberspace Jurisdiction

International perspectives on cyberspace jurisdiction play a crucial role in understanding the complex legal landscape of governing online activities. The challenges and concerns surrounding cyberspace jurisdiction are not limited to one country and often span international borders. Different jurisdictions have varying approaches, regulations, and legal frameworks for addressing cybercrimes, data privacy, intellectual property rights, and online speech. International organisations and agreements, such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation 27 , provide global guidelines and standards to harmonise cyberspace jurisdiction. However, conflicts may arise when countries have divergent views on jurisdictional reach, data sovereignty, and cross-border law enforcement. Coordinated efforts, collaboration among nations, and the development of international norms are necessary to effectively address the issues and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction in India and around the world. [26]

Regulation of AI in Other Countries

Regulation of AI varies across countries, each implementing different frameworks to address the issues and concerns associated with the technology.

In the United States, the approach to AI regulation is generally more risk-based, focusing on sector-specific regulations and guidelines.

The European Union has taken a more comprehensive approach with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [27] , which applies to AI systems that process personal data. Countries like Canada and Australia have also developed guidelines and frameworks to address ethical considerations and potential risks associated with AI.

The government has introduced regulations to govern AI and promote responsible use in China.

While no specific AI regulation framework exists in India, the government has released a draft AI strategy document for public consultation. The regulation of AI globally is an evolving field, with countries aiming to balance promoting innovation and addressing concerns related to ethics, privacy, and accountability. [28]

Lessons from International Jurisdictional Practices

Examining jurisdictional practices in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 27 , the extraterritorial reach of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) [29] , and their implications for India’s cyberspace jurisdiction offers valuable lessons. The GDPR 27 , implemented in the European Union, sets high standards for data protection and grants authorities jurisdiction over entities offering goods or services to EU residents, irrespective of their location. This underscores the importance of defining jurisdictional boundaries to regulate cross-border data flow effectively. Similarly, the extraterritorial reach of the CCPA 29 illustrates the need to consider the impacts of local regulations on global businesses. By analysing these practices, India can gain insights into formulating a practical cyberspace jurisdiction framework that balances data privacy protection while fostering innovation and promoting digital commerce. There is, thus, a renewed emphasis on the need to develop comprehensive legislation and cross-border cooperation to address the challenges arising in the global digital landscape. [30]

International Treaties and Agreements

International treaties and agreements play a crucial role in addressing the issues and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction in India. These treaties and agreements provide a framework for cooperation, collaboration, and standardisation among countries to effectively tackle cybercrimes, protect digital rights, and establish guidelines for cross-border data flows. For example, the Budapest Convention [31] on Cybercrime is a notable international treaty that aims to harmonise legislation and foster international cooperation in combating cybercrimes. Additionally, agreements like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 27 of the European Union have influenced data protection laws globally. These international instruments contribute to developing consistent and interoperable laws, strengthening cyberspace jurisdiction, and ensuring a harmonious global approach towards addressing the challenges and concerns arising in the digital world.

India’s Participation in International Cybersecurity Agreements

India’s Participation in International Cybersecurity Agreements: India actively participates in various international cybersecurity agreements to address global challenges and concerns in cyberspace jurisdiction. It has signed agreements with countries and multinational organisations to promote cooperation in combating cyber threats and ensuring digital infrastructure security. These agreements facilitate information sharing, capacity building, and collaborative efforts to enhance cybersecurity measures. India’s participation in international cybersecurity agreements demonstrates its commitment to addressing the global shared concerns and issues that arise in the digital realm. [32]

Budapest Convention on Cybercrime

The Budapest Convention 31 on Cybercrime is a significant international treaty addressing cybercrime and facilitating cooperation among member states. India signed this convention in 2010, which has since been essential in shaping the country’s legal framework for dealing with cybercrimes. The convention focuses on harmonising national legislation, procedural rules, and cybercrime investigation and prosecution policies. By being a party to the convention, India is committed to aligning its laws with global cybersecurity standards and promoting international cooperation in dealing with cyber threats.

The UN Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications

India actively participates in the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Development [33] . This group promotes discussions and collaborations among member states to address emerging issues and concerns in cyberspace. It provides a platform for governments to exchange knowledge, share best practices, and develop norms and rules for responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. India’s involvement in this group reflects its commitment to shaping international cybersecurity discussions and contributing to developing global norms and regulations in the field of information and telecommunications.

Recommendations for Future Treaties

In order to strengthen India’s position in international cyberspace governance and address the concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction, several recommendations can be put forth. Firstly, India should actively participate in developing international treaties and agreements related to cyberspace, such as the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications 33 in the Context of International Security. This would give India a voice in shaping global policies and norms concerning cyberspace. Secondly, India should promote global cybersecurity cooperation by establishing partnerships and sharing best practices with other countries. This would help exchange information, joint investigations, and capacity building to combat cross-border cyber threats. Additionally, India should prioritise the development of its own comprehensive cybersecurity legal framework that aligns with international standards and best practices. This would provide a solid foundation for addressing the concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction and enhancing India’s credibility in the global cyber governance landscape. [34]

Government Notifications and Initiatives

Government notifications and initiatives play a crucial role in shaping and addressing the issues and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction in India. The Indian government has introduced various notifications and initiatives to regulate and govern activities in the digital domain. One such initiative is the Digital India campaign, launched in 2015, which aims to transform India into a digitally empowered society. This initiative focuses on digital infrastructure, connectivity, digital literacy, and governance. [35] Additionally, the government has introduced the National Cyber Security Policy, 2013, [36] to strengthen the country’s cybersecurity framework. Several notifications have also been issued under the Information Technology Act 7 to address cybersecurity, data protection, and intermediary liability issues. These notifications and initiatives reflect the government’s commitment to addressing the challenges and concerns of cyberspace jurisdiction in India while promoting a secure and inclusive digital environment. [37] [38]

In conclusion, the issues and concerns surrounding cyberspace jurisdiction in India shed light on the evolving nature of the digital realm and its impact on legal frameworks. The interplay between technology, law, and individual rights presents challenges that require careful consideration and adaptation. Key legislative acts such as the Indian Penal Code, Information Technology Act 7 , Code of Criminal Procedure, and Indian Evidence Act 12 play a crucial role in addressing cybercrimes, ensuring due process, and establishing the admissibility of electronic evidence. Landmark cases, such as the Shreya Singhal case 16 and the WhatsApp traceability case 19 , have shaped the landscape by safeguarding freedom of speech and expression and emphasising the need to balance security concerns and fundamental rights. However, emerging areas such as digital personal data protection, internet shutdowns, and challenges related to jurisdiction in cyberspace require ongoing discussions and legal reform. Policymakers, legal practitioners, and society must navigate these issues with a forward-thinking approach, striking a balance between innovation, protection of individual rights, and the effective governance of cyberspace jurisdiction in India.

[1] CorpBiz, ‘The Concepts and Issues of Jurisdiction in Cyberspace’ (2023) https://corpbiz.io/learning/the-concepts-and-issues-of-jurisdiction-in-cyberspace/ .

[2] VakeelKhoj, ‘Issues of Jurisdiction in Cyberspace’ (2023) https://vakeelkhoj.com/blog-1/f/issues-of-jurisdiction-in-cyberspace .

[3] LawBhoomi, ‘Jurisdictional Aspects in Cyber Law and Information Technology Act’ (2023) https://lawbhoomi.com/jurisdictional-aspects-in-cyber-law-and-information-technology-act/ .

[4] Legal Service India, ‘Analysis of Cyber Jurisdiction in India’ (2023) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3329-analysis-of-cyber-jurisdiction-in-india.html .

[5] University of Lucknow, ‘Cyber Jurisdiction’ (2023) https://udrc.lkouniv.ac.in/Content/DepartmentContent/SM_cd8441f8-76c2-495f-8ad6-ead3d120fb0f_30.pdf .

[6] Journal of Constitutional & International Law, ‘Cyberspace and Jurisdiction’ (2023) https://jcil.lsyndicate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CYBERSPACE-AND-JURISDICTION-FINAL-PAPER-Prevy-Tarunya.pdf .

[7] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, INDIA CODE (2000).

[8] National Judicial Academy India, ‘Jurisdictional Issues in Adjudication of Cyber Crimes’ (2023) https://nja.gov.in/Concluded_Programmes/2022-23/P-1299_PPTs/2.Jurisdictional Issues in Adjudication of Cyber Crimes.pdf .

[9] Drishti IAS, ‘Rising Up to Cyber Security Challenges’ (2023) https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/rising-up-to-cyber-security-challenges#:~:text=What are the Challenges related,₹35 crore of damage .

[10] Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, INDIA CODE (1860).

[11] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, INDIA CODE § 2(1)(p), 3, 15 (2000).

[12] Indian Evidence Act, No. 1 of 1872, INDIA CODE (1872).

[13] Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. LA. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)

[14] Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, No. G.S.R. 139(E) of 2021, INDIA CODE (2021).

[15] National Criminal Justice Reference Service, ‘Cybercrime Jurisdiction’ (2023) https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/cybercrime-jurisdiction .

[16] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523 (India).

[17] Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, INDIA CODE § 66A (2000).

[18] Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 (India).

[21] LawBhoomi, ‘Jurisdictional Aspects in Cyber Law and Information Technology Act’ (2023) https://lawbhoomi.com/jurisdictional-aspects-in-cyber-law-and-information-technology-act/ .

[22] Jackson School of International Studies, ‘The Aadhaar Card: Cybersecurity Issues with India’s Biometric Experiment’ (2023) https://jsis.washington.edu/news/the-aadhaar-card-cybersecurity-issues-with-indias-biometric-experiment/ .

[23] UNCTAD, ‘Data Protection and Privacy Legislation Worldwide’ (2023) https://unctad.org/page/data-protection-and-privacy-legislation-worldwide .

[24] Personal Data Protection Bill, No. of 2023, INDIA CODE (2023).

[25] International Trade Administration, ‘Cross-Border Data Flows: Where Are Barriers and What Do They Cost?’ (2023) https://www.trade.gov/cyber-mission-india .

[26] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ‘A Brief Primer on International Law and Cyberspace’ (2023) https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/14/brief-primer-on-international-law-and-cyberspace-pub-84763 .

[27] General Data Protection Regulation, 2016 O.J. (L 119) 1 (EU).

[28] Academia, ‘International Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Comparative Perspective’ (2023) https://www.academia.edu/5198261/INTERNATIONAL_JURISDICTION_IN_CYBERSPACE_A_COMPARATIVE_PERSPECTIVE .

[29] California Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1798.100-1798.199 (West 2023).

[30] CORE, ‘Cyber Jurisdiction Article’ (2023) https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232684908.pdf .

[31] Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, Nov. 23, 2001, E.T.S. No. 185.

[32] U.S. Department of Commerce, ‘Cyber Mission India’ (2023) https://www.trade.gov/cyber-mission-india .

[33] U.N. GAOR, 66th Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 4, U.N. Doc. A/66/49 (2012).

[34] Press Information Bureau, ‘Government of India’ (2023) https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1845321 .

[35] Government of India, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Digital India (2015), available at https://digitalindia.gov.in/

[36] Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India, National Cyber Security Policy, 2013, available at https://www.india.gov.in/national-cyber-security-policy-2013

[37] Ministry of External Affairs, ‘Fact Sheet on the Framework for the US-India Cyber Relationship’ (2023) https://mea.gov.in/outoging-visit-detail.htm?26880/Fact+Sheet+on+the+framework+for+the+USIndia+Cyber+Relationship .

[38] CSO Online, ‘23 Notable Government Cybersecurity Initiatives in 2022’ (2023) https://www.csoonline.com/article/573769/23-notable-government-cybersecurity-initiatives-in-2022.html .

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF SIGNATURE

Spread the loveThis article is written by Mehak Gurung of Graphic Era Hill University, Dehradun, an intern under Legal Vidhiya Abstract This article navigates the historical evolution of signatures, tracing the path from wax seals Read more…

Article Cyber Law

The effect of the new technology on digital era privacy rights.

Spread the loveThis article is written by Shreya Manoga of 3rd Semester of BALLB (Hons.) of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, an intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT: The digital era’s rapid technological advancement has Read more…

CONCEPT OF JURISDICTION AND JURISDICTION IN CYBERSPACE

Spread the loveThis article is written by Kirtika Sarangi, a Law Graduate from ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, in Hyderabad, Telangana, an intern under Legal Vidhiya Abstract The concept of jurisdiction plays a crucial role Read more…

India Today
Business Today
Harper's Bazaar
Brides Today
Cosmopolitan
India Today Hindi
Reader’s Digest
Aaj Tak Campus

Case over derogatory comments on Captain Anshuman Singh's widow

The ncw wrote to the delhi police after it received a complaint that lewd comments were made on a picture of smriti singh, the widow of kirti chakra recipient captain anshuman singh..

Listen to Story

Social media user posted vulgar comment on picture of Smriti Singh
Captain Anshuman Singh posthumously awarded Kirti Chakra
He lost his life in a Siachen fire incident last year

Delhi Police has registered an FIR in connection with alleged derogatory comments made against Smriti Singh, the widow of Kirti Chakra recipient Captain Anshuman Singh, on social media.

The case was registered under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and Section 67 (punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form) of the IT Act based on a complaint filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW).

The NCW took action after it received a complaint that lewd comments were made on Smriti Singh's picture from a Facebook profile. In its letter to Delhi Police, the NCW has demanded the person's arrest and a report within three days.

Captain Singh was posthumously conferred the Kirti Chakra, India's second-highest peacetime gallantry award, by President Droupadi Murmu on July 5 during an investiture ceremony. Smriti and her mother-in-law Manju Singh accepted the award.

The soldier, posted as a medical officer in the Siachen Glacier area, died after suffering severe burns and injuries in a fire accident in July last year.

Captain Singh rescued fellow Army officers stuck in a fibreglass hut, but lost his life after getting trapped as the fire spread to a medical investigation shelter.

Earlier, Captain Singh's father, Ravi Pratap Singh, told India Today TV that Smriti took the gallantry award to her home in Punjab’s Gurdaspur along with his photo album, clothes, and other memories.

Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts

Why Britain Just Ended 14 Years of Conservative Rule

Last week, the center-left labour party won the british general election in a landslide..

Hosted by Natalie Kitroeff

Featuring Mark Landler

Produced by Rob Szypko , Nina Feldman and Will Reid

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Dan Powell , Diane Wong and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

For more than a decade, Britain has been governed by the Conservative Party, which pushed its politics to the right, embracing smaller government and Brexit. Last week, that era officially came to an end.

Mark Landler, the London bureau chief for The Times, explains why British voters rejected the Conservatives and what their defeat means in a world where populism is on the rise.

On today’s episode

Mark Landler , the London bureau chief for The New York Times.

Keir Starmer stands behind a lectern wearing a suit with a red tie and smiling. Behind him is a crowd cheering and waving the U.K. flag.

Background reading

Five takeaways from the British general election.

The Conservatives have run Britain for 14 years. How have things changed in that time?

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Michael Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Natalie Kitroeff is the Mexico City bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. More about Natalie Kitroeff

Mark Landler is the London bureau chief of The Times, covering the United Kingdom, as well as American foreign policy in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He has been a journalist for more than three decades. More about Mark Landler

IMAGES

Indian IT ACT 2000
IT Act 2000 of India
India IT Act of 2000 (Information Technology Act)
Information technology act 2000
India IT Act of 2000 (Information Technology Act)
IT Act 2000 Penalties, Offences with case studies

VIDEO

Indian Contract Act 1872
Limitations of Information Technology Act ,2000||IT Act 2000||IT Act 2000 in Hindi
Foundation Paper 2: Sec-A:BL
CASE STUDY Topic Wise I The Companies Act 2013 I CTC Classes
CASE STUDY Indian Contract Act 1872 CA Foundation Dec 2022
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 BY CS RAMANDEEP SINGH(CYBER LAWYER)

COMMENTS

Important Cases On Information Technology Act, 2000
Learn about the landmark judgments on IT Act, 2000 in India, covering topics such as cyber crime, privacy, intermediary liability, and copyright infringement. The article summarizes six cases with key takeaways and references.
IT Act 2000 Penalties, Offences with case studies
This document provides an overview of penalties and offenses outlined in the Information Technology Act 2000 in India. It discusses key sections of the Act related to cyber crimes and provides case studies. The Act aims to provide legal recognition for electronic transactions and commerce.
Landmark Cyber Law cases in India
The accused were also charged under section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 and section 420 i.e. cheating, 465,467 and 471 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jogesh Kwatra; Facts: In this case, Defendant Jogesh Kwatra was an employee of the plaintiff's company.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (India)
The Information Technology Act, 2000 also Known as an IT Act is an act proposed by the Indian Parliament reported on 17th October 2000. This Information Technology Act is based on the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce 1996 (UNCITRAL Model) which was suggested by the General Assembly of the United Nations by a resolution dated 30th January 1997.
Interpretation and Implementation of Information Technology Act, 2000
Here are a few notable case law studies related to the IT Act, 2000: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): This case dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, which dealt with online speech and its restrictions. The Supreme Court declared the section unconstitutional, as it violated the right to freedom of speech ...
IT ACT 2000
Network Intelligence (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 24 IT Act 2000: Penalties, Offences with Case Studies Section 67A - Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form Whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form any material which ...
Landmark Judgments On Cyber Law
The term "Cyber Law" refers to the legal framework that governs cyberspace. With India's move toward digitalization and artificial intelligence, there has been a considerable increase in Cyber Crime. In Cyber Crimes, a 63.5 percent increase was noted. The Information Technology Act of 2000 is part of India's legal framework for Cyber Law.
Information Technology Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the IT Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce.. Secondary or subordinate legislation to the IT Act includes the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and ...
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000)
IT Act, 2000. The Information Technology Act, 2000 was enacted by the Indian Parliament in 2000. It is the primary law in India for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce. The act was enacted to give legal sanction to electronic commerce and electronic transactions, to enable e-governance, and also to prevent cybercrime.
Indian Information Technology Act, 2000
This paper analyses the provisions of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000, which deals with e-commerce and cyber offences. It also discusses some on-going cases and the challenges of applying the IT Act to cyber crimes.
First Conviction Case under Sec 67 of the IT ACT, 2000
Jul 22, 2020 6 min. Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu, was the first case in India where a conviction was handed down in connection with the posting of obscene messages on the internet under the controversial section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case was filed in 2004 and within a short span of about seven months from the filing of ...
IT Act Judgements, Cyber Law Judgements, Cyber Case Laws
1. Supreme Court Judgment (in PDF) as to scrapping of Section 66A in the matter of Shreya Singhal V Union of India (2015) Summary: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its entirety being violative of Article 19 (1) (a) and not saved under Article 19 (2). )Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure ...
India's IT Act 2000 a toothless tiger?
The Indian IT Act, 2000 was formed to grant legality to electronic transactions and to promote e-commerce. However, the Act hasn't been amended in 20 years, barring once in 2008. Contrary to ...
PDF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
s.BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:—CHAPTER 1PRELIMINARY. ort title, extent, commencement and application.—(1) This Act may be called the Information Technology Act, 2000.It shall extend to the whole of India and, save as otherwise pr. ided in this Act, it applies also to any offence or ...
The Information Technology Act, 2000
1. Short title, extent, commencement and application. (1) This Act may be called the Information Technology Act, 2000. (2) It shall extend to the whole of India and, save as otherwise provided in this Act, it applies also to any offence or contravention thereunder committed outside India by any person. (3) It shall come into force on such date ...
Cyber Law and Information Technology Act 2000 with case studies
Apr 19, 2015 •. 10 likes • 5,884 views. Sneha J Chouhan. This presentation breifs about the Information Technology Act and Cyber Law in India 2000. The various acts involved in it, case studies and some recent amendments are also mentioned. P.S: Refer the slides for educational purpose only. Read more. 1 of 28.
Evolution of Cyber Law in India: IT Act 2000 vs. the 2008 Amendment
The journey from the IT Act, 2000 to the 2008 amendment represents a significant evolution in India's cyber law framework. The amendment reflected an understanding of the changing nature of cybercrimes and the need for stronger and more comprehensive legislation. Yet, the digital world continues to evolve, and with it, so does the nature of ...
Offences Under IT Act, 2000
Offences Under IT Act, 2000. December 19, 2014 · Read time: 19 min. By Rahul Deo, CNLU Patna. Editors Note:The high and speedier connectivity to the world from any place has developed many crimes and these increased offences led to the need of law for protection. The IT Act was the result of such a need and this paper analyzes the offences ...
IT Act 2000: Objectives, Features, Amendments, Sections ...
IT Act 2000: Objectives, Features, Amendments, Sections, Offences and Penalties. Over the past decade, the rise of technology and electronic commerce has led to a surge in cybercrimes and data-related offences in India. As per the latest news by a renowned paper house, the cybercrime cases increased from 3,693 in 2012 to 65,893 in 2022 ...
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000
About: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000 made it a punishable offence for any person to send offensive information using a computer or any other electronic device. The provision also made it punishable for a person to send information that they believed to be false. Section 66A had prescribed three years' imprisonment if a ...
Issues and Concerns of Cyberspace Jurisdiction in India
The verdict is viewed as a significant victory for freedom of speech and expression in cyberspace jurisdiction in India. Internet Shutdowns: A Case Study of Jammu and Kashmir ... Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, INDIA CODE § 66A (2000). Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, (2020) 3 SCC 637 (India).
IT Act 2000 Cases
This is considered the irst case convicted under section 67 of Information Technology Act 2000 in India. Section 67B - Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form Relevant Case: Janhit Manch & Ors. v.
PDF The Gazette of India
Definitions. 2. (1) a negotiable instrument as defined in section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; a power-of-attorney as defined in section 1A of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882; a trust as defined in section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882; a will as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 including ...
ASI ने एमपी HC में पेश की ...
ASI ने एमपी HC में पेश की Bhojshala Survey की रिपोर्ट, 22 जुलाई को सुनवाई, बोले वकील विष्णु शंकर जैन
Case over derogatory comments on Captain Anshuman Singh's widow
The case was registered under Section 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 and Section 67 of the IT Act 2000 by the Delhi Police based on a complaint filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW).
Why Britain Just Ended 14 Years of Conservative Rule
The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan ...

IAS General Studies Notes Links

Landmark Cyber Law cases in India

Introduction

Cyber Technology

Cyber Ethics

Cyber Crimes

Cyber Crime Techniques

Keyloggers and Spyware

Prevention and Protection

Cyber Forensics

Cyber Crime Investigation

Cyber security Evolution

Cyber security Objectives

Classical Encryption Techniques

Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard

Advanced Encryption Standard

Moreon Symmetric Ciphers

Introduction to Number Theory

Public-Key Cryptography and RSA

Key Management:OtherPublic-Key Cryptosystems

Message Authentication and Hash Functions

Hashand MAC Algorithms

Digital Signatures and Authentication Protocols

Authentication Applications

What are the Features of The Information Technology Act, 2000?

The Offenses and the Punishments in IT Act 2000

Frequently Asked Questions on Information Technology Act, 2000 (India) -FAQs

What is covered under the IT Act?

What is the IT Act, of 2000 not applicable to?

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

IT ACT 2000 – PENALTIES, OFFENCES WITH CASE STUDIES From

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Landmark Judgments On Cyber Law

Key Takeaways

Introduction

Landmark Judgments

2. M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Mr Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs Union of India 2014 (1) Kar L J 121

3. Shamsher Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1242

4. CBI Vs Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case)

5. State of Tamil Nadu Vs SuhasKatti CC No. 4680 of 2004

6. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt Ltd Vs Jogesh Kwatra CM APPL No. 33474 of 2016

7. Avnish Bajaj Vs State (NCT) of Delhi (2008) 150 DLT 769

8. Pune Citibank Mphasis Call Center Fraud

9. Christian Louboutin SAS Vs Nakul Bajaj &Ors (2018) 253 DLT 728

10. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar Vs the State of Maharashtra (2015) 6 SCC 1

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

Recent Articles

Popular Articles

Browse by Category

Lawyersclubindia Search

Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000)

IT Act, 2000

IT Act – 2008 Amendments

Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules, 2018

Frequently Asked Questions Related to Information Technology Act 2000

How many sections are in the IT Act 2000?

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

First Conviction Case under Sec 67 of the IT ACT, 2000

Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution analyzed

Arguments on behalf of the Accused discussed

Article 21 and Victim Compensation Scheme- Case Analysis of Serina Mondal Judgement

Uniform Victim Compensation Scheme a necessity - Analysing the landmark case of Tekram

IRAC Analysis of a lesser-known landmark case on Mandatory Filing of FIR

Information Technology Rules

Further Section

Our Network

India’s IT Act 2000 a toothless tiger?

Related content

More from this author

Show me more

Mobile surveillance software firm mSpy suffers data breach

Known SSH-Snake bites more victims with multiple OSS exploitation

CSO Executive Session India with Charanjit Bhatia, Head of Cybersecurity, COE, Bata Brands

CSO Executive Sessions: Data protection in Malaysia

CSO Executive Session India with Mrinal Kanti Roy, CISO, Cairn Oil and Gas

Cybersecurity Insights for Tech Leaders: Addressing Dynamic Threats and AI Risks with Resilience

Evolution of Cyber Law in India: IT Act 2000 vs. the 2008 Amendment