case study on information technology act in india

Search bar.

Legal Queries
Files
Online Law Courses
Lawyers Search
Legal Dictionary
The Indian Penal Code
Juvenile Justice
Negotiable Instruments
Commercial Courts Act
The 3 New Criminal Laws
Matrimonial Laws
Data Privacy
Court Fees Act
Commercial Law
Criminal Law
Procedural Law
The Constitutional Expert
Matrimonial
Writs and PILs
CrPC Certification Course
Criminal Manual
Execution U/O 21
Transfer of Property
Domestic Violence
Muslim Laws
Indian Constitution
Arbitration
Matrimonial-Criminal Law
Indian Evidence Act
Live Classes
Writs and PIL

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Supinder Singh

Important Cases On Information Technology Act, 2000

Key Takeaways

Primarily, Information Technology Act, 2000 provides the basic legal framework for electronic transactions in India. Along with this Act, various rules notified under this Act play a significant role in regulating the digital space.
The rights of copyright owners cannot be restricted by Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. So, intermediaries who infringe copyrights of anyone cannot seek protection under this section.
Banyan Tree case Judgment is a Landmark for determining the jurisdiction of the court,where neither party to a suit, claiming online copyright infringement, resides within the territorial jurisdiction of such court.
Union Government notified Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. But these Rules have been challenged by various organizations as being violative of Fundamental Rights.

Introduction

Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “IT Act) was enacted in India to provide legal recognition to transactions carried out through electronic mediums, and to facilitate the electronic filing of documents with the Government Agencies. It was enacted after the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the ‘Model Law on Electronic Commerce’ through a resolution. This Act was largely based on the Model Law that was adopted by the UN.In this article, I will discuss some Important Case Laws inIT Act, of 2000.

Important Case Laws on Information Technology Act, 2000

1. state of tamil nadu v. dr. l prakash (w.p.m.p.no. 10120 of 2002).

In this case, an FIR was registered against Dr. L Prakash under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 read with Section 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 120B & 506 (2) of the IPC. The said case was registered as Dr. L Prakash was accused of making pornographic videos and then sending those to the US & France for publication on pornographic websites.

The Fast Track Court convicted the accused under the aforesaid provisions and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs. 1.27 lakh was also imposed on him.

This case is a landmark in the Cyber Crime Law as it was the first time that pornographic websites and their brokers were targeted in India.

2. Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 4 AWC 3726 SC]

In this case, the petitioner had alleged that his calls were being tapped unauthorizedly by his telecom service provider. He had claimed that the alleged tapping was violating his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The service provider had argued that it was complying with the government orders. This case is important in the context of Sections 69, 69A, and 69B of the IT Act, 2000.

The court observed that a telecom service provider performs a function of public nature. It is his inherent duty to act carefully and in a responsible manner. Furthermore, it was observed that when the orders of the government ‘to tap calls’ have gross mistakes, then the service provider must verify the authenticity of such orders. The court also directed the Central Government to frame certain directions/guidelines to prevent unauthorized interception of calls.

3. Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com [CS (OS) 871 / 2012]

This case relates to an alleged defamatory article published by Defendant against the Petitioner (popularly known as ‘Nirmal Baba’). It is an important case in the context of Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000 since the petitioner had sent a legal notice to the intermediary, on whose website the ‘defamatory’ article was published. The intermediary refused to remove the ‘defamatory’ article, so the instant case was filed.

The court held that an intermediary is obliged to remove unlawful content from its website if it receives a notice from the affected party, claiming that any illegal content is being circulated through the intermediary’s service. An intermediary is not liable for 3rd party content if it removes such content upon receiving notice.

In this case, an injunction was issued against Defendant barring it from publishing any further defamatory content against the Petitioner, and the intermediary was ordered to produce the IP log of the 3rd party user who had published the ‘defamatory’ article.

4. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public v. Jitender Bagga [CS (OS) No. 1340 / 2012]

It was also a case of online defamation . In this case, it was alleged that the defendants had published online some defamatory material against ‘Shri Ravi Shanker, owner of Art of Living Foundation’. The Petitioners had prayed for damages along with a mandatory & permanent injunction against the Defendants.

The Court observed that an intermediary is bound to comply with Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. These rules require that an intermediary must not allowthe publication of any defamatory or libelous information on its platform. So, in this case, the court passed an interim order in the favor of the petitioner.

5. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Myspace Inc. [CS (OS) No. 2682/2008]

The plaintiff approached the court as Defendant was allegedly infringing the copyright of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s website generates revenue by making available infringing copies of copyrighted media to the public. It was also contended that the defendant encourages the users to share such type of content with the public.

One of the primary issues between the parties was – Whether the acts of the defendant as an intermediatory are protected under the provisions of Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.

The court observed that the rights of copyright owners cannot be restricted by Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. The aforesaid Section does not save the defendants from liability in case of infringing acts due to the proviso of Section 81 of the IT Act.

6. Banyan Tree v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, [2010 (42) PTC 361 (Del)]

In this case, the plaintiff had filed a suit claiming that the defendant was passing off its word mark ‘Banyan Tree’ through its online website. In this case, neither the plaintiff nor the Defendant was located within the local limits of Territorial Jurisdiction of the court (before which the suit was brought).

So, the court had to decide on the question that in what circumstances does the hosting of a universally accessible website by the Defendants gives jurisdiction to the forum court, if the Plaintiff is not carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the forum court.

The court answered that for the purposes of a passing-off action, the plaintiff will have to show that the defendant has “purposefully availed” itself of the jurisdiction of the forum court.Further, it will have to be proved by the plaintiff that Defendant operated the website to conclude a commercial transaction with the website users. The plaintiff will also have to show that the operation of such a website resulted in injury to the Plaintiff in the forum state.

7. Writs challenging the validity of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

In 2021, the Union Government notified these rules by using its power under Section 87 of the IT Act, 2000. These rules supersede the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011. With these rules, the Government seeks to regulate the Social Media intermediaries, the Digital news media, and the online streaming platforms.

These rules provide that the social media intermediaries need to follow an internal grievance redressal mechanism. These intermediaries are also required to share the information of the person, who originated an objectionable message in cases of serious offences, with the Government.

The rules provide that the Intermediaries who do not comply with the rules will lose the immunity available to them under Section 79 of the IT Act. Furthermore, the rules require the Digital News Media to follow a code of ethics and also set up an Internal grievance redressal system.

These rules have been challenged by various organizations including WhatsApp, The Quint, LiveLaw, and Foundation for Independent Journalists. The decisions in these cases will determine the further course of the jurisprudence in the field of Information Technology in India.

8. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523]

In this case, the constitutionality of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was challenged. The petitioner contended that this section infringes their fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. It was submitted that the restrictions imposed by the said section are not even saved or allowed by Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. Another primary contention put forward by the petitioner was that the said section suffers from the vice of vagueness because the terms used in the Section cannot be defined. So, that creates a wide scope for arbitrary and whimsical action by the State against a large number of innocent persons.It was also argued that the said Section violates the Right to Equality provided by Article 14 since the Section unreasonably differentiates between the people who use the internet and the people who use other mediums of communication.

Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the legislature is in the best position to understand the needs of the people. So, the court must not interfere in the legislative process until there is a clear violation of rights provided under Part III of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the presumption is also in the favor of the constitutionality of a statute and that the mere possibility of abuse of a particular provision of a statute cannot be a valid ground to declare it invalid.

After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Hon’ble Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 in its entirety as being violative of Article 19 (1) (A). It is observed that the said Section is not saved under Article 19 (2).However, the court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 along with the IT (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

9. M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd &Anr.v. Union of India [2014 (1) Kar L J 121]

This case relates to a writ petition filed by the petitioner praying the court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appointment of Chairperson to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT) by the Central Government. The petitioners submitted that due to the absence of the CAT Chairperson, their appeal was not being heard.They, further, submitted that the Government of India hadfailed to take necessary action to make the Cyber Appellate Tribunal operational.By relying on Section 49 of the IT Act, 2000, it was argued that the process of appointment of CAT chairperson must be initiated by the Central Government.

The counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the Government would take all the necessary actions for filling up the post of the Chairperson of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal within 6 months from the day of the submission. After hearing the parties, the Karnataka High Court observed that no direction needed to be issued, but it remarked that considering the delay of more than 2 years, the respondent must appoint the CAT Chairperson with a “sense of urgency”.

10. CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case) [(2008) 150 DLT 769]

In this case, the accused had stolen the credit card details of Barbara Campa. He then used that stolen card to purchase products from a website (sony-sambandh.com) owned by Sony India Private Limited. When the transaction was disputed by Barbara, the credit card company informed Sony about the same. So, Sony reportedthe case of Internet Fraud and Cheating to the CBI. CBI, on its part, initiated an investigation u/s 418, 419, and 420 of the IPC. The Court convicted the accused under the said Sections for the offence of cyber fraud. This case particularly relates to Section 66C of the IT Act, 2000, which covers the dishonest & fraudulent usage of electronic passwords, signatures,and other unique identification features of any person (Identity Theft).

11. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti [CC No. 4680 of 2004]

In this case, a complaint was filed by the victim u/s 67 of the IT Act and Section 469 & 509 of the IPC, 1860. It was alleged that the accused posted obscene messages related to the victim in various groups with the intention to harass the woman. He also shared her phone number and created a fake account in her name to cause disrepute to her. The court convicted the accused under the aforementioned Sections. This case is a landmark since it inspired people around the country to come forward and file cases related to harassment on the Internet.

12. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt Ltd v.Jogesh Kwatra [CM APPL No. 33474 of 2016]

In this case, the defendant was an ex-employee of the plaintiff company. It was alleged that the defendant was sending defamatory, obscene, derogatory, and abusive emails to Plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that the emails were intended to cause disrepute to its Managing Director. The accused was identified to be the sender of the emails after an investigation by a private computer expert. So, a suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the defendant was filed in the court.However, the said suit was dismissed by the court citing the lack of electronic evidence, linking the derogatory emails with the defendants.

13. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2008) 150 DLT 769]

This petition was filed under Section 482, CrPC for getting annulled the criminal prosecution initiated against the Managing Director of a Company/Website (baazee.com) under Section 292 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000. The Website provided an online marketplace for buyers and sellers to interact.The Petitioner argued that since the Website Company was not made an accused in the case, the petitioner could not be made liable with the aid of Section 85, IT Act. The respondent-State, on the other hand, argued that since the petitioner failed to ensure an adequate filter on its website for filtering obscene content, so, he cannot escape legal consequences. It was also submitted that the crime is grievous and must not go unpunished based on some technicalities.

The court observed that the IPC does not recognize the concept of an automatic criminal liability attaching to the director where the company is an accused. So, the petitioner was discharged from offences under the IPC. However, regarding the liability of the petitioner under Section 67 of the IT Act, the court observed that the law recognizes the deemed criminal liability of the directors even if the company is not arraigned as an accused in a case. So, it was held that the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 67 read with Section 85, IT Act will continue.

14. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj &Ors [(2018) 253 DLT 728]

One of the primary issues before the court, in this case, was whether Defendant was protected u/s 79 of the IT Actto use thePlaintiff’s trademark, images, and logos. The court observed that Defendant’s website (Darveys.com) exercised complete control over the products it sold and its role is much more than that of just an intermediary. To enjoy immunity u/s 79 of the IT Act, e-commerce websites must operate with care & caution. The basic thumb rule to claim exemption u/s 79 of the IT Act, is to ensure that the entity does not actively participate in the selling process.

15. Nasscom v. Ajay Sood & Ors. [119 (2005) DLT 596]

This is a case of Cheating by personation by using a computer resource under Section 66D, IT Act, 2000. In this case, the petitioner had prayed for a permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining him from sending “fraudulent Emails” under the trademark ‘NASSCOM” belonging to the petitioner. It was alleged that the defendants were posing as NASSCOM to obtain personal data from various addresses for head-hunting. The parties, later, on compromised and a consent decree was passed. This is a landmark judgment because the court declared ‘phishing’ on the internet to be an illegal act, against which an ‘injunction’ could be granted and damages could also be awarded. The court described ‘Phishing’ as a form of internet fraud where a person misrepresents the identity of a legitimate party (like a bank or an insurance company) to extract personal data from a user. It also deliberated upon the fact that there is no legislation in India dealing particularly with ‘phishing’.

16. Department of Electronics and Information Technology v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. [R.P. 131/2016 in FAO(OS) 57/2015]

This case dealt with the live telecast of cricket matches. The primary issue between the parties was regarding the extent of the ban that could be imposed on the website of a person infringing the trademark of another.The respondent pushed for a ‘domain’ ban, citing that it is relatively easy for ‘internet pirates’ to change the URLs of the infringing content as compared to the domain names. The court observed that the websites which are known to be rogue i.e., the ones that host “predominantly infringing content”, could be blocked completely, rather than resorting to URL blocking.The court described such websites to be ‘rogue’ that is hardly carrying on any lawful business and in their entirety/to a large extent are resorting to piracy.

17. Kent Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 551 (Del)

In this case, the court observed that the IT Rules, do not oblige an intermediary to screen/remove all content/information hosted on its portal for infringement of rights of all persons who have complained to the intermediary at any point in time. The only obligation is to remove the infringing information/content upon receipt of a complaint from the Rights Holder. The court ultimately concluded that to require an intermediary to do compulsory screening of infringing content would amount to unreasonable interference with the right of the said intermediary to carry on its business.

18. Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Vishaka Industries Limited [Second Appeal No. 505 of 2016]

The basic facts of the case were that a person had published certain defamatory articles aimed at the Respondent and some politicians of the country, in a group hosted by Google (Appellant). The respondent had issued a notice to the Appellant to block the aforementioned defamatory content, but the appellant did not make any effort in that regard.Keeping that in regard, the High Court passed an order in the favor of the Respondent while observing that the Petitioner could not claim any exemption under Section 79 of the IT Act.

19. State v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors. [2003 (71) DRJ 178]

This is an important case concerning Section 2 (ha) of the IT Act, 2000 that defines ‘Communication Device’. It relates to the trial of the persons accused in the 2001 Parliament House Attack. It was argued by the accused that computers &digital evidence could not be regarded as reliable, as they could be easily tampered with. So, they claimed it to be unreliable for a criminal trial. The Court dismissed the contentions of the accused by observing that the misuse or tampering of the evidence has to be established by the challenger.Further, it was held that the theoretical and generic doubts could not be cast on the evidence of the prosecution.

20. Syed Asifuddin& Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [2005 Cr LJ 4314]

This case relates to the tampering of low-cost hand sets that were being handed out by the Reliance Infocomm, with a lock-in period of 3 years. The petitioners, in this case, were accused of an offence under section 65 of the IT Act, for allegedly tampering with the source code of the aforesaid Reliance Infocomm handsets to wean away customers from Reliance Infocommto TATA Indicom. The petitioners, in the instant petition, prayed for the quashing of the criminal investigation. However, the court observed that unless the investigation is shown to be illegal, it cannot ordinarily be quashed. So, the court refused to quash the investigation under section 65 of the IT Act, 2000 and directed the police to complete the investigation within a period of 3 months.

21. Dharamvir v. Central Bureau of Investigation [148 (2008) DLT 289]

This case primarily relates to ‘Electronic Record’ defined under section2 (t) of the IT Act, 2000. In this case, the main question before the court was that of the admissibility & reliability of the digital evidence in a legal proceeding. A CD was presented before the court that contained telephonic conversations copied from a hard disk.The court observed that the recording of the telephone call and the hard disks constitute electronic records that can be used as evidence.

22. P.R Transport Agency v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2006 All 23]

This case relates to Section 13 (5) of the IT Act, 2000. In this case, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. held an e-auction for coal. The petitioner’s bid was accepted for a particular lot of coal and the letter of acceptance was issued by email to the petitioner. Later on, some conflict arose andthe allocation was canceled. So, petitioners approached the High Court of Allahabad. The Bharat Coking Ltd. put up an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court, contending that no part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that since the acceptance was received at Varanasi (UP), it had the jurisdiction to entertain the case. Further, it was observed that for the purpose of Section 13 (5) of the IT Act, the place of business is relevant and not the location of the information system.

23. Umashankar Sivasubramanian v. ICICI Bank (Petition No. 2462 of 2008)

In this case, the petitioner received an email from ICICI Bank asking for his Internet Banking username and password. The petitioner replied to the email with the aforementioned details and later on found that he was defrauded of Rs. 6.46 Lakhs. So, he filed a complaint against ICICI Bank with the adjudicating authority for getting compensation. The Adjudicating Authority found ICICI Bank to be guilty of offences under section 85 read with Section 43 of the IT Act, 2000 and directed it to pay Rs. 12.85 lakh to the petitioner.

In this way, various courts around the country have interpreted the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 according to the facts and circumstances of the particular cases. Along with the provisions of the IT Act, the rules notified by the Government also play a significant role in regulating the digital space.With the rapid advent of technology, Cyber Laws are becoming more and more relevant. There is a need for these laws to keep evolving with the latest developments in Information Technology.

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

case study on information technology act in india

37232 Views

Category Others , Other Articles by - Supinder Singh

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 9,46,701 and growing..

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

We are Hiring
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy

Lawyersclubindia Search

Whatsapp groups, login at lawyersclubindia.

Alternatively, you can log in using:

IT Act 2000 – Penalties, Offences With Case Studies

June 24, 2014 Lionel Faleiro Case Studies , Compliance , Laws & Regulations 6

Objectives of IT legislation in India

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.”

What does IT Act 2000 legislation deals with? The Act essentially deals with the following issues:

Legal Recognition of Electronic Documents
Legal Recognition of Digital Signatures
Offenses and Contraventions
Justice Dispensation Systems for cyber crimes.

Why did the need for IT Amendment Act 2008 (ITAA) arise? The IT Act 2000, being the first legislation on technology, computers, e-commerce and e-communication, the was the subject of extensive debates, elaborate reviews with one arm of the industry criticizing some sections of the Act to be draconian and other stating it is too diluted and lenient. There were some obvious omissions too resulting in the investigators relying more and more on the time-tested (one and half century-old) Indian Penal Code even in technology based cases with the IT Act also being referred in the process with the reliance more on IPC rather on the ITA.

Thus the need for an amendment – a detailed one – was felt for the I.T. Act. Major industry bodies were consulted and advisory groups were formed to go into the perceived lacunae in the I.T. Act and comparing it with similar legislations in other nations and to suggest recommendations. Such recommendations were analyzed and subsequently taken up as a comprehensive Amendment Act and after considerable administrative procedures, the consolidated amendment called the Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 was placed in the Parliament and passed at the end of 2008 (just after Mumbai terrorist attack of 26 November 2008 had taken place). The IT Amendment Act 2008 got the President assent on 5 Feb 2009 and was made effective from 27 October 2009.

Notable features of the ITAA 2008 are:

Focusing on data privacy
Focusing on Information Security
Defining cyber café
Making digital signature technology neutral
Defining reasonable security practices to be followed by corporate
Redefining the role of intermediaries
Recognizing the role of Indian Computer Emergency Response Team
Inclusion of some additional cyber crimes like child pornography and cyber terrorism
Authorizing an Inspector to investigate cyber offenses (as against the DSP earlier)

Structure of IT Act

How is IT Act structured? The Act totally has 13 chapters and 90 sections. Sections 91 to 94 deal with the amendments to the four Acts namely Indian Penal Code 1860, The Indian Evidence Act 1872, The Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934. The Act has chapters that deal with authentication of electronic records, electronic signatures etc. Elaborate procedures for certifying authorities and electronic signatures have been spelt out. The civil offence of data theft and the process of adjudication and appellate procedures have been described. Then the Act goes on to define and describe some of the well-known cyber crimes and lays down the punishments therefore. Then the concept of due diligence, role of intermediaries and some miscellaneous provisions have been described.
Negotiable instrument (other than a cheque) 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 any other testamentary disposition

What is a cyber crime?

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

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

Cases Studies as per selected IT Act Sections

Here are the case studies for selected IT Act sections.

For the sake of simplicity and maintaining clarity, details on the IT Act sections have been omitted. Kindly refer the Appendix at the last section for the detailed account of all the penalties and offences mentioned in IT Act.

Section 43 – Penalty and Compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc Related Case: Mphasis BPO Fraud: 2005 In December 2004, four call centre employees, working at an outsourcing facility operated by MphasiS in India, obtained PIN codes from four customers of MphasiS’ client, Citi Group. These employees were not authorized to obtain the PINs. In association with others, the call centre employees opened new accounts at Indian banks using false identities. Within two months, they used the PINs and account information gleaned during their employment at MphasiS to transfer money from the bank accounts of CitiGroup customers to the new accounts at Indian banks. By April 2005, the Indian police had tipped off to the scam by a U.S. bank, and quickly identified the individuals involved in the scam. Arrests were made when those individuals attempted to withdraw cash from the falsified accounts, $426,000 was stolen; the amount recovered was $230,000. Verdict : Court held that Section 43(a) was applicable here due to the nature of unauthorized access involved to commit transactions.
Section 65 – Tampering with Computer Source Documents Related Case: Syed Asifuddin and Ors. Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh In this case, Tata Indicom employees were arrested for manipulation of the electronic 32- bit number (ESN) programmed into cell phones theft were exclusively franchised to Reliance Infocomm. Verdict : Court held that tampering with source code invokes Section 65 of the Information Technology Act.
Section 66 – Computer Related offenses Related Case: Kumar v/s Whiteley 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.Investigations had revealed that Kumar was logging on to the BSNL broadband Internet connection as if he was the authorized genuine user and ‘made alteration in the computer database pertaining to broadband Internet user accounts’ of the subscribers.The CBI had registered a cyber crime case against Kumar and carried out investigations on the basis of a complaint by the Press Information Bureau, Chennai, which detected the unauthorised use of broadband Internet. The complaint also stated that the subscribers had incurred a loss of Rs 38,248 due to Kumar’s wrongful act. He used to ‘hack’ sites from Bangalore, Chennai and other cities too, they said. Verdict: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, sentenced N G Arun Kumar, the techie from Bangalore to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs 5,000 under section 420 IPC (cheating) and Section 66 of IT Act (Computer related Offense).
Relevant Case #1: Fake profile of President posted by imposter On September 9, 2010, the imposter made a fake profile in the name of the Hon’ble President Pratibha Devi Patil. A complaint was made from Additional Controller, President Household, President Secretariat regarding the four fake profiles created in the name of Hon’ble President on social networking website, Facebook.The said complaint stated that president house has nothing to do with the facebook and the fake profile is misleading the general public. The First Information Report Under Sections 469 IPC and 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 was registered based on the said complaint at the police station, Economic Offences Wing, the elite wing of Delhi Police which specializes in investigating economic crimes including cyber offences.
Relevant Case #2: Bomb Hoax mail In 2009, a 15-year-old Bangalore teenager was arrested by the cyber crime investigation cell (CCIC) of the city crime branch for allegedly sending a hoax e-mail to a private news channel. In the e-mail, he claimed to have planted five bombs in Mumbai, challenging the police to find them before it was too late. At around 1p.m. on May 25, the news channel received an e-mail that read: “I have planted five bombs in Mumbai; you have two hours to find it.” The police, who were alerted immediately, traced the Internet Protocol (IP) address to Vijay Nagar in Bangalore. The Internet service provider for the account was BSNL, said officials.
The CEO of an identity theft protection company, Lifelock, Todd Davis’s social security number was exposed by Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show. Davis’ identity was used to obtain a $500 cash advance loan.
Li Ming, a graduate student at West Chester University of Pennsylvania faked his own death, complete with a forged obituary in his local paper. Nine months later, Li attempted to obtain a new driver’s license with the intention of applying for new credit cards eventually.
Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by impersonation by using computer resource Relevant Case: Sandeep Vaghese v/s State of Kerala A complaint filed by the representative of a Company, which was engaged in the business of trading and distribution of petrochemicals in India and overseas, a crime was registered against nine persons, alleging offenses under Sections 65, 66, 66A, C and D of the Information Technology Act along with Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The company has a web-site in the name and and style `www.jaypolychem.com’ but, another web site `www.jayplychem.org’ was set up in the internet by first accused Samdeep Varghese @ Sam, (who was dismissed from the company) in conspiracy with other accused, including Preeti and Charanjeet Singh, who are the sister and brother-in-law of `Sam’ Defamatory and malicious matters about the company and its directors were made available in that website. The accused sister and brother-in-law were based in Cochin and they had been acting in collusion known and unknown persons, who have collectively cheated the company and committed acts of forgery, impersonation etc. Two of the accused, Amardeep Singh and Rahul had visited Delhi and Cochin. The first accused and others sent e-mails from fake e-mail accounts of many of the customers, suppliers, Bank etc. to malign the name and image of the Company and its Directors. The defamation campaign run by all the said persons named above has caused immense damage to the name and reputation of the Company. The Company suffered losses of several crores of Rupees from producers, suppliers and customers and were unable to do business.
Jawaharlal Nehru University MMS scandal In a severe shock to the prestigious and renowned institute – Jawaharlal Nehru University, a pornographic MMS clip was apparently made in the campus and transmitted outside the university.Some media reports claimed that the two accused students initially tried to extort money from the girl in the video but when they failed the culprits put the video out on mobile phones, on the internet and even sold it as a CD in the blue film market.
Nagpur Congress leader’s son MMS scandal On January 05, 2012 Nagpur Police arrested two engineering students, one of them a son of a Congress leader, for harassing a 16-year-old girl by circulating an MMS clip of their sexual acts. According to the Nagpur (rural) police, the girl was in a relationship with Mithilesh Gajbhiye, 19, son of Yashodha Dhanraj Gajbhiye, a zila parishad member and an influential Congress leader of Saoner region in Nagpur district.
Section-66F Cyber Terrorism Relevant Case: The Mumbai police have registered a case of ‘cyber terrorism’—the first in the state since an amendment to the Information Technology Act—where a threat email was sent to the BSE and NSE on Monday. The MRA Marg police and the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell are jointly probing the case. The suspect has been detained in this case.The police said an email challenging the security agencies to prevent a terror attack was sent by one Shahab Md with an ID [email protected] to BSE’s administrative email ID [email protected] at around 10.44 am on Monday.The IP address of the sender has been traced to Patna in Bihar. The ISP is Sify. The email ID was created just four minutes before the email was sent. “The sender had, while creating the new ID, given two mobile numbers in the personal details column. Both the numbers belong to a photo frame-maker in Patna,’’ said an officer. Status: The MRA Marg police have registered forgery for purpose of cheating, criminal intimidation cases under the IPC and a cyber-terrorism case under the IT Act.
As per 469 of IPC he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-
As per 509 of IPC he is to undergo to undergo 1 year Simple imprisonment and to pay Rs 500/-
As per Section 67 of IT Act 2000, he has to undergo for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/-
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. The Union of India 10.03.2010 Public Interest Litigation: The petition sought a blanket ban on pornographic websites. The NGO had argued that websites displaying sexually explicit content had an adverse influence, leading youth on a delinquent path.
Section 69 – Powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource Relevant Case: In August 2007, Lakshmana Kailash K., a techie from Bangalore was arrested on the suspicion of having posted insulting images of Chhatrapati Shivaji, a major historical figure in the state of Maharashtra, on the social-networking site Orkut.The police identified him based on IP address details obtained from Google and Airtel -Lakshmana’s ISP. He was brought to Pune and detained for 50 days before it was discovered that the IP address provided by Airtel was erroneous. The mistake was evidently due to the fact that while requesting information from Airtel, the police had not properly specified whether the suspect had posted the content at 1:15 p.m. Verdict: Taking cognizance of his plight from newspaper accounts, the State Human Rights Commission subsequently ordered the company to pay Rs 2 lakh to Lakshmana as damages. The incident highlights how minor privacy violations by ISPs and intermediaries could have impacts that gravely undermine other basic human rights.

Common Cyber-crime scenarios and Applicability of Legal Sections

Let us look into some common cyber-crime scenarios which can attract prosecution as per the penalties and offences prescribed in IT Act 2000 (amended via 2008) Act.

Harassment via fake public profile on social networking site A fake profile of a person is created on a social networking site with the correct address, residential information or contact details but he/she is labelled as ‘prostitute’ or a person of ‘loose character’. This leads to harassment of the victim. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 66A, 67 of IT Act and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code.
Online Hate Community Online hate community is created inciting a religious group to act or pass objectionable remarks against a country, national figures etc. Provisions Applicable: Section 66A of IT Act and 153A & 153B of the Indian Penal Code.
Email Account Hacking If victim’s email account is hacked and obscene emails are sent to people in victim’s address book. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 43, 66, 66A, 66C, 67, 67A and 67B of IT Act.
Credit Card Fraud Unsuspecting victims would use infected computers to make online transactions. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 43, 66, 66C, 66D of IT Act and section 420 of the IPC.
Web Defacement The homepage of a website is replaced with a pornographic or defamatory page. Government sites generally face the wrath of hackers on symbolic days. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 43 and 66 of IT Act and Sections 66F, 67 and 70 of IT Act also apply in some cases.
Introducing Viruses, Worms, Backdoors, Rootkits, Trojans, Bugs All of the above are some sort of malicious programs which are used to destroy or gain access to some electronic information. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 43, 66, 66A of IT Act and Section 426 of Indian Penal Code.
Cyber Terrorism Many terrorists are use virtual(GDrive, FTP sites) and physical storage media(USB’s, hard drives) for hiding information and records of their illicit business. Provisions Applicable: Conventional terrorism laws may apply along with Section 69 of IT Act.
Online sale of illegal Articles Where sale of narcotics, drugs weapons and wildlife is facilitated by the Internet Provisions Applicable:- Generally conventional laws apply in these cases.
Cyber Pornography Among the largest businesses on Internet. Pornography may not be illegal in many countries, but child pornography is. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 67, 67A and 67B of the IT Act.
Phishing and Email Scams Phishing involves fraudulently acquiring sensitive information through masquerading a site as a trusted entity. (E.g. Passwords, credit card information) Provisions Applicable:- Section 66, 66A and 66D of IT Act and Section 420 of IPC
Theft of Confidential Information Many business organizations store their confidential information in computer systems. This information is targeted by rivals, criminals and disgruntled employees. Provisions Applicable:- Sections 43, 66, 66B of IT Act and Section 426 of Indian Penal Code.
Source Code Theft A Source code generally is the most coveted and important “crown jewel” asset of a company. Provisions applicable:- Sections 43, 66, 66B of IT Act and Section 63 of Copyright Act.
Tax Evasion and Money Laundering Money launderers and people doing illegal business activities hide their information in virtual as well as physical activities. Provisions Applicable: Income Tax Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. IT Act may apply case-wise.
Online Share Trading Fraud It has become mandatory for investors to have their demat accounts linked with their online banking accounts which are generally accessed unauthorized, thereby leading to share trading frauds. Provisions Applicable: Sections 43, 66, 66C, 66D of IT Act and Section 420 of IPC
Accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource
Downloads, copies or extracts any data, computer data, computer database or information from such computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium;
Introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network-
Damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer database, or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network-
Disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system, or computer network;
Denies or causes the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means
Charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer of a computer, computer system or computer network-
Provides any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made there under,
Charges the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network,
Destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means,
Steals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage,
Section 43A – Compensation for failure to protect data Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation, not exceeding five crore rupees, to the person so affected.
Furnish any document, return or report to the Controller or the Certifying Authority, fails to furnish the same, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding one lakh and fifty thousand rupees for each such failure;
File any return or furnish any information, books or other documents within the time specified therefore in the regulations, fails to file return or furnish the same within the time specified therefore in the regulations, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure continues:
Maintain books of account or records, fails to maintain the same, he shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten thousand rupees for every day during which the failure continues.
Section 45 – Residuary Penalty Whoever contravenes any rules or regulations made under this Act, for the contravention of which no penalty has been separately provided,shall be liable to pay a compensation not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees to the person affected by such contravention or a penalty not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.
The amount of gain of unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
The amount of loss caused to the person as a result of the default,
The repetitive nature of the default.
Section 65 – Tampering with Computer Source Documents If any person knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys code or alters or causes another to conceal, destroy code or alter any computer, computer program, computer system, or computer network,he shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine up to two lakh rupees, or with both.
Section – 66 Computer Related Offences If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43,he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.
Any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character;
Any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
Any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages
Section 66B – Punishment for dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device. Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen computer resource or communication device,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine which may extend to rupees one lakh or with both.
Section 66C – Punishment for identity theft Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.
Section 66D – Punishment for cheating by personation by using computer resource Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource cheats by personating; shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
“transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
“capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;
“private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast;
“publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;
he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or
any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.
denying or cause the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or
attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access; or
introducing or causing to introduce any Computer Contaminant and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70, or
knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.
Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Section 67 – Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form 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 circumstances, 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 two three years and with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees andin the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
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 contains sexually explicit act or conductshall 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 ten lakh rupees andin the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees.
publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct or
creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner or
cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource or
facilitates abusing children online or
records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children,
Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.
The Procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or
intercept or monitor or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or
provide information stored in computer resource.
The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.
The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.
The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.
The Central Government may, to enhance Cyber Security and for identification, analysis and prevention of any intrusion or spread of computer contaminant in the country, by notification in the official Gazette, authorize any agency of the Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
The Intermediary or any person in-charge of the Computer resource shall when called upon by the agency which has been authorized under sub-section (1), provide technical assistance and extend all facilities to such agency to enable online access or to secure and provide online access to the computer resource generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such traffic data or information.
The procedure and safeguards for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information, shall be such as may be prescribed.
Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of subsection (2) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 71 – Penalty for misrepresentation Whoever makes any misrepresentation to, or suppresses any material fact from, the Controller or the Certifying Authority for obtaining any license or Electronic Signature Certificate, as the case may be,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.
Section 72 – Breach of confidentiality and privacy Any person who, in pursuant of any of the powers conferred under this Act, rules or regulations made there under, has secured access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information, document or other 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.
Section 72A – Punishment for Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract Any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.
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, unless such publication is for the purpose of verifying a digital signature created prior to such suspension or revocation
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.
Section 74 – Publication for fraudulent purpose: Whoever knowingly creates, publishes or otherwise makes available a Electronic 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 may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offence 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 offence or contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.
A Court of competent jurisdiction may compound offences other than offences for which the punishment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding three years has been provided under this Act.Provided further that the Court shall not compound any offence where such offence affects the socio-economic conditions of the country or has been committed against a child below the age of 18 years or a woman.
The person accused of an offence under this act may file an application for compounding in the court in which offence is pending for trial and the provisions of section 265 B and 265C of Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973 shall apply.
Section 77B – Offences with three years imprisonment to be cognizable Notwithstanding anything contained in Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years and above shall be cognizable and the offence punishable with imprisonment of three years shall be bailable.
Section 78 – Power to investigate offences Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a police officer not below the rank of Inspector shall investigate any offence under this Act.

Experience of over a decade in the IT and CyberSecurity domain. A cyber-detective by nature, and has solved numerous cyberattack-cases during his tenure at Network Intelligence. When not solving cybercrimes, he enjoys video-games and photography.

Hi, somebody used my official mail account to send confidential information to competitor company. Company filed legal case against me under section 72A and 66. Is there any case under similar circumstances before, how can i prove myself not guilty. Pls suggest.

The law defines the offenses in a detailed manner along with the penalties for each category of offence.

Good work. Dear Sir/Madam. If someone attempted to have unauthorized access to my email account from a remote area (I have the suspicious IP address as notified by google security mechanism), can I do something as per IT law against him? Please quote the specific act/rule.

how can we apply and where we have to apply for this act and have license for the same.

Excellent job for pub.information Thanks

Detailed and informative! Overall an excellent article.

Comments are closed.

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

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.

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.

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.

Aqa Raza , Mukesh Dwivedi

This paper mainly deals with the laws relating to the cyber crimes in India. The objectives of this research paper are four-fold: firstly, to analyze the concept of jurisdiction and the various theories to determine jurisdiction in cases where such offences are committed relating to cyber crimes; secondly, to analyze the jurisdiction theories applicable under Cybercrime Convention; thirdly, to analyze the jurisdiction theories applicable under the Information Technology Act, 2000; and fourthly, to analyze whether there can be one jurisdiction theory that may globally be applicable to all cyber crimes. For the sake of convenience, this research paper has been divided into various parts. The paper focuses on the various theories of jurisdiction and the jurisdiction principles applicable under the Cybercrime Convention, 2001 on cybercrime. The jurisdiction principle applicable under the Information Technology Act, 2000 have also been discussed in the paper.

Adv Prashant Mali, Ph.D.

The IT Act, 2000 i.e cyber law of India has certain offences which are Non Bailable for certain Cyber Crimes. This article looks in to what are such sections and which Bailable sections can be made Non Bailable with application of Sections from other Laws prevailing in India

Newsletter Sign Up

Email Address

Your browser is outdated, it may not render this page properly, please upgrade .

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Closed Expands Expression

Key details

Key Details

Mode of Expression Electronic / Internet-based Communication
Date of Decision March 24, 2015
Outcome Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional
Case Number Writ Petition No. 167 of 2012
Region & Country India, Asia and Asia Pacific
Judicial Body Supreme (court of final appeal)
Type of Law Criminal Law, Constitutional Law
Themes Content Regulation / Censorship, Cyber Security / Cyber Crime
Tags Facebook, Internet, Social Media, Content-Based Restriction, Vague Standard

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

This case is available in additional languages: View in: Français View in: العربية

Case Analysis

Case summary and outcome.

The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in its entirety. The Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutionally vague and its intended protection against annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or ill-will were beyond the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The Court agreed that the prohibition against the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult did not fall within any reasonable exceptions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It further found that because the provision failed to define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed and hence its sweep was overly broad and vague.

Police arrested two women for posting allegedly offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook about the propriety of shutting down the city of Mumbai after the death of a political leader. The police made the arrests under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA), which punishes any person who sends through a computer resource or communication device any information that is grossly offensive, or with the knowledge of its falsity, the information is transmitted for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, insult, injury, hatred, or ill will.

Although the police later released the women and dismissed their prosecution, the incident invoked substantial media attention and criticism. The women then filed a petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it violates the right to freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court of India initially issued an interim measure in Singhal v. Union of India , (2013) 12 S.C.C. 73, prohibiting any arrest pursuant to Section 66A unless such arrest is approved by senior police officers. In the case in hand, the Court addressed the constitutionality of the provision.

Decision Overview

Justices Chelameswar and Nariman delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of India.

The main issue was whether Section 66A of ITA violated the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. As an exception to the right, Article 19(2) permits the government to impose “reasonable restrictions . . . in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense.”

The Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutional because its intended protection against annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or ill-will fall outside the purview of Article 19(2). They also argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague as it fails to specifically define its prohibitions. In addition, they contended that the law has a “chilling effect” on the right to freedom of expression. [para. 5]

The government, on the other hand, argued that the legislature is in the best position to fulfill the needs of people and courts may interfere with legislative process only when “a statute is clearly violative of the rights conferred on the citizen under Part-III of the Constitution.” [para. 6] The government contended that mere presence of abuse of a provision may not be a ground to declare the provision as unconstitutional. Also, the government was of the opinion that loose language of the law could not be a ground for invalidity because the law is concerned with novel methods of disturbing people’s rights through internet. According to the government, vagueness cannot not a ground to declare a statute unconstitutional “if the statute is otherwise legislatively competent and non-arbitrary.” [para. 6]

The Court first discussed three fundamental concepts in understanding the freedom of expression: discussion, advocacy, and incitement. According to the Court, “[m]ere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart” of the right. [para. 13] And, the law may curtail the freedom only when a discussion or advocacy amounts to incitement. [para. 13]

As applied to the case in hand, the Court found that Section 66A is capable of limiting all forms of internet communications as it makes no distinction “between mere discussion or advocacy of a particular point of view, which may be annoying or inconvenient or grossly offensive to some and incitement by which such words lead to an imminent causal connection with public disorder, security of State etc.” [para. 20]

The Court further held that the law fails to establish a clear proximate relation to the protection of public order. According to the Court, the commission of an offense under Section 66A is complete by sending a message for the purpose of causing annoyance or insult. As a result, the law does not make distinction between mass dissemination and dissemination to only one person without requiring the message to have a clear tendency of disrupting public order.

As to whether Section 66A was a valid attempt to protect individuals from defamatory statements through online communications, the Court noted that the main ingredient of defamation is “injury to reputation.” It held that the law does not concern this objective because it also condemns offensive statements that may annoy or be inconvenient to an individual without affecting his reputation. [para. 43]

The Court also held that the government failed to show that the law intends to prevent communications that incite the commission of an offense because “the mere causing of annoyance, inconvenience, danger etc., or being grossly offensive or having a menacing character are not offences under the Penal Code at all.” [para. 44]

As to petitioners’ challenge of vagueness, the Court followed the U.S. judicial precedent, which holds that “where no reasonable standards are laid down to define guilt in a Section which creates an offense, and where no clear guidance is given to either law abiding citizens or to authorities and courts, a Section which creates an offense and which is vague must be struck down as being arbitrary and unreasonable.” [para. 52] T he Court found that Section 66A leaves many terms open-ended and undefined, therefore making the statute void for vagueness.

The Court also addressed whether Section 66A is capable of imposing chilling effect on the right to freedom of expresssion. It held that because the provision fails to define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed. [para. 83]

The Court also noted the intelligible difference between information transmitted through internet and other forms of speech, which permits the government to create separate offenses related to online communications. Accordingly, the Court rejected petitioners’ argument that Section 66A was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution against discrimination. [para. 98]

The Court declined to address the Petitioners’ challenge of procedural unreasonableness since the law was already declared unconstitutional on substantive grounds. It also found Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act to be unconstitutional as applied to Section 66A.

Based on the forgoing reasons, the Court invalidated Section 66A of ITA in its entirety as it violated the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Decision Direction

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

This decision certainly expands the freedom of expression by narrowly interpreting the reasonable grounds of restricting the right, such as maintaining public order or protecting one’s reputation.

However, in February 2019, almost four years later, the Supreme Court was presented with new litigation based on findings that the Singhal v. Union of India ruling was not being properly implemented. The Internet Freedom Foundation published a study in November 2018 on the continued use of the Section which found about 65 to 70 cases cumulatively in different legal databases and that fresh cases were being registered in police stations, investigated and thereafter, considered by lower Courts. The study put the continued use of 66A on the radar and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties, one of the petitioners in the original case, once again approached the Supreme Court in January, 2019, in an application for directions.

The application sought that a copy of the Shreya Singhal judgement be issued through appropriate circulars to all Chief Secretaries of States, and onwards to Directors Generals of Police. A similar direction was sought to all High Courts, for further dissemination to the District Courts under their jurisdiction. Finally, the application requested that the High Courts pass necessary orders in all pending cases of 66A to ensure disposal. The Supreme Court allowed the request with respect to dissemination of the judgment by order dated 15.02.2019 . In a blog post , advocates involved with the petition, Sanjana Srikumar and Joanne D’Cunha, discuss the litigation and the challenge of post-decisional oversight and implementation.

Global Perspective

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence.

India, Const., art. 19(1)(a) & (2)
India, Information Technology Act of 2000, sec. 66A
India, Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. The Union of India, (1962) 3 S.C.R. 842
India, Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 600
India, Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
India, State of Madras v. V. G. Row, (1952) S.C.R. 597
India, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India and Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Ors., 1995 AIR 1236 (1995)
India, Rangarajan v. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 S.C.C. 574
India, Abbas v. Union of India, (1970) 2 S.C.C. 780
India, Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 5 S.C.C. 246
India, A.K. Roy v. Union of India, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 272
India, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad, [1961] 1 S.C.R. 970
India, Aveek Sarkar v. Jharkhand, 2006 Cri. L.J. 4211
India, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, 2006 (8) S.C.C. 433
India, Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, [1965] 1 S.C.R. 65
India, Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, 1996 (1) S.C.C. 130
India, Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 769
India, State of Bihar v. Shailabala Devi, [1952] S.C.R. 654
India, Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, [1970] 3 S.C.R. 288
India, Khare v. State of Delhi, [1950] S.C.R. 519
India, Chintaman Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1950] S.C.R. 759
India, Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, (1985) 2 S.C.R. 287
India, Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, [1973] 2 S.C.R. 757
India, Thappar v. State of Madras, (1950) S.C.R. 594
India, Kameshwar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 369

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

U.S., Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
U.S., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
U.K., Chambers v. Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, [2012] EWHC 2157
U.S., Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
U.S., Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
U.S., Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
U.S., Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
U.S., Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
U.S., Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
U.S., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
U.S., United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1875)
U.S., City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999)

Case Significance

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Supreme Court’s decision is binding on all courts within the territory of India.

The decision was cited in:

Vyas v. State of Gujarat
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
Sharma v. Dainik Bhaskar Corporation Limited
Chadha v. State
Boarding School, situated in Bhauwala, District Dehradun v. State of Uttarakhand
Muthukumar v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India & Ors.
UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.TO

Official Case Documents

Reports, analysis, and news articles:.

Section 66A and Other Legal Zombies https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3275893
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2013) 12 SCC 73, The Practical Lawyer http://www.supremecourtcases.com/index2.php?option=com_content&itemid=99999999&do_pdf=1&id=45352
Tamil Nadu, Validity of Section 66A of IT Act challenged, The Hindu (Nov. 21, 2012) http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/validity-of-section-66a-of-it-act-challenged/article4116598.ece
Prior approval must to arrest under Section 66A: Supreme Court, IBN Live (May 17, 2013) http://ibnlive.in.com/news/prior-approval-must-to-arrest-under-section-66a-supreme-court/392152-3.html
Case Study, Catalysts for Collaboration https://catalystsforcollaboration.org/case-study-singhal-v-union-of-india/

Attachments:

Have comments.

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback

Content regulation / censorship, cyber security / cyber crime, defamation / reputation, intermediary liability.

June 7, 2022

State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai

Filtering and Blocking

Content Regulation / Censorship, Cyber Security / Cyber Crime, Digital Rights, National Security, Press Freedom, Violence Against Speakers / Impunity

July 9, 2021

SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (Case of Agba Jalingo)

Press freedom, torture, Unlawful arrest and detention

Related News

Content regulation / censorship, privacy, data protection and retention, cyber security / cyber crime.

August 25, 2015

Rights Groups in Pakistan File Petition for Public Hearing on the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015

Content regulation / censorship, cyber security / cyber crime, digital rights.

June 09, 2022

LEXOTA—A New Tool to Track Government Responses to Online Disinformation Across Sub-Saharan Africa

disinformation

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

An Introduction to the CSE Exam
Personality Test
Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
Common Myths about the Exam
About Insights IAS
Our Mission, Vision & Values
Director's Desk
Meet Our Team
Our Branches
Careers at Insights IAS
Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
Insights into Editorials
Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
Current Affairs Quiz
Static Quiz
Current Affairs RTM
Insta-DART(CSAT)
Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
Secure (Mains Answer writing)
Secure Synopsis
Ethics Case Studies
Insta Ethics
Weekly Essay Challenge
Insta Revision Modules-Mains
Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
Secure (Archive)
Anthropology
Law Optional
Kannada Literature
Public Administration
English Literature
Medical Science
Mathematics
Commerce & Accountancy
Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
InstaMaps: Important Places in News
Weekly CA Magazine
The PRIME Magazine
Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
Interview Transcripts
Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
Solve Prelims PYQs
Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
UPSC CSE Syllabus
Toppers from Insights IAS
Testimonials
Felicitation
UPSC Results
Indian Heritage & Culture
Ancient Indian History
Medieval Indian History
Modern Indian History
World History
World Geography
Indian Geography
Indian Society
Social Justice
International Relations
Agriculture
Environment & Ecology
Disaster Management
Science & Technology
Security Issues
Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

Indian Heritage & Culture
Enivornment & Ecology

SANSAD TV: 75 YEARS- LAWS THAT SHAPED INDIA- THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

To fulfill the changing needs of the cyber security and e-commerce. The Information Technology Act was passed in Parliament in 2000.

Objectives of the Act:

The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides legal recognition to the group action done via electronic exchange of information and alternative electronic suggests that of communication or electronic commerce transactions.
This also involves the utilization of alternatives to a paper-based technique of communication and knowledge storage to facilitate the electronic filing of documents with government agencies.
Further, this act amended the Indian legal code 1860, the Indian proof Act 1872, the Bankers’ Books proof Act 1891, and also the bank of India Act 1934.
Grant legal recognition to any or all transactions are done via electronic exchange of information or alternative electronic suggests that of communication or e-commerce, intact of the sooner paper-based technique of communication.
Offer legal recognition to digital signatures for the authentication of any data or matters requiring legal authenticationFacilitate the electronic filing of documents with Government agencies and conjointly departments.Facilitate the electronic storage of information.
Offer legal sanction and conjointly facilitate the electronic transfer of funds between banks and money establishments.Grant legal recognition to bankers underneath the proof Act, 1891, and also the bank of India Act, 1934, for keeping the books of accounts in electronic kind.

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.
A procedure for the appointment of adjudicating officers for holding inquiries underneath the Act is finalized.
Provision for establishing a Cyber restrictive Appellant judicature underneath the Act.
Further, this judicature can handle all appeals created against the order of the Controller or Adjudicating Officer.
It charms against the order of the Cyber Appellant judicature is feasible solely within the court.
Digital Signatures uses an uneven cryptosystem and conjointly a hash operate.Provision for the appointment of the Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) to license and regulate the operating of Certifying Authorities. The Controller acts as a repository of all digital signatures.
The Act applies to offences or contraventions committed outside India.Senior law enforcement officials and alternative officers will enter any public place and search and arrest while not warrant.Provisions for the constitution of a Cyber laws committee to advise the Central.

The flaws of IT Act 2000 are:

Section 69A of the IT Act.:
Section 69A grants to the government the power to issue directions to intermediaries for blocking access to any information that it considers prejudicial to, among other things, the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security, or public order.
Section 69A (3) envisages a jail sentence for up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply.
In 2009, the government also issued “Blocking Rules”, which set up the procedure for blocking (including regular review by government committees), and also stated that all requests and complaints would remain strictly confidential.
The bill has provisions for against wrongful loss or wrongful gain but does not protect the privacy. Hence, it does not prevent companies from selling or sharing consumer data with others.
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.
The Indian IT Act is not a cybersecurity law and therefore does not deal with the nuances of cybersecurity.
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.
regular police personnel, specifically any officer holding the rank of inspector, are responsible for investigating nefarious online activities. The difficulty that arises here is that cybercrimes are a nuanced form of criminal activity that require years of specialised training and a deep understanding of technology to probe adequately.

Our Mission, Vision & Values
Director’s Desk
Commerce & Accountancy
Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
Environment & Ecology
Science & Technology

Law Firm Articles
An Alternative To Section 66A Of...

An Alternative To Section 66A Of The Information Technology Act, 2000: Revisiting Shreya Singhal Case

Kartikey srivastava.

17 Oct 2021 4:51 AM GMT

An Alternative To Section 66A Of The Information Technology Act, 2000: Revisiting Shreya Singhal Case

In the 21 st century, the Internet has become a facet of this modern era. Marking the century as the commencement of the digital world and the digital revolution. Concerning the steps taken by the Indian government to digitize probably everything, we have reached a stage where 'Online World' has become a part of our daily life. A considerable amount of time is spent by most of the people online. This has also let us evolve with various legislations to deal with crimes of the Cyberworld like Cyber – harassment/stalking/defamation/bullying, etc. The primary legislation in India concerning Cybercrimes is The Information Technology Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act'). However, in 2009 by way of an amendment act, Section 66A [i] was added to it. It gained a lot of attention as it created a ruckus in its application. Finally, in 2015 in the renowned case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, [ii] it was struck down and held unconstitutional.

Usage of Section 66A before Shreya Singhal Case

Section 66A was added in the IT Act to criminalize the act of sending offensive messages to anyone by the way of a communication device. However, the language of the provision is ambiguous. Also, it is pertinent to note that the boundaries and scope of the words used in the provision were also not set as they were not defined, for example, the words like 'grossly offensive', 'menacing character'. Due to the following reasons, the provision was misused against many people. As something may be perceived as 'grossly offensive' by someone while for others it is not. Due to the lack of definitions of such words which created a lot of confusion and led to arrests of various people all across the nation.

Some instances of its misuse are that: - a girl named Priyanka Sharma was sent to judicial custody for 14 days only because she shared a meme based on West Bengal's Chief Minister, Mamta Bannerjee. [iii] Another instance is when a businessman of Puducherry was arrested for posting offensive messages against K. Chidambaram, son of former union finance minister, P. Chidambaram. The comments made by the businessman were that K. Chidambaram amassed more wealth than All India Congress Committee chairperson Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra. [iv] After the demise of Shiv Sena leader, Bal Thackeray, a girl named Shahin Farooq Dhada questioned the statewide 'bandh' respectfully via her online post. However the same meant to be offensive to some people and the girl was booked under Section 66A of the IT Act, even another girl named Renu Srinivasan who liked that post was also booked under the same provision. [v] A class 11th student from Bareilly was also arrested because he posted an objectionable post on a social media platform against Azam Khan, a senior Samajwadi party leader. [vi]

Keeping in mind the above incidents which showcase how the law was being misused and arbitrary arrests and detentions were taking place all over the nation. Shreya Singhal, a law student filed a PIL in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the said provision.

Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 2015.

After the arrest of the two Palghar girls for criticizing the statewide 'bandh' after the demise of Bal Thackeray, Shreya Singhal, a law aspirant filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000. It was challenged primarily on the basis that it violated Article 19(1)(a) and is not saved by the eight subjects covered in Article 19(2). A test laid down in the case of Chintaman Rao vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [vii] to know what "reasonable restrictions" means in several cases.

"The phrase "reasonable restriction" connotes that the limitation imposed on a person in enjoyment of the right should not be arbitrary or of an excessive nature, beyond what is required in the interests of the public. The word "reasonable" implies intelligent care and deliberation, that is, the choice of a course which reason dictates." [viii]

Section 66A did not pass this test as the language used in the verbatim of the provision was vague and unclear which gave arbitrary powers to the authorities to interpret the provision as per the situation. Also, Section 66A curtailed freedom of speech in every way possible. If seen thoroughly, on any possible information available there will be two categories of people, one supporting it and the other against it. So the information may seem offensive to the other set of people. That's why there were detentions and arrests were taking place all over the nation with the help of this provision.

For a restriction to be made in the "interest of public order", it must also have a reasonable relation for achieving the desired public order, and if it fails to do the same then it does not qualify as a reasonable restriction under the said clause i.e. in the "interest of public order". [ix] In the current case, it was held that Section 66A did not directly disrupt the 'public order' as it was related to sending offensive messages which are sent from one person to the other. In the case of Arun Ghosh vs. State of Bengal [x] , it was held that a question needs to be asked to ascertain whether the public order is being disturbed or not, which is:-

"The question to ask is: Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed? This question has to be faced in every case on facts." [xi]

On this junction, I would like to politely disagree with the Hon'ble court's point of view for example, if a person A, constantly bombards females with unwelcomed inappropriate messages online, which may amount to cyberbullying/harassing/stalking. Now if there are a significant amount of people committing the same thing, will it not amount to disruption of public order? As there will be a high percentage of women (including minor girls) who will be facing a lot of trouble because of these people. A similar opinion like this was opined by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned case but was with respect to a man who does similar actions in person and not on the internet. With the emerging presence of everyone on the internet, it's time to revise our penal legislation because the absence of criminalization of such actions that fall in the category of 'new crimes' are being left unnoticed.

In the judgment of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India [xii] , it was held that Section 66A did not have any proximate connection with Incitement to Offence nor did it relate to Defamation. On the point of defamation, if a female has been abused online on her social media post or has been said something inappropriate about her, will that not amount to defamation? If the same act was being done in-person it would lie under the offense of defamation as it would have qualified for all the pre-requisites required to establish defamation, but if the same thing is been occurring on the internet then why the same is not being qualified as defamation, only because Section 66A was with respect to offensive messages. If yes, then will a defamatory comment or a defamatory post, come under it?

There was no demarcation of what 'grossly offensive' and 'menacing character' actually meant, which created a commotion amongst everyone be it the common people or the authorities like police and even the judiciary at times. The question arose whether the 'void for vagueness' doctrine is applicable with respect to Indian law, the same was answered in K.A. Abbas vs. The Union of India and Anr. [xiii] wherein it was held that,

"The real rule is that if a law is vague or appears to be so, the court must try to construe it, as far as may be, and language permitting, the construction sought to be placed on it, must be in accordance with the intention of the legislature. Thus if the law is open to diverse construction, that construction which accords best with the intention of the legislature and advances the purpose of legislation, is to be preferred." [xiv]

In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab [xv] , it was held that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. The court opined that the law should give a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to be able to distinguish what is prohibited so that he may use his mind to act prudently.

It is pertinent to note that Section 66A had a chilling effect on free speech as indicated in Para 83 of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, where it was held that,

"It is obvious that an expression of a view on any matter may cause annoyance, inconvenience or may be grossly offensive to some. A few examples will suffice. A certain section of a particular community may be grossly offended or annoyed by communications over the internet by "liberal views" - such as the emancipation of women or the abolition of the caste system or whether certain members of a non-proselytizing religion should be allowed to bring persons within their fold who are otherwise outside the fold. Each one of these things may be grossly offensive, annoying, inconvenient, insulting or injurious to large sections of particular communities and would fall within the net cast by Section 66A. In point of fact, Section 66A is cast so widely that virtually any opinion on any subject would be covered by it, as any serious opinion dissenting with the mores of the day would be caught within its net." [xvi]

This indicates that how the language of the provision of Section 66A made it obvious for the abuse of the provision, the undefined words and the unclear boundaries made it more vulnerable to be abused by and interpreted in any manner as fashioned by the authorities.

Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, was also challenged on the basis that it violated Article 14 [xvii] of the Constitution of India, as petitioners contended that there was no intelligible differentia between the medium of print, broadcast, and real live speech as opposed to speech on the internet. However, it is pertinent to note that the court clarified that there lies an intelligible differential between speech on the internet and other mediums of communication for which separate offenses can certainly be created by legislation.

The aftermath of the Judgement

A committee headed by former Lok Sabha Secretary-General, T.K. Vishwanathan was formed after the Supreme Court held Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 unconstitutional in 2015. The committee proposed a few amendments to provisions of IPC i.e. Section 153 and Section 505, which even implemented would not have done much to curb any kind of sexual offense against women or online hate speech, drastically. Committee also relied on the 267th report of the Law Commission of India and suggested the appointment of officers appointed at state and district levels to scrutinize cybercrimes which was the only good step.

The arbitrary arrests and detentions definitely lowered down after scrapping Section 66A of the IT Act, but due to non-awareness of the recent judgments and orders by the Supreme Court to the lower level of executive and judiciary, Section 66A has turned into a 'Legal Zombie'. As there is no medium other than the Official Gazette to make the local police and the lower judiciary aware of the recent judicial decisions by the Apex Court. Section 66A is still being used by various police departments to book people on instances of online hate speech. This undermines the freedom of speech, rule of law, and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court. [xviii]

Recourse available to a Victim of Cyber Bullying/Harassment/Stalking

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) is the main penal legislation concerning crimes in India. So let's analyze the laws a woman may use if she has been abused online/ a sexually offensive comment or remark was passed about her privately or publicly (eg. On a social media post) she was sent sexually explicit material/ she was demanded for sexual favors/ she was sent rape threats/ etc. in her private chat box or maybe publicly online.

Sexual Harassment - Section 354A of IPC. [xix]
Stalking - Section 354D of IPC. [xx]
Defamation - Section 499 of IPC. [xxi]
Criminal Intimidation - Section 503 of IPC. [xxii]
Word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman (Eve-teasing) - Section 509 of IPC. [xxiii]

However, we may observe that by the actions done by a person mentioned in the first paragraph of this subheading, he has tried to outrage the modesty of a woman but the IPC provision concerning the same i.e. Section 354 of IPC [xxiv] could not be enforced specifically against the person as the provision doesn't mention doing such an act online.

The list of provisions of IPC listed above can happen to be applicable in a far-fetched manner in the case of that woman. Also because of the absence of a specific law regarding such offenses online, the provisions of IPC are subjected to the interpretation that they also govern cybercrimes but in the bare provision there is no mention of committing any act online. This is nothing but a shock to the wide diversity of India and its innumerable legislations for almost everything but the absence of a specific law for such grave misconducts/crimes happening daily online.

Recommendation

In 2012, P. Rajeeve, a Member of Parliament from Kerala moved a resolution for amending Section 66A of the IT Act. However it is pertinent to note that in that discussion, he quoted that "The bill was passed in seven minutes on 23 December 2008 the last day of winter session -- without any discussion,". [xxv] The same can be found in the Parliamentary Bulletin of the winter session of 2008 [xxvi] which showed how hastily it was passed without discussing it adequately and to be specific it took merely 21 minutes. Even though scrapping of Section 66A was a quintessential thing to do, I believe to the contrary that Section 66A needed an amendment rather than being struck down. The scope and the boundaries should have been shifted for the safety of women on the internet and should have been defined clearly.

The rationale behind implementing Section 66A was diligent, however, due to some fallacies, the idea behind implementing the law was not water-tight which led to rendering it unconstitutional. However, there is a stringent need for India to adopt a law criminalizing the offenses pertaining to sexual misconduct against women online, thereby an amendment should be made to the IT Act, 2000. The amendment should add a provision that should be somewhat similar to Section 66A, but it should not have the flaws of Section 66A like vagueness, undefined terminology, no set scope/boundaries. Therefore I have reformulated the language used in Section 66A, to make the provision concerned for sexual crimes against women online. The provision reads:-

66-A. Punishment for sending "sexually" offensive messages through communication service, etc.-Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

· (a) any information that is grossly "sexually" offensive or has menacing "demeaning" character which reflects the prurient interests;

The words in the quotes are either added or substituted from the language of Section 66A. It may need some changes for it to be passed. However, the terms used in the provision should be defined clearly with the explanations, like :

Sexually offensive - Any information (text/image/video/gif etc.) other than pertaining to scientific, literary, or artistic value, which depicts a sexual act of any kind/pornographic material which reflects the prurient interests to a prudent man may be called as sexually offensive.

For Example

A, a man publicly comments on a post of B, a girl on a social media platform, from the comment it is evident that the man- asked for sexual favors/passed a remark about the girl demeaning her character/sent a rape threat/used abusive language/any other activities which may deem fit as falling under this category. The man committed an act that can be termed as sexually offensive.
A, a man privately sends a message to B, a girl via a social media platform, from the message it is evident that the man - asked for sexual favors/passed a remark about the girl demeaning her character/sent a rape threat/used abusive language/any other activities which may deem fit as falling under this category. The man committed an act that can be termed as sexually offensive.
Demeaning character - Any information(text/image/video/gif etc) other than pertaining to scientific, literary, or artistic value, which depicts that the character of the woman is lowered down, false questions/assumptions regarding her chastity are raised, any other act particularly of prurient interest which may deem fit to be categorized raised under this provision. Such an act should be categorized as of demeaning character.

For defining the term 'information' one may refer to Section 2(1)(v) [xxvii] of the IT Act, 2000.

To contextualize the above recommendation with respect to the current laws applicable in India. One may perceive how the notion of "thinking of a prudent man" is considered while dealing with defamation cases specifically the ones regarding 'innuendo'. The approach of "thinking of a prudent man" may be adopted while categorizing something as sexually offensive or of demeaning character. As there can be cases where the act inconsideration may not fall under the said hard and fast definition or in the watertight definition but it may still be sexually offensive or of demeaning character. So an approach like this would be the best helping hand in such a situation. Section 66A penalized sending 'offensive messages' through online platforms, however, the law should have been amended in such a way that it should have penalized sending "Sexually offensive messages".

Also to consider something obscene there is a test laid down by the Supreme Court in Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan [xxviii] [xxix] , which is:

"this Court noticed the law in the United States and said that a material may be regarded as obscene if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and that taken as a whole it otherwise lacks serious literary artistic, political, educational or scientific value." [xxx]

After 5 years of the scrapping of Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, the provision has been haunting the citizens of India as it has transformed into a 'legal zombie', various newspaper reports and surveys claim that due to the absence of knowledge by the authorities that the provision is no more constitutional, people are still being booked under the draconian law, struck down 5 years ago. This is an irony that the world's largest democracy suffers from such a situation.

Although the decision to strike down Section 66A was a good decision, it could have been better if the judiciary would have defined the scope and meaning of it and would have construed it. The changes stated by the committee formed after striking down the provision were not meant to bring out a drastic change in the current legal system. By the reading of this paper which inculcates about the safety of women on the internet and the dire need of law to maintain the dignity of women on the Internet, so that at least they can feel safe online.

The new era has also created new crime and the existing penal provisions are not enough to tackle these types of crimes so the need of the hour is to create penal provisions to maintain the status quo of the society.

The author, Kartikey Srivastava has contributed this write-up during his research assistantship at M/s. Black Robes Legal. The views, thoughts, and opinions, as are so expressed, belong solely to the author, and not to any other person in any manner whatsoever.

[i] 66A. Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.–Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,– (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device; (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. Explanation.–For the purposes of this section, terms ―electronic mail‖ and ―electronic mail message‖ means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer

[ii] AIR 2015 SC 1523.

[iii] Law School Policy Review. 2020. Section 66A: An Unending Saga Of Misuse And Harassment . [online] Available at: lawschoolpolicyreview.com [Accessed 9 July 2020].

[iv] Times of India, 2015. Puducherry man who was booked under Section 66A of IT Act hails Supreme Court verdict. [online] Available at: timesofindia.indiatimes.com [Accessed 9 July 2020].

[v] Cis-india.org. 2012. Arbitrary Arrests For Comment On Bal Thackeray's Death — The Centre For Internet And Society . [online] Available at:

[vi] The Indian Express, 2015. Youth held for 'objectionable' FB post against Azam Khan. [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 July 2020].

[vii] Shri Chintaman Rao & Anr. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh [1958] AIR (Supreme Court), p.388.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh v. Ram Manohar Lohia, 1960 AIR 633.

[x] Arun Ghosh v. State of West Bengal , A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1228.

[xii] Supra.

[xiii] K.A. Abbas v. The Union of India, 1971 A.I.R. 481.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, SCC (3) 569.

[xvi] Supra.

[xvii] Article 14, Constitution of India.

[xviii] Sekhri, A. and Gupta, A., 2018. Section 66A and Other Legal Zombies. SSRN Electronic Journal , [online] Available at:

[xix] 354A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.—(1) A man committing any of the following acts— (i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or (ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or (iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or (iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

[xx] 354D. Stalking.—(1) Any man who— (i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or (ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking: Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that— (i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the State; or (ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or (iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified. (2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

[xxi] 499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

[xxii] 503. Criminal intimidation.—Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

[xxiii] 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.—Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, [shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine].

[xxiv] 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

[xxv] The Times of India, 2012. Section 66A of IT Act undemocratic: RS MPs. [online] Available at:

[xxvi] In: (214th Session) . 2008. Parliamentary Bulletin. [online] pp.30214, 30215. Available at:

[xxvii] Section 2(1)(v) ―information‖ includes 2 [data, message, text,] images, sound, voice, codes, computer programmes, software and data bases or micro film or computer generated micro fiche;

[xxix] Director General, Directorate General of Doordarshan v. Anand Patwardhan, 2006 (8) SCC 433.

[xxx] Ibid.

Critical Assessment of Information Technology Act, 2000

Denial of Service
Virus Dissemination
Credit Card Fraud
Cyber Stalking
History Elevation in the working pattern of humans has always made them ambitious regarding advancement in the field of technology. The use of technology as a mode of communication has made the internet an indispensable part of our lives. At the same time, it is disadvantageous if handed over to the wrong hands, which would be more dangerous than physical crimes or any war. Crime is no longer compact to the physical environment but has gained access to the digital platform as cybercrime. A model law on Electronic Commerce was brought by the united commission on international trade law in 1996; this effort, for the first time, led to uniformity in the laws of different countries. In January 1997, the general assembly of united nations, through a resolution, commended that all states should contemplate this model law when they enact or revise their laws. The information technology act 2000 is also in accordance with the model law. The Indian parliament on 15th may 2000 passed the I.T. Act 2000, which was approved by the then-president in June 2000 and was enforced on October 17, 2000. Ministry of commerce drafted the first draft known as the E-commerce act 1998, which was redrafted as the technology bill 1999; all the other Act was amended (Indian Penal Code, The Indian evidence act, the Bankers Book Evidence Act, and the reserve bank of India act) after enactment of I.T. Act 2000. The provision in the I.T. Act is not only applicable in India but is also applicable to offenses committed overseas. For offenses committed outside India, section 12 and section 75 of the I.T. Act is applicable. Later various amendments were made by the government in the year 2006, and the final draft was of Information Technology (Amendment) act 2008; the major changes were made in section 43 of the Act. It added two sub-clauses to escalate the scope of contraventions in section 43 and to help victims of such crimes by providing them remedies. Although section 43(3) was amended and changes were made for the betterment of people, yet there are many sections of the Act that require certain changes, and makers should address them and make the required amendments.
To promote legal recognition to all or any digital transaction done through electronic exchange of information or e-commerce;
Legalizing digital signature for sanctioning any data that demand legal recognition;
Allows electronic filing of a document with the government agencies;
Recognition transfer of funds through electronic means between banks and money establishments;
Facilitate banks for keeping banks of account in electronic form. (Proof Act,1891 Bank of India Act 1934)

Features Of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Liability of corporate body possessing, dealing or handling any personal information or data, if commit any wrongful gain or wrongful loss of such information Under section 43(A) of this amendment, any corporate body, including a firm or association indulged in commercial or professional activity, is liable to pay damages to the person whose sensitive personal information is lost or the company wrongfully use such information to gain any profit by sharing such details.
Spam and Fishing There is no express provision for these offenses, but it is an interpretation implied through section 66 (A). Any person who sends offensive, menacing information or sends false information with the intention of causing annoyance, danger, inconvenience, insult, injury, etc., is punished with an imprisonment of three years and a fine.
Liability for retention of any stolen computer resources or communication devices Section 66(B) of Information Technology amendment Act 2008 penalizes a person who dishonestly receives or retains any stolen computer resources or communication devices with imprisonment of three years or fine which tunes up to 1 lakh rupees or with both.(4)
Dishonest use of Digital signature Albeit the concept of digital signature was introduced long back in 2000, but punishment with regards to the misuse of such signature came only after the amendment of 2008, seems like a huge drawback. Any person who dishonestly uses someone else's digital signature can be awarded with an imprisonment of three years or with a fine that may extend to one lakh rupees under Section 66(C).
Cheating Section 66(D) of I.T. Amendment Act 2008 lays down punishment for cheating through computer resources. For the commission of same, a person can be punished with an imprisonment of three years or with a fine that may extend to one lakh rupee.
Denial to a person authorized to access one's computer resource;
Breaching into a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access;
Introducing any computer contaminant as a consequence causing injury to the user to destroying any property through such Act;
Knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations; or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offense, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offense of cyber terrorism(4).

Drawbacks Of It Act, 2000 And Amendment Of 2008

The major loophole in the I.T. Act is its effective execution; the Act does not encompass action that infringes any law or other offenses that come under the preview of this Act, certain aspects related to technological advancement are also not included under the Information (Amendment) Act 2008. The Act does not contain provisions to deal with cases related to online defamation. Although some are of the opinion that section 66A of the Act is related to the offense of sending offensive communication, the section does not include the word defamation in it. The section brings worth punishment in the form of imprisonment to the offender. According to Dr. T. Bhattacharya, "unless the word of the statute makes an act criminal shall not be constructed, criminal." Supreme court in March 2015 took down section 66A of the I.T. Act in Shreya Singhal V. Union of India A.I.R. 2015 SC 1523 because Section 66A of the Act as violating the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
Privacy is another aspect that requires the attention of lawmakers, but in reality, there is no mention of this issue in any law or enactment. The legislature, while enacting the I.T. Act 2000, to a great extent overlooked the issue of privacy of personally identifiable information. Although section 72 of the I.T. Act, 2000 provides certain provisions for the same. However, the horizon of the section has been narrowed, and it does not cover every aspect related to privacy in this cyber world. The I.T. Act also lacks a common technological facet that is required while investigating a case of cybercrime. One such is Internet Protocol Address or, in short, I.P. Address. Through the I.P. address, the geographical location of such person can be traced, as when the user visits the website, the I.P. address of the user is recorded by the server of the website (Report of Privacy Rights Clearing House 2013). An I.P. address acts as the digital footprint of the user. The web server uses cookies to track the action of the user also track the sites browsed by the browser. As a result, the user gets numerous customized displays, advertisements including many mails containing junk files. Likewise, other malicious techniques are used to gain the private information of the user. For instance, various malware is used to acquire the personal information of the browser, such as Global unique Identifiers, web bugs, etc. All these digital activities, which could hamper the personal information of millions of people, are not covered under the Information Technology Act 2000.
Another limitation is absences in clarity of offenses for which other legislations are referred. For instance, the Indian penal Code 1860 is used when any offense of cheating has been committed by any person by using computer resources. If a comparison is made between section 66D of Information Technology 2000 and the Indian penal Code,1860, one notable distinction is that prior one does not include Men's rea as an element to constitute the offense of cheating by a person using computer resource, but in later one men's rea is an element to constitute an offense of cheating by using computer resources. The report of the Working group of R.B.I. on electronic banking shows an amendment made in section 66D of I.T. Act,2000 includes the offense cheating by personation, but the Act fails 152 to include punishment for the offense of phishing. Other aspects of cybercrime are online fraud which includes investment and business opportunities, online auctions, credit card issuing scandal, etc. are not covered under Information Technology Act,2000. An offense committed through an online platform requires the presence of actus reus and men's rea as require in a crime committed in a physical environment. Actus reus is committing an offense, and men's rea means an intention to commit an offense which may include intention planning and so on. To determine the presence of men's rea in hacking is to check whether the offender was aware of such offense at the time of commission. On the part of the hacker, there must be the intention to direct any computer or a particular computer to access the required information. In such cases, it is very difficult to prove whether the intention was present or not.
I.T. (Amendment) Act,2008 does not include a provision that ensures protection of data of the user while using net banking. It's high time when the lawmakers take some urgent steps to conserve and protect the data of individuals, which are being handled by various banks and companies.
The I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008 also fails to address offenses related to identity theft. Another lacuna in the I.T. Act, 2000 is the absence of provisions for development of infrastructure to defend cyber-attack from external sources. Mechanism to control cyber-attack must be included under I.T. Act,2000. It is also silent in antitrust issues.
Provisions related to proper intellectual property protection of electronic information and data are also not present in I.T. Act,2000. Issues related to copyright, trademark, and patents have been neglected and overlooked by lawmakers.
Section 59(1) of the Act defines "legal practitioner" as the only person who can represent the appellant, which in the real field seems inefficient by the fact that the I.T. act is perse technical and demands expert knowledge on the concerned subject. So instead of the statute, the cyber appellate tribunal should be vested with the power to determine who can represent the appellant.
Since we have penetrated deep into the use of cell phone and cutting edge operating systems, I.T. Act need to address crimes done through these devices such as data theft, privacy breach by bogus websites through cookies, etc.
Section 66 (A) of the Act meant to protect the fundamental right of people through putting restriction and stringent action in case of any vagueness this could have been corrected and not invalidated. A replacement of section 66 (A) with high clarity is the need of the hour. It was posing a threat to criminal sharing grossly offensive and menace in character and not for the general public.
Priyanjali Karmakar, Types of Cyber Crime and its Causes, LEGALSERVICESINDIA (Apr 24, 2021, 2:15 PM), http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3042--types-of-cyber-crime-and-its-causes.html
PTI, 3.17 lakh cybercrimes in India in just 18 months, says govt, THE HINDU (Apr 24, 2021, 2:15 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/317-lakhs-cybercrimes-in-india-in-just-18-months-says-govt/arti cle34027225.ece
I.T. Act 2000
The Section 66 (F), I.T. (Amendment) Act 2008
Internet Crime Report, 2020, IC3 (Apr. 24, 2021, 2:18 PM), https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/ 2020_IC3Report.pdf
Maxim May, Federal Computer Crime Laws, SANS (Apr. 24, 2021, 2:20 PM), https://www.sans.org/readingroom/whitepapers/legal/federal-computer-crime-laws-1446

Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Gaurav Saluja Authentication No: MY313336543556-13-0523

Law Article in India

Please drop your comments, you may like.

Understanding The Israel-Pa...

Copyright Law in the Fashio...

the Legal Labyrinth: A Guid...

Independence And Impartiali...

Child Sexual Exploitation S...

Relationship Between Jurisp...

Legal question & answers, lawyers in india - search by city.

Law Articles

How to file for mutual divorce in delhi.

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

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

Strengthening Cyber Security and Data Protection in India: An Analysis of Legal Frameworks and Case Studies

The article aims to analyze the legal framework for cybersecurity and data protection in india and examines the effectiveness of the existing laws in addressing cyber threats..

The article 'Strengthening Cyber Security and Data Protection in India: An Analysis of Legal Frameworks and Case Studies' aims to analyze the legal framework for cybersecurity and data protection in India and examines the effectiveness of the existing laws in addressing cyber threats.

Cybersecurity and Data Protection have become critical issues in India due to the increasing dependence on technology and the internet. Additionally, the article presents case studies of cyberattacks in India to demonstrate the vulnerability of the country's cyberspace. The findings suggest that while India has made significant progress in establishing a legal framework for cybersecurity and data protection, there are gaps that need to be addressed to strengthen the country's cybersecurity posture.

Introduction

Cybercrime and Data Privacy are crucial topics in our Indian legal system, especially in the digital age. Cybercrime refers to any criminal activity that involves the use of a computer or network. Data Privacy, on the other hand, protects sensitive and confidential information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. Both cybercrime and data privacy are intertwined, as cybercriminals often use personal information for fraudulent activities.

Overview of Cybercrime in India

Cybercrime in India is a significant concern, and it has been on the rise in recent years. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), cybercrime cases in India increased by 63.5% in 2019, with over 44,000 reported incidents. The most common types of cybercrimes in India include phishing, online banking fraud, identity theft, and cyberstalking. These crimes not only cause financial losses but also damage the reputation of individuals and organizations.

The Indian legal system has various laws to address cybercrime. The Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, is the primary law that deals with cybercrime in India. It defines cybercrime and provides punishments for offences such as hacking, phishing, and data theft. The Act also includes provisions for the protection of personal information and data privacy. Other laws such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and the Evidence Act, 1872, are also used to prosecute cybercriminals.

Despite the existence of laws, cybercrime remains a significant challenge in India. One of the main reasons is the lack of awareness and preparedness among individuals and organizations. Cybercriminals often exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems and networks to carry out their activities. Therefore, it is essential for individuals and organizations to take appropriate measures to protect themselves from cyber threats.

Overview of Data Privacy in India

Data Privacy is an essential aspect of the digital age, and it is crucial to protect sensitive and confidential information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. In India, data privacy is protected under various laws and regulations. The IT Act, 2000, includes provisions for the protection of personal information, and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 , provide guidelines for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

In addition, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU) has a significant impact on data privacy in India. The GDPR applies to any organization that processes the personal data of individuals in the EU, regardless of its location. Therefore, Indian companies that process the personal data of individuals in the EU must comply with the GDPR.

Legal Provisions for Cyber Crimes

Indian legal system has several provisions in place to tackle cyber crimes. The Information Technology (IT) Act , 2000 is the primary legislation governing cyber crimes in India. The Act defines cyber crimes and provides for penalties and punishments for offences such as hacking, data theft, and cyber terrorism. The Act also provides for the establishment of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal and the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee to deal with cyber crimes and related issues.

Apart from the IT Act, several other laws also have provisions for cyber crimes. For example, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has sections that deal with offences such as identity theft, cyberstalking, and online defamation. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has also issued guidelines for banks and financial institutions to prevent cyber fraud.

However, despite the legal provisions in place, the conviction rate for cyber crimes in India remains low. This is mainly due to the lack of technical expertise among law enforcement agencies and the absence of proper infrastructure to investigate and prosecute cyber crimes.

Legal Framework for Cybersecurity and Data Protection in India

The Indian government has implemented various laws and regulations to address cybersecurity and data protection. The most notable among them is the Information Technology (IT) Act, of 2000 , which was amended in 2008 to include provisions for cybersecurity and data protection. The IT Act, of 2000, provides for the establishment of a Cyber Appellate Tribunal and specifies penalties for cybercrimes such as hacking, data theft, and cyber terrorism. Additionally, the government has established the National Cyber Security Policy, 2013 , which aims to create a secure and resilient cyberspace for citizens, businesses, and the government

Case Studies

Several cases have come up in India that highlights the need for a robust legal framework to deal with cybercrime and data privacy. One such case is the WhatsApp-Facebook data-sharing (2016) case , where the Indian government raised concerns about WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices with its parent company Facebook. The Delhi High Court ruled that WhatsApp’s policy of sharing user data with Facebook was a violation of individuals’ privacy and ordered the company to delete all data collected before September 2016.

Another significant case is the Aadhaar data breach (2019) case , where the Indian government’s national biometric identity program, Aadhaar, suffered a data breach that exposed the personal information of over a billion Indians. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the government must take measures to protect citizens’ data and ensure that sensitive personal information is not misused.

Despite the existence of a legal framework for cyber security and data protection in India, there have been numerous cases of cybercrime and data breaches in the country. Some of the high-profile cases include:

The 2016 data breach at an Indian e-commerce company, Zomato , resulted in the theft of 17 million user records, including email addresses and hashed passwords.

The 2020 data breach at the Indian online learning platform, Unacademy , resulted in the theft of 22 million user records, including email addresses, passwords, and account information.

In all these cases, the companies involved faced severe criticism for their inadequate data protection measures, which made them vulnerable to cyber-attacks.

Challenges and Solutions

Cybercrime and Data Privacy pose significant challenges in the Indian legal system. One of the main challenges is the lack of awareness and preparedness among individuals and organizations. Many people are not aware of the risks of cybercrime and the importance of data privacy. Therefore, they do not take appropriate measures to protect themselves from cyber threats.

Another challenge is the lack of resources and expertise among law enforcement agencies. Cybercrime investigations require specialized knowledge and skills, which are often lacking in law enforcement agencies. Therefore, cybercriminals often go unpunished due to the lack of expertise and resources to investigate and prosecute them.

To address these challenges, the Indian government has taken various initiatives. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has launched various awareness campaigns to educate people about cyber threats and the importance of data privacy. The government has also set up specialized agencies such as the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell (CCIC) and the National Cyber Security .

There are several academic journals and articles that discuss cybercrime and data privacy in the Indian legal system. One such journal is the International Journal of Cyber Criminology, which focuses on research related to cybercrime and its impact on society. Another journal is the Journal of Indian Law and Society, which covers a range of legal issues, including those related to data privacy and cybersecurity.

One notable article is “India’s Cybersecurity Framework: A Critical Analysis,” published in the Journal of Information, Law and Technology. The article examines the various laws and regulations related to cybersecurity in India and evaluates their effectiveness in addressing cyber threats and protecting individuals’ privacy.

Cybercrime and Data Privacy have become major concerns in the Indian legal system as the country continues to move towards a more digital future. While the government has taken steps to address these issues through various laws and regulations, more needs to be done to ensure that individual privacy is protected and cybercrimes are effectively punished. As the country’s digital landscape continues to evolve, it is essential that the legal system keeps pace with these changes and adapts to meet the new challenges that arise. Indian legal system must also take note of the global developments in this area and learn from them to improve its own approach to cybercrime and data privacy.

[1] Information Technology Act, 2000

[2] Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019

Important Links

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams

Law Aspirants – Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Peeyush Raj Trivedi

INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

Published by admin on august 29, 2023 august 29, 2023.

This article is written by SAKIB SHERGUL PATHAN of 5 th Semester of K.L.E Society’s Law College, Bengaluru, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

The Information Technology Act, 2000, stands as a pivotal piece of legislation in India’s digital transformation journey. As the technological landscape continually evolves, the interpretation and implementation of this act have become subjects of paramount importance. This article delves into the multifaceted aspects of the IT Act, 2000, scrutinizing its provisions, and exploring their contemporary relevance in a rapidly changing digital world.

This article offers a comprehensive overview of the Information Technology Act, 2000, its interpretation, and its contemporary implementation challenges. It underscores the necessity for a dynamic and adaptable legal framework to address the evolving digital landscape, ensuring the protection of digital rights, fostering innovation, and promoting responsible digital conduct in the 21st century. The article highlights the need for amendments and updates to the IT Act, 2000, to align it with current technological trends and global best practices. It also emphasizes the importance of promoting digital literacy and awareness among stakeholders, including individuals, businesses, and government bodies, to foster a more secure and legally compliant digital ecosystem.

Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, cybercrimes, Data Theft, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Cyber Appellate Tribunal, Controller of Certifying Authorities, Indian Computer Emergency Response Team, Adjudicating Officers,

INTRODUCTION:

The Information Technology Act, 2000, commonly referred to as the IT Act, is a crucial piece of legislation in India that governs various aspects of electronic commerce and digital communication. Since its enactment, it has undergone several amendments to keep up with the evolving landscape of technology and cybersecurity. Enforcement of the IT Act is vital to ensure the safety and security of digital transactions, protect the privacy of individuals, and combat cybercrimes effectively [1] . One of the key components of the IT Act is the establishment of a legal framework for digital signatures and electronic records. It recognizes digital signatures as legally valid and equivalent to physical signatures, making electronic transactions legally binding [2] . This has paved the way for the widespread adoption of electronic contracts and e-governance initiatives, reducing paperwork and administrative overhead.

The IT Act also addresses cybercrimes and their enforcement. It criminalizes activities such as hacking, data theft, and the spread of malicious software. These provisions empower law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cybercriminals [3] . The Act also allows for the preservation and interception of electronic communication, subject to certain safeguards, which aids in the investigation of cybercrimes.

In recent years, India has made efforts to enhance the enforcement of the IT Act. The government has established specialized cybercrime cells and agencies like the Cyber Crime Coordination Centre to tackle cyber threats more efficiently. Moreover, initiatives like “Digital India” and the “National Cyber Security Policy” demonstrate the government’s commitment to bolstering cybersecurity infrastructure. However, there are concerns about the potential misuse of the IT Act for suppressing dissent and infringing on privacy. Striking the right balance between cybersecurity and individual rights remains a challenge [4] . It is essential to ensure that enforcement efforts do not infringe upon the fundamental principles of democracy and civil liberties.

OBJECTIVES:

To provide a comprehensive overview of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
To analyse the IT Act’s role in addressing cybercrimes and promoting cybersecurity measures.
To discuss the challenges and controversies surrounding the IT Act.
To present case studies where the IT Act has been invoked or applied.

Over the years, the IT Act has seen several amendments to keep pace with the evolving digital landscape. It remains a critical legal framework in India for governing electronic transactions, cybersecurity, and the protection of digital assets. In an era where the digital realm plays an increasingly integral role in daily life, the IT Act continues to be a cornerstone of India’s legal framework.

CYBERCRIMES AND OFFENCES UNDER IT ACT, 2000:

The rapid advancement of technology in recent decades has ushered in a digital era, transforming the way we live, work, and communicate. However, this digital revolution has also given rise to a new breed of crimes known as cybercrimes [5] . IT Act serves as the legal framework to tackle cybercrimes and offenses in the country.

Here are some offenses under the IT Act:

Unauthorized Access and Hacking: Unauthorized access to computer systems or networks with the intent to cause damage or steal data is a punishable offense. Hacking into computer systems, networks, or even personal devices is covered under this Act.
Data Theft: This deals with the protection of sensitive personal data. Any breach of security leading to the disclosure of such data can result in compensation claims against the offender.
Phishing and Identity Theft: Impersonating someone else online with the intention to deceive, defraud, or cause harm is a crime. Phishing, where individuals are tricked into revealing sensitive information, falls under this category.
Child Pornography: Sharing, downloading, or creating explicit content involving minors is strictly prohibited. Offenders can face severe penalties.
Cyber Terrorism: This deals with acts that threaten the security and sovereignty of India. Engaging in cyber terrorism can lead to life imprisonment.
Data Privacy: Unauthorized access to personal data by service providers is prohibited, and they can be held liable for breaches.

REGULATORY AUTHORITIES FOR IT ACT, 2000:

To effectively enforce and oversee these provisions of IT Act, several regulatory authorities and bodies have been established under the IT Act 2000:

(MeitY): MeitY is the central government department responsible for formulating and implementing policies related to information technology and electronics. It plays a pivotal role in the administration of the IT Act 2000 and serves as the apex regulatory authority for the digital domain in India.
Cyber Appellate Tribunal: This body serves as an appellate authority for cases related to the IT Act. Individuals or entities aggrieved by decisions of adjudicating officers or controllers can appeal to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal for redressal.
Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA): CCAs are responsible for licensing and regulating Certifying Authorities (CAs) in India. These CAs issue digital certificates used in secure online transactions, and the CCA ensures their compliance with standards and guidelines.
Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In): CERT-In is India’s national agency for responding to cybersecurity incidents. It plays a crucial role in mitigating cyber threats, providing incident response, and creating awareness about cyber risks.
Adjudicating Officers: Under the IT Act 2000, Adjudicating Officers are appointed to handle cases related to contraventions of the act. They have the authority to impose penalties on individuals or organizations found guilty of non-compliance.

These regulatory authorities collectively ensure the implementation, enforcement, and continual adaptation of the IT Act 2000 to the evolving digital landscape. Their efforts are vital in addressing cybercrimes, promoting secure digital transactions, and protecting the rights and interests of individuals and organizations in India’s digital sphere.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENT IT ACT:

Implementing the Information Technology Act in India has been a significant challenge since its inception in 2000 [6] . While the act aimed to regulate electronic commerce and facilitate e-governance, it has faced numerous obstacles in its execution [7] . Here, are some of the key challenges that have hindered the effective implementation of the IT Act:

Rapid Technological Advancements: One of the foremost challenges is the lightning-fast pace of technological advancements. The IT Act was drafted at a time when the digital landscape was vastly different from what it is today. Keeping the legislation up-to-date with evolving technologies such as AI, blockchain, and quantum computing is a perpetual challenge.
Cybersecurity Concerns: As digital infrastructure expands, so do cybersecurity threats. India has been grappling with increasing cybercrimes, including hacking, data breaches, and phishing attacks. Implementing effective cybersecurity measures to protect critical infrastructure and sensitive data is a constant battle.
Privacy Concerns: The IT Act in India has faced criticism for not adequately addressing privacy concerns. With the rise of social media and digital platforms, the collection and misuse of personal data have become pressing issues. Legislation like the Personal Data Protection Bill seeks to address this gap, but harmonizing these laws poses a challenge.
Jurisdictional Challenges: The internet is borderless, which poses jurisdictional challenges when it comes to cybercrimes. Determining where a crime occurred and which laws apply can be complex, especially in cases involving international elements.
Redressal Mechanisms: The IT Act envisioned the establishment of mechanisms for grievance redressal, but their effectiveness remains questionable. Users often face hurdles in reporting cybercrimes and seeking justice, leading to a lack of faith in the legal system.
Resource Constraint: The implementation of the IT Act requires significant resources, both financial and human. Funding constraints and a shortage of skilled professionals can hamper enforcement efforts.

Here are a few notable case law studies related to the IT Act, 2000:

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) [8] : 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 and expression.
Sri Vasavi Kanyaka Parameshwari Educational Trust v. ACIT (2016): In this case, the Karnataka High Court held that denial of registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act due to non-compliance with provisions under the IT Act (like maintaining books of accounts in electronic form) was valid.
Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Kola Shipping Ltd. (2009) [9] : This case revolved around a phishing scam where the plaintiff’s email was hacked and used for fraudulent activities. The Delhi High Court held the bank liable for not taking adequate security measures, highlighting the need for banks to prevent unauthorized access to their customers’ accounts.
ICICI Bank v. Vinod Kumar (2008): This case involved a SIM card cloning and phishing attack, leading to unauthorized transactions from the victim’s bank account. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the victim and emphasized the bank’s responsibility to ensure secure online banking transactions.
M/S. Aarka Sports Management Pvt. Ltd. v. Unknown (2012): This case dealt with the hacking of a company’s website and misuse of its domain name. The Delhi High Court held that the act of hacking and causing financial loss was covered under the IT Act.
State of Maharashtra v. Vijay Hanumant Gadch (2014): This case pertained to the hacking of a computer network to send threatening emails. The Bombay High Court ruled that unauthorized access to computer resources with malicious intent constituted an offense under the IT Act.

CONCLUSION:

The interpretation and implementation of the Information Technology (IT) Act in India have been central to the country’s digital transformation and its efforts to regulate the digital landscape. Over the years, the Act has evolved significantly, reflecting the dynamic nature of technology and the challenges posed by the digital age. This article has explored the multifaceted aspects of the IT Act, including its interpretation, implementation, associated challenges, and key case laws that have shaped its trajectory.

The IT Act, since its inception in 2000 and subsequent amendments, has played a pivotal role in facilitating e-commerce, e-governance, and the overall growth of the digital economy. It has provided a legal framework for electronic transactions, data protection, and cybersecurity. However, with these advancements, numerous challenges have emerged. One of the foremost challenges lies in keeping the IT Act relevant and up-to-date. Technology evolves at an astonishing pace, rendering existing regulations inadequate in addressing emerging issues. Therefore, it is imperative for lawmakers and regulators to continuously revisit and amend the Act to reflect the current technological landscape. This is especially pertinent in the context of data protection and privacy, where new threats and vulnerabilities constantly emerge.

Moreover, the implementation of the IT Act faces hurdles related to enforcement and awareness. Many individuals and businesses, particularly in rural areas, may not be fully aware of the Act’s provisions and their rights and responsibilities under it. Additionally, the enforcement of cybercrime provisions can be challenging, given the anonymity and borderless nature of the internet.

The evolution of case laws has played a crucial role in shaping the interpretation and implementation of the IT Act. Landmark cases, such as the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, have clarified the limits of free speech and intermediary liability on online platforms. These cases serve as important precedents for future legal proceedings and highlight the judiciary’s role in adapting the Act to contemporary challenges.

In conclusion, the Information Technology Act in India is a dynamic and essential piece of legislation that governs various facets of the digital landscape. While it has been instrumental in facilitating the growth of the digital economy, it faces ongoing challenges related to privacy, enforcement, and awareness. The Act’s interpretation and implementation will continue to evolve through the lens of case laws and the need for adaptability to emerging technologies. It is imperative that India continues to refine and update its legal framework to meet the evolving needs and challenges of the digital age, ensuring that it remains an effective tool for both regulation and innovation.

[1] Lachman, Beth E., Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Nidhi Kalra, Scott Hassell, Kimberly Curry Hall, Aimee E. Curtright, and David E. Mosher. “Information Technology Trends.” In Key Trends That Will Shape Army Installations of Tomorrow , 171–206. RAND Corporation, 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5hhv93.13 .

[2] Dedrick, Jason, and Kenneth L. Kraemer. “Information Technology in India: The Quest for Self-Reliance.” Asian Survey 33, no. 5 (1993): 463–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2645313 .

[3] Jayan, Shanmughan D. “INFORMATION, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CRYPTOGRAPHY AND LAW.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 51, no. 3 (2009): 340–50. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43953452 .

[4] Suneeti Rao. “Information Technology Act: Consumers’ Perspective.” Economic and Political Weekly 36, no. 37 (2001): 3501–3. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4411107 .

[5] Bharuka, Devashish. “INDIAN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 CRIMINAL PROSECUTION MADE EASY FOR CYBER PSYCHOS.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 44, no. 3 (2002): 354–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43951825 .

[6] Yu, Bin. “Embracing Statistical Challenges in the Information Technology Age.” Technometrics 49, no. 3 (2007): 237–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25471345 .

[7] Sruti Chaganti. “Information Technology Act: Danger of Violation of Civil Rights.” Economic and Political Weekly 38, no. 34 (2003): 3587–95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4413940 .

[8] Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523

[9] Shakti Bhog Foods Ltd. v. Kola Shipping Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 12

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS IN REGULATING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE CRYPTOCURRENCY SECTOR

Spread the loveThis article is written by Lavanya. B of BA LLB of 5th Year of Ramaiah College of Law, an intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT The regulation of corporate governance in the cryptocurrency sector Read more…

THE LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF COMPANIES REGARDING CORPORATE DISCLOSURES AND TRANSPARENCY

Spread the loveThis article is written by Lavanya. B of BA LLB of 5th Year of Ramaiah College of Law, an intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT Corporate disclosures and transparency are fundamental pillars of corporate Read more…

IN-VITRO FERTILIZATION

Spread the loveThis article is written by Ganji Sneha of 7th Semester of BALLB of Sri Padmavati Mahila University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, an intern under Legal Vidhiya Abstract Now a days, In Vitro Fertilization(IVF) is Read more…

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
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
Cyber Stalking
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?
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 United Nations by a resolution dated on 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 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 that starts from ‘section 91 – section 94’, deals with the revisions to the Indian Penal Code 1860.

The IT Act, 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.

The offences and the punishments in IT Act 2000 : The offences and the punishments that falls under the IT Act, 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 which 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 offences.
Protected System.
Penalties for confiscation not to interfere with other punishments.
Act to apply for offence or contravention committed outside India.
Publication for fraud purposes.
Power of Controller to give directions.

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

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

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.

Share Share

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

COMMENTS

Important Cases On Information Technology Act, 2000
Important Case Laws on Information Technology Act, 2000. 1. State of Tamil Nadu v. Dr. L Prakash (W.P.M.P.No. 10120 of 2002) In this case, an FIR was registered against Dr. L Prakash under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000 read with Section 4 & 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women Act, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 120B & 506 (2 ...
IT Act 2000
As per Section 67 of IT Act 2000, he has to undergo for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.4000/-. All sentences were 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.
Landmark Cyber Law cases in India
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 ...
IT ACT 2000
The IT Act, 2000 i.e cyber law of India has certain offences which are Non Bailable for certain Cyber Crimes. This article looks in to what are such sections and which Bailable sections can be made Non Bailable with application of Sections from other Laws prevailing in India. Download Free PDF. View PDF.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
Case Summary and Outcome. The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in its entirety. The Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutionally vague and its intended protection against annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or ill-will were beyond the scope of permissible restrictions under ...
Indian Information Technology Act, 2000
THE AIM of this paper is to focus on provisions relating to criminal liability, analysing a few on-going cyber cases in India, and bridging. the gap between cyber law and traditional Indian criminal laws. It is. intended to be a complete in-depth study of the area proposed, but. merely a bird's eye view of India's first cyber law and a proposal ...
Sansad Tv: 75 Years- Laws That Shaped India- the Information Technology
Introduction: To fulfill the changing needs of the cyber security and e-commerce. The Information Technology Act was passed in Parliament in 2000. Objectives of the Act: The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides legal recognition to the group action done via electronic exchange of information and alternative electronic suggests that of communication or electronic commerce transactions ...
Section 66A, Information Technology Act, 2000, Shreya Singhal Case
The primary legislation in India concerning Cybercrimes is The Information Technology Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act'). However, in 2009 by way of an amendment act, Section 66A [i ...
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 ...
PDF Information technology act, 2000: an introduction of cyber security
Information Technology Act, 2000. Information Technology Act, 2000 is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime. It was formulated to prevent, investigate and prosecute computer crime by working to improve the excess of its use, which also include meticulous monitoring on the web traffics.
Critical Assessment of Information Technology Act, 2000
This research paper aims to present the drawbacks and inefficiencies of the I.T. Act, 2000, and the amendment of 2008 and further suggests solutions to overcome these fallacies. Cyber law in India solely revolves around the I.T. Act, of 2000 despite the fact that there is a bulk of offenses and infrastructural additions are required to be ...
Information Technology Act, 2000
Landmark judgments on Information Technology Act, 2000 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) Facts. In this case, 2 girls were arrested for posting comments online on the issue of shutdown in Mumbai after the death of a political leader of Shiv Sena. They were charged under Section 66A for posting the offensive comments in electronic form.
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 ...
Strengthening Cyber Security and Data Protection in India: An Analysis
Case Studies. Several cases have come up in India that highlights the need for a robust legal framework to deal with cybercrime and data privacy. One such case is the WhatsApp-Facebook data-sharing (2016) case, where the Indian government raised concerns about WhatsApp's data-sharing practices with its parent company Facebook. The Delhi High ...
Interpretation and Implementation of Information Technology Act, 2000
INTRODUCTION: The Information Technology Act, 2000, commonly referred to as the IT Act, is a crucial piece of legislation in India that governs various aspects of electronic commerce and digital communication. Since its enactment, it has undergone several amendments to keep up with the evolving landscape of technology and cybersecurity.
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 United Nations by a resolution dated on 30th January, 1997.
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.
India Code: Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 6. Use of electronic records and electronic signatures in Government and its agencies. Section 6A. Delivery of services by service provider. Section 7. Retention of electronic records. Section 7A. Audit of documents, etc., maintained in electronic form. Showing 1 to 10 of 125 entries.
PDF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-first Year of the Republic of India as follows:— CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY 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
Situating Digital India Mission in Pursuit of Good Governance: A Study
It attempts to situate the ongoing Digital India Mission in the larger context of good governance by examining the case study of the Indian Province of Odisha, where a silent but stunning revolution is taking shape. ... In India too, we are using technology to empower citizens through ICT, speed up public delivery of services and create more ...
Hacked IT superpower: how India secures its cyberspace as a rising
14. NCIIPC, "Quarterly Vulnerability Analysis Report," 2019, https://nciipc.gov.in/.The DeITY defined critical information infrastructure as "sectors that are critical to the nation and whose incapacitation or destruction will have debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety", cit. in Saikat Datta, "The Deadly New Age War," The Hindu, June 23, 2015 ...
Judicial interpretation of data protection and privacy in India
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. This case is a landmark judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court because it was held in this case that the right to privacy is protected or enshrined under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. This case overruled the Kharak Singh and M.P. Sharma judgement.
Understanding India's New Data Protection Law
Introduction. In early August 2023, the Indian Parliament passed the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. 1 The new law is the first cross-sectoral law on personal data protection in India and has been enacted after more than half a decade of deliberations. 2 The key question this paper discusses is whether this seemingly interminable period of deliberations resulted in a "good ...

Important Cases On Information Technology Act, 2000

Key Takeaways

Introduction

Important Case Laws on Information Technology Act, 2000

2. Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 4 AWC 3726 SC]

3. Nirmaljit Singh Narula v. Indijobs at Hubpages.Com [CS (OS) 871 / 2012]

4. Vyakti Vikas Kendra, India Public v. Jitender Bagga [CS (OS) No. 1340 / 2012]

5. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Myspace Inc. [CS (OS) No. 2682/2008]

6. Banyan Tree v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr, [2010 (42) PTC 361 (Del)]

7. Writs challenging the validity of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

8. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [AIR 2015 SC 1523]

9. M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd &Anr.v. Union of India [2014 (1) Kar L J 121]

10. CBI v. Arif Azim (Sony Sambandh case) [(2008) 150 DLT 769]

11. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti [CC No. 4680 of 2004]

12. SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt Ltd v.Jogesh Kwatra [CM APPL No. 33474 of 2016]

13. Avnish Bajaj v. State (NCT) of Delhi [(2008) 150 DLT 769]

14. Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj &Ors [(2018) 253 DLT 728]

15. Nasscom v. Ajay Sood & Ors. [119 (2005) DLT 596]

16. Department of Electronics and Information Technology v. Star India Pvt. Ltd. [R.P. 131/2016 in FAO(OS) 57/2015]

17. Kent Systems Ltd. and Ors. v. Amit Kotak and Ors. 2017 (69) PTC 551 (Del)

18. Google India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Vishaka Industries Limited [Second Appeal No. 505 of 2016]

19. State v. Mohd. Afzal & Ors. [2003 (71) DRJ 178]

20. Syed Asifuddin& Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. [2005 Cr LJ 4314]

21. Dharamvir v. Central Bureau of Investigation [148 (2008) DLT 289]

22. P.R Transport Agency v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2006 All 23]

23. Umashankar Sivasubramanian v. ICICI Bank (Petition No. 2462 of 2008)

Click here to Get More Content on LCI Android App

Recent Articles

Popular Articles

Browse by Category

Download LCI APP

Our Network Sites

Lawyersclubindia Search

IT Act 2000 – Penalties, Offences With Case Studies

Objectives of IT legislation in India

Structure of IT Act

What is a cyber crime?

Cases Studies as per selected IT Act Sections

Common Cyber-crime scenarios and Applicability of Legal Sections

Landmark Cyber Law cases in India

IT ACT 2000 – PENALTIES, OFFENCES WITH CASE STUDIES From

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

Newsletter Sign Up

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India

Key Details

Content Attribution Policy

Case Analysis

Decision Overview

Decision Direction

Expands Expression

Global Perspective

Table of Authorities

Other national standards, law or jurisprudence

Case Significance

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Attachments:

Related Posts

State v. A Duraimurugan Pandian Sattai

Content Regulation / Censorship, Cyber Security / Cyber Crime, Digital Rights, National Security, Press Freedom, Violence Against Speakers / Impunity

SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (Case of Agba Jalingo)

Related News

Rights Groups in Pakistan File Petition for Public Hearing on the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill 2015

LEXOTA—A New Tool to Track Government Responses to Online Disinformation Across Sub-Saharan Africa

Search Here

SANSAD TV: 75 YEARS- LAWS THAT SHAPED INDIA- THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

An Alternative To Section 66A Of The Information Technology Act, 2000: Revisiting Shreya Singhal Case

Critical Assessment of Information Technology Act, 2000

Features Of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Drawbacks Of It Act, 2000 And Amendment Of 2008

Law Article in India

Understanding The Israel-Pa...

Copyright Law in the Fashio...

the Legal Labyrinth: A Guid...

Independence And Impartiali...

Child Sexual Exploitation S...

Relationship Between Jurisp...

Law Articles