case study on information technology act 2000

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 2000

38178 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 9,50,409 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.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

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

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

We're Hiring!
Help Center

IT ACT 2000 – PENALTIES, OFFENCES WITH CASE STUDIES From

Related Papers

Bhartiya Shodh

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

International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Shrikant Sarda

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

Dr. Manoj Kumar

BANGLADESH RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS JOURNAL

Dr. Md. Nayem Alimul Hyder

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

SSRN Electronic Journal

Danish ashraf Khan

International Journal IJRITCC

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

Dr-Prashant Kumar Srivastava

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

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

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

anuranjan misra

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

A Critical Analysis of Sec.79 of IT Act 2000

Cyber Law Subject-wise Law Notes
July 16, 2020

The basis for enforcement and enactment of the Information Technology Act,2000 was to provide recognition to e-commerce and e-transactions and also to protect the users from digital crimes, piracy etc. The Ministry of Electronics and IT has prepared the Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “2018 Rules”) in order to prevent spreading of fake news, curb obscene information on the internet, prevent misuse of social-media platforms and to provide security to the users.

The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011(hereinafter referred to as “ 2011 Rules)created a lot of heat waves in the digital world with regard to the duties and liabilities of the intermediaries even after safe harbor protection provided under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 79 of the Act provided that the Intermediaries or any person providing services as a network service provider are exempted from the liabilities in certain instances. In 2018, the government has come out with certain changes in the 2011 Rules and has elaborately explained the liabilities and functions of the Intermediaries and to oversee that the social media platform is not misused

Section 79 of the Act is a ‘safe harbor’ provision which grants conditional immunity to intermediaries from liability for third party acts. Section 79(1) of the Act grants intermediaries a conditional immunity with regard to any third-party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by them. This immunity is subject to section 79 (2) and 79 (3) of the Act.

Section 79(2) essentially covers cases where the activity undertaken by the intermediary is of a technical, automatic and passive nature. Thus, for section 79(2) to be applicable, intermediaries are to have neither knowledge nor control over the information which is transmitted or stored.

Furthermore, Section 79(3)(b) envisages a ‘notice and take down’ regime, wherein the intermediary is required to take down unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge of its existence.

Who is an Intermediary?

An ‘intermediary’ has been defined in Section 2(w) of the Act as “any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, web-housing service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes ” .

This term has belied a narrow construction. Typically, intermediaries are persons who facilitate the use of the internet. Interestingly, the definition of an intermediary includes cyber cafes, and is not restricted to online intermediaries. Although a disparate range of functions are performed by intermediaries; common functions include hosting content, collecting information, evaluating scattered information, facilitating communication and information exchange, aggregating information, providing access to the internet etc. Internet service providers, search engines, social media platforms, cloud service provider, cyber cafes, are all intermediaries.

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides that subject to the intermediary complying with certain requirements, it shall not be liable for any third party data or information made available by it. The conditions to be fulfilled by an intermediary include the following:

a) It needs to exercise due diligence while discharging obligations under the law;

b) It needs to comply with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and rules and regulations made thereunder;

c) It must not need to conspire or abet in the commission of any offence;

d) Once called upon to remove or disable access to any content, it must expeditiously do so without vitiating the original electronic evidence.

If these conditions are fulfilled, the intermediary cannot be made liable for third party data. A majority of intermediaries are today hiding behind the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India.

This held that an intermediary will not remove or disable access to any third-party data on its network, unless it gets either an order from a court of competent jurisdiction or an order from a governmental agency to that effect. Ever since the Shreya Singhal judgment[1], a majority of intermediaries have chosen to hide behind this pronouncement.

The spread of fake news in the electronic ecosystem is an immense concern for India as a nation. The recent Indian elections saw massive dissemination of fake news. Given the fact that India does not have a fake news law, a majority of the intermediaries and media service providers have failed to take effective steps to prevent fake news disseminating on their networks. Clearly, existing legal frameworks on the subject under hand are not adequate.

It needs to be also noted that the government has been given powers under Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to come up with rules to regulate the conduct of intermediaries. The government had notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules in 2011 but these rules provided very limited elements of due diligence.

Given the fact that today large numbers of intermediaries are emerging as strong media companies, it is time to regulate their legal activities by means of appropriate strong legal frameworks. There is also a need for revisiting Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in such a manner that the rights, duties and responsibilities of the intermediaries as media companies need to be well defined.

Further, the kind of requirements that service providers and intermediaries need to perform in the context of protecting and preserving cyber security is another area where appropriate legal frameworks need to be beefed up. The government has been in the process of coming up with some draft guidelines for intermediaries. However, these have not yet been specified. It is time for a fresh look at the issue of intermediary liability

is clear that these intermediaries will play a very important role in the electronic ecosystem. The need to transform intermediaries from being mute spectators into legal entities, complying with the applicable law prevailing for the time being is an urgent necessity. Since a number of these intermediaries are often not located in India, many are complying with the Indian cyber law more in breach rather than in observance.

Intermediaries located outside India must be compelled to comply with applicable Indian cyber laws, so long as their services are made available on computers, computers systems and networks located in India. All eyes will now be on the government as to how it deals with the issue of intermediary liability and how it strengthens the rights of users and provides a substantial harmonious balance, in the context of media and electronic ecosystem stakeholders at large.

[1] Shreya Singhal vs UOI AIR 2015 SC 1523, Supreme Court of India.

Author Details: Madhav Mantri

You might like

Jolly George Verghese & Anr. v. The Bank of Cochin

Meaning of Interim Maintenance

Intelligible Differentia

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

Top Stories
SC Repels Challenge Against Sec. 70...

SC Repels Challenge Against Sec. 70 Of IT Act Giving Power To Govt To Declare Computer Resource As ‘Protected System’ [Read Judgment]

Manu sebastian.

31 March 2018 7:26 AM GMT

SC Repels Challenge Against Sec. 70 Of IT Act Giving Power To Govt To Declare Computer Resource As ‘Protected System’ [Read Judgment]

“Plainly read, the power of declaration of a “protected system” may invade a copyright which may be vested in a private owner. However, such a situation is taken care of by the provisions contained in Section 2(k) and 17(d) of the Copyright Act.”The Supreme Court has repelled challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 70 of the Information Technology Act 2000, which gives...

The Supreme Court has repelled challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 70 of the Information Technology Act 2000, which gives power to the government to declare any computer resource as ‘protected system’. The consequence of such a declaration is that only persons authorized by government will be able to access the system, and access by unauthorized persons is treated as an offence leading to imprisonment up to 10 years.

The challenge was raised by a programmer, who claimed that he had developed an e-governance program for the Government of Kerala named ‘FRIENDS’. The program was commissioned by the Government through Microsoft Corporation of India (Pvt) Ltd, which agreed to provide the application software free of cost. The appellant in the Supreme Court was a member of Microsoft’s Developer Forum, and he developed the FRIENDS program on contract with Microsoft. The government entrusted the management of the program with another state agency, Centre for Development of Imaging Technology(C-DIT).

Meanwhile, disputes arose between the appellant and another private agency regarding the copyright of the software. C-DIT also claimed rights over the software, and instituted a civil suit for declaring its rights. On 27.12.2000, the government declared the FRIENDS software as a ‘protected system’ exercising powers under Section 70(1) of the IT Act. In that backdrop, the appellant approached the High Court of Kerala, challenging the notification declaring the software as ‘protected system’. The validity of Section 70 was also called into question, on the ground that it delegated excessive and unfettered powers to the executive to arbitrarily declare any software as ‘protected system’.

The high court did not find Section 70 to be suffering from vice of excessive delegation. It held that the power under Section 70 is circumscribed by Section 2(k) and 17(d) of the Copyright Act. Section 2(k) of the Copyright Act defined “government work” and Section 17(d) of the Act held that copyright of government work vested with the government. On that basis, it held that power under Section 70 was available only with respect to “government work”. The challenge to the notification was rejected noting that the appellant was yet to establish his rights over the software. The matter was further carried to the Supreme Court.

Senior counsel R Basant, appearing for the appellant in the Supreme Court, invited the attention of the court to the fact that Section 70(1) underwent amendment in 2009. After 2009 amendment to Section 70, a software can be declared as a “protected system” only if its incapacitation or destruction have a debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety. This, according to him, was an indication that the provision suffered from constitutional fragility, which prompted the legislature to step in with an amendment to render clarity to the scope of power. It was also contended that the appellant was the developer of the program, and had the right to be acknowledged as the first owner of copyright.

Senior counsel Pallav Sisodia, appearing for the state of Kerala, contended that Section 70(1), as it stood at the relevant time, had to read along with Section 2(k) and 17(d) of the Copyright Act and was valid. The appellant’s claim for first ownership of copyright was contested on ground that he had developed the program on contract with Microsoft, and hence Microsoft had to be treated as first owner by virtue of Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act.

The bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar did not accept the contentions of the appellant. The court agreed with the conclusions of the high court regarding the validity of Section 70.

The balance is struck by Section 17 between copyright pertaining to any other person and copyright vested in the Government in a “government work”. Section 70 of the IT Act, therefore, cannot be construed independent of the provisions of the Copyright Act; if Section 70 of the I.T. Act has to be read in conjunction with Section 2(k) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act 1957 the rigours that would control the operation of Section 70(1) of the IT Act are clearly manifested,” the court observed.

The appellant’s contention that 2009 amendment was an indicator of inherent constitutional defect in the provision at the relevant time was also rejected. The court held that the amendment was an attempt to circumscribe the power even further than what was prevailing under the pre-amended law, by narrowing down the ambit of “government work”.

The challenge to the notification declaring FRIENDS software as ‘protected system’ was repelled noting that the appellant had no first ownership rights. The admitted/pleaded case of the appellant was that he was enlisted by Microsoft to develop the software for which it received due consideration from Microsoft. If that be so, on the appellant’s own pleadings in the writ petition, it would not be entitled to claim copyright in the FRIENDS application software under Section 17(a) of the Copyright Act, said the bench.

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

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

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

The issues before the honorable court was –

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

Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution analyzed

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

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

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

Arguments on behalf of the Accused discussed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 CHALLENGES IN ENFORCING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES RIGHTS IN DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT

Spread the loveThis article is written by Subrat Suman of 3rd Semester of University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, an intern Under Legal Vidhiya Abstract Intellectual property (IP) rights enforcement and protection encounter previously unheard-of Read more…

THE ROLE OF CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN ADDRESSING INCOME INEQUALITY

Spread the love‘This Article is written by Nikita Shrivastava of 2nd year of B.A.LL. B of Rajasthan School of Law for Women, an intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT This article examines the relationship between income Read more…

Thirumoorthy Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police

Spread the love CITATION 2023 SCC ONLINE SC DATE OF JUDGEMENT 22nd March 2023 COURT Supreme Court of India APPELLANT Thirumoorthy RESPONDENT State represented by the inspector of Police BENCH Justice B R Gavai and Read more…

Dispute resolution framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000

This blog post highlights the key developments and concerns in the dispute resolution framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

1. INTRODUCTION

More than 131 million Indian consumers have been victims of cybercrime and India has lost INR 1.24 trillion in cyber-attacks in the previous year [1] . Most victims of cyber-attacks or frauds in India do not know how to proceed against a cyber-attack. Although multiple online cybercrime complaint portals exist [2] , the procedure after filing such complaint is blurry.

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ IT Act ”) sets out a framework for resolution of disputes arising out of cyber-attacks like hacking, data theft, and phishing [3] . The framework allows victims of such attacks to claim damages and compensation from the attackers. The IT Act lays down a two-tier dispute resolution process: (i) Adjudication of disputes; and (ii) appeal against the outcome of such adjudication. However, this process seems to exist mostly on paper, and hasn’t really been implemented. Cybercrimes are mostly dealt with by ‘cybercrime cells’ of the respective police departments. In addition to briefly discussing the current framework for dispute resolution under the IT Act, this blogpost also seeks to discuss the existing challenges in this framework, and how they can be addressed.

2. KEY DETAILS OF THE FRAMEWORK

The scope of the framework is limited; it only applies to disputes that relate to the violations listed in the IT Act [4] . There are two categories of violations under the IT Act: (i) contraventions [5] relating to damage to computer, computer systems; protection of data; failure to furnish information, violation of any provision, rule, regulation or direction under the Act; and (ii) offences [6] including cyber terrorism, violation of privacy and cheating. Only disputes relating to contraventions can be resolved through the dispute resolution framework [7] . Offences are criminal in nature, they are dealt with under the criminal laws of India.

The IT Act is applicable to persons and entities both within and outside India [8] . Once a cyber-dispute is adjudicated as per the dispute resolution framework of the IT Act, the same dispute cannot be taken up by a civil court [9] .

2.1. The process of adjudication under the IT Act:

The power to adjudicate is given to an ‘Adjudicating Officer’ (“ AO ”) appointed by the central government [10] . As per the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“ MeitY ”), the secretary of the department of information technology of each state is appointed as the AO for that state by default [11] . The AO is a quasi-judicial body [12] , as it has dual-powers to: (i) order investigation i.e. hold inquiry into the violation of the IT Act on the basis of evidence produced before it [13] ; and (ii) adjudicate i.e. it decides the quantum of compensation or penalty to be awarded in case of a violation [14] . The AO can exercise its jurisdiction over matters in which the claim for compensation or damage does not exceed INR 5 crore [15] . The process of adjudication is as follows–

Figure 1: Adjudication Process under the IT Act

The AO is entitled to order investigation into a complaint at any time from the receipt of a complaint by it [16] . This investigation is conducted by an officer in the Office of Controller of Certifying Authorities or CERT-In, or by a Deputy Superintendent of Police [17] .

2.2 . Appeal

Orders issued by an AO are appealable before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (“ TDSAT ”) [18] . A party can appeal against AO’s order before the TDSAT within 45 days of receiving the order [19] . The right to appeal is not available to the parties if the adjudication order was passed with the consent of the parties [20] .

The TDSAT may confirm, modify or set the adjudication order appealed against, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard [21] . The TDSAT has the same powers as are vested in a civil court to summon the parties, order production of documents and to review its decisions [22] . A party can file an appeal against TDSAT’s order to the High Court, within 60 days of receiving the order [23] .

3. ISSUES WITH THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK UNDER THE IT ACT

The framework may look promising in theory, but it has not been as effective in practice. There is hardly any reportage on a cyber-dispute and there is no data available on the number of cases adjudicated upon by officers or the tribunal. We have identified certain issues that highlight the lacunae in the system:

3.1. Possibility of conflicting orders passed by AOs:

They AOs enjoy wide powers. They can adjudicate on violation of any provision, rule, regulation or direction passed under the IT Act [24] . AOs have sometimes passed orders with significant ramifications. For example, in one case, an AO held a bank liable for not exercising due diligence to prevent phishing [25] . The AO referred to the prevailing RBI guidelines [26] on internet banking to arrive at this conclusion. Thus, AOs can play a significant role in interpreting the IT Act.

There are multiple AOs, who address similar kind of issues, at the same time. This results in the problem of conflicting opinions on the same issue. For instance, in a case [27] , the AO had held that Section 43 [28] of the IT Act was not applicable to the bank as it was a body corporate. However, AOs in other states had held otherwise. In multiple cases, Section 43 has been invoked against body corporates [29] . This can make it difficult for an entity to comply with the IT Act, as it may have to consider the opinion of multiple AOs to function across India.

3.2. Poor availability of orders passed by AOs:

To access adjudication orders passed under the IT Act, one has to search through websites of state governments which are not easy to navigate. There is no reportage of these disputes by popular legal databases as well. There should be a central database for adjudication orders. This will enable officers and other stakeholders to refer to these adjudication orders while dealing with violations under the IT Act. It will also enable businesses to keep a track of cyber disputes.

3.3. Excessive burden on department secretaries appointed as AOs:

Secretaries of the department of information technology of the states are AOs by virtue of an old MeitY Order from 2003 [30] . They are responsible for the administration of their department, and are actively involved in the governance of the state, in addition to performing their duties as AOs. The dual-aspect of their job is extremely burdensome. Considering the high amount of cyber-offences in the country, there is a need to revamp this system for appointment of AOs. There are other Indian laws where AOs are given independent roles for adjudicating violations [31] . For instance, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“ PMLA ”) lays down a similar adjudication procedure for offences. However, instead of appointing AOs, the PMLA has established an ‘Adjudicating Authority’ [32] . This authority comprises of a chairperson and two other members. This authority is only involved in adjudication of offences, it is also allowed to have its own staff for assistance [33] . The IT Act could adopt a mechanism similar to the other laws to ensure efficacy and speedy disposal of adjudications.

3.4. Need for capacity building in adjudication of cyber offences:

There is a need to build the capacity of AOs. The Crown Prosecution Service of the United Kingdom has issued ‘Cybercrime-prosecution guidance’ [34] . This guidance has defined major kinds of cybercrimes like hacking, social media related offences, etc. They provide basic principles for adjudication of cybercrimes. A guidance of a similar nature should be introduced in India to ensure better handling of complaints.

3.5. Investigation and appreciation of evidence during the adjudication process

Investigation into violations is conducted by an officer in the Office of Controller of Certifying Authorities or CERT-IN; or by the Deputy Superintendent of Police [35] . However, the capacity of these bodies to conduct cyber investigations is questionable.

Most cyber-offences are reported to the police departments, as the National Cyber Crime Portal functions under the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs [36] . Complaints on this portal are referred to the police department of the state in which the alleged cyber-offence was committed. The police personnel are not equipped to deal with cybercrimes; they may not have the requisite expertise in areas like cyber forensics and investigation. They often appoint private firms to investigate into such matters. [37]

There is no guiding document under the Indian regulatory framework on cyber investigation or cyber forensics. The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 has established a body called the “Examiner of Electronic Evidence” [38] . This body provides expert opinion on electronic evidence. The MeitY has appointed various forensic science laboratories as the examiner [39] . These laboratories hold expertise in conducting cyber investigation. However, the Holding of Enquiry Rules, 2003 have not been updated post the coming of the 2008 amendment act. The rules must be amended to give AOs the power to order such examiners to investigate into the matters before them.

There should be guidelines or principles on investigation of cyber offences to better equip the police and other investigating agencies to handle such cases. For instance, the United States Department of Justice had issued a guide on ‘Electronic Crime Scene Investigation’ in 2001 [40] . This is a comprehensive guide which sets out investigation techniques for different kinds of cyber violations like frauds, identity theft etc. A similar national guideline on cyber investigations must be issued in India. A cybercrime investigation manual was launched by the Data Security Council of India [41] . Steps must be taken by the central government to notify such guidelines.

3.6. Issues with the TDSAT

Initially, a “Cyber Appellate Tribunal” was established under the IT Act to deal with appeals from orders of AOs. In 2015, a Parliamentary Standing Committee was constituted to study the conditions of tribunals and pendency of cases. This committee in its report highlighted that the position of the Chairperson of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal was vacant since 2011 and was thus dysfunctional. As of 31 December 2014, only 34 cases were pending in this tribunal [42] . Considering the state of affairs, this tribunal was merged with the TDSAT in 2017 [43] .

As per the TRAI Act, the TDSAT consists of a chairperson and two other members only. Considering that telecom and information technology are separate subjects, a different set of expertise is required to decide upon them. It is necessary that the TDSAT increase its strength and involve experts having a background in information technology to decide upon cases relating to the subject. There should be a separate bench to decide upon cyber appeals.

3.7. Adjudication and handling of cyber violations by sectoral authorities

Most instances of cyber violations relate to online banking frauds, including KYC frauds and phishing related cases [44] . For this, the RBI has an “Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transaction, 2019” [45] . This allows victims of cyber violations to file online complaints. Such complaints should relate to default of the bank, payment system or prepaid payment instruments provider. The ombudsman is empowered to award compensation up to INR 20 lakh rupees to the victim. Similarly, the Ministry of Home Affairs had introduced a National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal [46] . Complaints pertaining to online financial frauds, social media related frauds and hacking can be reported on this portal [47] . However, the procedure post filing a complaint on this portal is not set out. It is good to have sectoral regulations for handling cybercrimes. Sectoral regulators may be better equipped to deal with the cybercrimes pertaining to their particular area. At the same time, different sets of regulations may lead to potential conflict between authorities under the IT Act and the sectoral authorities. There should be a channel for sectoral regulators to seek consultation from the authorities under the IT Act, where required. For instance, Section 21 of the Competition Act, 2002 lays down a framework for references by statutory authorities. This section allows other statutory authorities to take the Competition Commission of India’s opinion on whether any decision taken by such authority would be contrary to the Competition Act. A similar framework should be incorporated into the IT Act.

4. CONCLUSION

Considering the large number of incidents of cyber-attacks in the country, it is the need of the hour to bolster the current dispute resolution framework under the IT Act. The dispute resolution framework can create a strong deterrent for cyber offenders by forcing them to pay damages and compensation. It can also serve as an effective complaint redress platform for victims. In its current state it has failed to achieve the desired result.

The authorities under the IT Act function in a vast domain, which encompasses issues relating to cybersecurity, intermediary liability, data privacy, and cyber offences. Therefore, these authorities must be adequately equipped to exercise their wide ranging powers.

The government has stressed heavily upon its Digital India initiative which will support India’s goal of becoming a $5 trillion economy by 2025 [48] . Also, India has a large user base of 697 million internet users [49] . Considering India’s quest to digital transformation, it is pertinent to give teeth to the Act, especially to its dispute resolution framework. This will ensure that disputes in the cyberspace are effectively managed and resolved. This will increase the confidence of the masses as well as the stakeholders towards the regulatory framework.

This post is authored by Aditya Sharma, Associate with inputs from Arpit Gupta, Senior Associate.

For more on the topic, please reach out to us at [email protected]

[1] Page 9, 2019 Cyber Safety Insights Report Global Results , The Harris Poll – Norton LifeLock, March 30, 2020, https://now.symassets.com/content/dam/norton/campaign/NortonReport/2019/2018_Norton_LifeLock_Cyber_Safety_Insights_Report_US_Media_Deck.pdf?promocode=DEFAULTWEB%20

[2] National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Ministry of Home Affairs, https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/

[3] Chapter IX, Information Technology Act, 2000.

[4] As per Rule 4(a) of the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, the Adjudicating shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of the contraventions in relation to Chapter IX of I T Act, 2000 and the matter or matters or places or area or areas in a State or Union Territory of the posting of the person.

[5] Section 43-44, Chapter IX, Information Technology Act, 2000.

[6] As per Section 61 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an adjudicating officer appointed under this Act.

[7] As per Rule 4(l) of the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, if an adjudicating officer is convinced that the scope of a case extends to any offence (under the Information Technology Act, 2000), she should transfer the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case.

[8] Section 1(2), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[9] Section 61, Information Technology Act, 2000.

[10] Section 46 of the Information Technology Act provides for the appointment of an ‘adjudicating officer’; as per Section 46(3) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, no person shall be appointed as an adjudicating officer unless she possesses such experience in the field of information technology and legal or judicial experience as may be prescribed. Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003 sets out a detailed eligibility criterion for appointment as an Adjudicating Officer.

[11] Order, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (Department of Information Technology), Gazette of India, 25 March 2013, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2003/E_136_2011_029.pdf

[12] As per Section 46(5) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, every Adjudicating Officer shall have the powers of a civil court and all proceedings before it shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of section 193 and Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. In the case of Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare [(2002) 5 SCC 685] it was held that where law requires an authority to hold enquiry before arriving at a decision, such a requirement of law makes the authority a quasi-judicial authority.

[13] Rule 4, the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003.

[14] As per Section 47 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, while adjudging the quantum of compensation or penalty, the Adjudicating Officer shall have due regard to the following factors: (i) the amount of gain of unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default; (ii) the amount of loss caused to any person as a result of the default; and (iii) the repetitive nature of the default.

[15] Section 46(1A), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[16] Rule 4(i), the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003.

[18] Established under Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. Introduced by Finance Act, 2017, which omitted the sections pertaining to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.

[19] However, the appellate tribunal may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period, according to section 57(3), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[20] Section 57(2), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[21] Section 57(4), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[22] Section 58(2), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[23] Section 62, Information Technology Act, 2000.

[24] Section 46(1), Information Technology Act, 2000.

[25] Umashankar Sivasubramanian v. ICICI Bank , Adjudicating Officer Chennai, Petition No. 2462 of 2008, Order dated April 12, 2010, https://www.naavi.org/cl_editorial_10/umashankar_judgement.pdf

[26] RBI Master Circular on KYC norms, July 01, 2008, https://m.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=4354&Mode=0

[27] Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. ICICI Bank , Complaint no. 015/2011, Adjudicating Officer, Karnataka.

[28] Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, lays down penalty and compensation against “any person” for damage to computer or computer system.

[29] Raju Dada Raut v. ICICI Bank , http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RajuDadaRaut_Vs_ICICIBank-13022013.pdf

Saurabh Jain v. ICICI Bank , http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_SourabhJain_Vs_ICICI&Idea-22022013.PDF

Ravindra Gunale v. Bank of Maharashtra , http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/ACT/DIT_Adjudication_RavindraGunale_Vs_BoM&Vodafone_20022013.PDF

[30] Order, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (Department of Information Technology), Gazette of India, 25 March 2013, http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2003/E_136_2011_029.pdf

[31] The process of adjudication is provided under the SEBI Act, 1992; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; and the Electricity Act, 2003.

[32] Section 6, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

[33] Section 7, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

[34] Cybercrime – prosecution guidance , Crown Prosecution Service, United Kingdom, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cybercrime-prosecution-guidance

[36] National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Ministry of Home Affairs (India), https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/

[37] Police in states across India are relying on private firms and consultants to solve cybercrime cases , Economic Times, 13 December 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/police-in-states-across-india-are-relying-on-private-firms-and-consultants-to-solve-cybercrime-cases/articleshow/72499885.cms?from=mdr

[38] Section 79A, Information Technology Act, 2000.

[39] The Regional Forensic Science laboratory, Dharamshala; Cyber Forensic Laboratory, Army Cyber Group, New Delhi; State Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru; Central Forensic Laboratory, Hyderabad; Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar; Computer Forensic and Data Mining Laboratory, SFIO, Delhi; and Forensic Science Laboratory, Govt. of NCT, New Delhi, have been notified as ‘Examiner of Electronic Evidence, https://meity.gov.in/notification-forensic-labs-%E2%80%98examiner-electronic-evidence%E2%80%99-under-section-79a-information-technology

[40] Electronic Crime Scene Investigation, A guide for first responders , U.S. Department of Justice, 2001, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/187736.pdf

[41] Cybercrime Investigation Manual , Data Security Council of India, https://uppolice.gov.in/writereaddata/uploaded-content/Web_Page/28_5_2014_17_4_36_Cyber_Crime_Investigation_Manual.pdf

[42] Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice , 26 February 2015, https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/SC_Report-_Tribunals_Bill%2C_2014.pdf

[43] The Cyber Appellate Tribunal was merged into the TDSAT by virtue of Section 169 of the Finance Act, 2017, https://naavi.org/uploads_wp/finance_act_2017.pdf

[44] A Review of the Functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal and Adjudicatory Officers under the IT Act, Divij Joshi, The Centre for Internet & Society, 16 June 2014, https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/review-of-functioning-of-cyber-appellate-tribunal-and-adjudicatory-officers-under-it-act

[45] Ombudsman Scheme for Digital Transaction, 2019, Reserve Bank of India. https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/Content/PDFs/OSDT31012019.pdf

[46] National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, Ministry of Home Affairs (India), https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/

[47] FAQs to the National Crime Reporting Portal, https://www.cybercrime.gov.in/Webform/FAQ.aspx

[48] India’s Trillion Dollar Digital Opportunity , Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (India), 2019, https://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/india_trillion-dollar_digital_opportunity.pdf

[49] Internet usage in India – Statistics & Facts , Statista, June 29 2020, https://www.statista.com/topics/2157/internet-usage-in-india/

RELATED WRITING

Innovation in Dispute Resolution: A Look at UK’s Cutting-Edge Arbitration Rules for Novel Technologies

Qatar/Saudi Arabia Copyright Piracy Dispute: Implications of WTO’s Rejection of the National Security Exception

Dispute resolution framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000

Adopt experimental regulatory approach for emerging technologies

Satellite broadband- The world is gearing up for India, but are we ready?

Internet Exchanges in India: A Legal Anomaly

Our comments on the draft National Geospatial Policy, 2021

Mapping the contours of the new Geospatial Guidelines on India

Labelling of Plant-Based Meats: Regulatory Landscape

Overview – Regulatory Issues Surrounding Cultivated Meat

Challenge the status quo.

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

Information Technology Act, 2000 – An Overview

Background of the Act-

In 1996, the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) devised the Model Law on Electronic Commerce. The recommendation made by this resolution was that all States must give favorable consideration to the model law. It also recommended for the enactment or revision of laws, in view of the need for uniformity of laws relating to communication and storage of information.

With that said, the Government of India, was quick to respond. The Ministry of Commerce created the first draft of the legislation by adhering to the guidelines known as the ‘ E-Commerce Act , 1998.’ After that, a new ministry came into being, which was known as the ‘Ministry for Information Technology.’ The draft was taken over by the new ministry which later re-drafted the legislation as ‘Information Technology Bill, 1999.’ The bill was successfully passed in 2000 and received Presidential assent in the very same year and was enforced.

Salient Features of the Act

When the Information Technology Act was enforced in the year 2000, it contained 94 sections divided into 13 chapters and 4 schedules. The Act, for the very first time, recognized electronic records and digital signatures. The Act further describes various kinds of cyber crimes and prescribes punishments in for the same. Persons of other nationalities can also come under the purview of this act if the computer network is located within the territory of India. Since this Act complies with new technologies it has amended four legislations in India. They are – the Indian Penal Code,1860 ; Indian Evidence Act,1872 ; Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891; Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Further, the Act provides for an establishment of a Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee. The amendments have been made under Section 91-94.

Application of the Act

According to sub-clause (4) of section 1 of the Information Technology Act, 2000,

Nothing in this Act shall apply to, — (a) a negotiable instrument as defined in section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (b) a power-of-attorney as defined in section 1A of the Powers-of-Attorney Act, 1882; (c) a trust as defined in section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882; (d) a will as defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 including any other testamentary disposition by whatever name called; (e) any contract for the sale or conveyance of immovable property or any interest in such property; (f) any such class of documents or transactions as may be notified by the Central The government in the Official Gazette

List of offenses covered –

The Information Technology Act, 2000 covers the following offences –

Section 65: Tampering with computer source documents.

Section 66: Hacking with a computer system.

Section 66B: Receiving stolen computer or communication device.

Section 66C: Using the password of another person.

Section 66D: Cheating using the computer resource

Section 66E: Publishing private images of others

Section 66F: Acts of cyberterrorism

Section 67: Publishing of information which is obscene in electronic form.

Section 67A: Publishing images containing sexual advertisements.

Section 67B: Publication of child pornography or predating children online.

Section 67C: Failure to maintain records.

Section 68: Failure/refusal to comply with orders.

Section 69: Failuree/ refusal to decrypt data.

Section 70: Securing access or attempting to secure access to a protected system.

Section 71: Penalty for misrepresentation.

Section 72: Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy

Section 73: Penalty for publishing Digital Signature Certificate false in certain particulars.

Section 74: Publication for fraudulent purpose.

Amendments made to the Information Technology Act in 2008 –

There were some important amendments made to this Act in the year 2008. Section 66A was introduced which penalized sending “offensive messages.” Section 69 was also incorporated which gave the authorities the power to intercept or monitor or decrypt any information through any computer resource. It brought child pornography, cyber terrorism, and voyeurism within the purview of this Act.

Notable charges under Section 66A

An Assamese cartoonist, Assem Trivedi was arrested under Section 66A of this Act and Section2 of the Prevention to Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 and under Section 124A for Sedition. He was arrested because his cartoon depicted widespread corruption in India. He was granted bail on a personal bond of INR 5000, and the accusations levied against him were removed.
Ravi Srinivasan, a Puducherry businessman was arrested under Section 66A for accusing the son of then the Finance Minister of India, Shri P.Chidambaram, of corruption. The police sought his custody for 15 days but the court declined the request.

Criticisms against Section 66A

In November 2012, a petition was filed by Amitabh Thakur and Nutan Thakur, before the Allahabad High Court that Section 66A violated article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Another PIL was filed in the Supreme Court of India which stated that Section 66A violated Article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. On March 24, 2015, the Supreme Court rendered Section 66A as “unconstitutional.” It said that the provision is arbitrary, and it excessively and disproportionately violates the freedom of speech and expression in India.

The object of enacting the I.T. Act was simple. The Government sought to deliver and facilitate electronic, digital transactions and protect all kinds of cybercrime. It was important to make the cyber world strong due to the amount of traffic on the internet everywhere and the number of money people transacts through online methods. India and most other countries of the world have now what we call a branch of law, known as ‘cyberlaw’, that deals with all of these.

Try our Debt Resolution solutions today Request a Demo

Introduction

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

Cyber Technology

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

Cyber Ethics

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

Cyber Crimes

Psychological Profiling in Cybersecurity
Social Engineering - The Art of Virtual Exploitation
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?

IMAGES

A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY ACT,2000
(PDF) Research on Cyber Offenses under Information Technology Act, 2000
🌷 Information technology act 2000. IT Act 2000. 2022-11-06
Schedule I of the Information Technology Act stands amended: property transaction documents
Objectives of Information Technology Act,2000 || IT Act,2000 || Business law || Bcom class
How did the Information Technology Act, 2000 come into existence?

VIDEO

Information Technology Act 2000
Foundation Paper 2: Sec-A:BL
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Act 2000 MEANING AND OBJECTIVE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 BY CS RAMANDEEP SINGH(CYBER LAWYER)
Case study information
IMD164

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.
IT ACT 2000
NII CONTACT DETAILS Network Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. 204 Ecospace, Old Nagardas Road, Near Andheri Subway, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 069, India Tel: +91-22-2839-2628 +91-22-4005-2628 Fax: +91-22-2837-5454 Email: [email protected] Network Intelligence (India) Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 24 fIT Act 2000: Penalties, Offences with Case Studies ...
A Critical Analysis of Sec.79 of IT Act 2000
Section 79 (1) of the Act grants intermediaries a conditional immunity with regard to any third-party information, data or communication link made available or hosted by them. This immunity is subject to section 79 (2) and 79 (3) of the Act. Section 79 (2) essentially covers cases where the activity undertaken by the intermediary is of a ...
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 and Technology Act 2000: review of the Regulatory
In India, the Information Technology Act, received the Presidential Assent in June 2000. The Act is based on the Model Law on E-Commerce adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The essence of the Act is captured in the long title: 'An act to provide for the legal recognition of transactions carried out ...
Research on Cyber Offenses under Information Technology Act, 2000
such offenses in India, the Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as IT Act or the ITA-2000) was formed on 17th October 2000 by the Indian Parliament to deal with cybercrime and electronic ...
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 ...
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 ...
PDF Information technology act, 2000: an introduction of cyber security
the Information and Communication Technology. 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
SC Repels Challenge Against Sec. 70 Of IT Act Giving Power To ...
The Supreme Court has repelled challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 70 of the Information Technology Act 2000, which gives power to the government to declare any computer resource ...
First Conviction Case under Sec 67 of the IT ACT, 2000
Jul 22, 2020 6 min. Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu, was the first case in India where a conviction was handed down in connection with the posting of obscene messages on the internet under the controversial section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case was filed in 2004 and within a short span of about seven months from the filing of ...
Interpretation and Implementation of Information Technology Act, 2000
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 ...
section+66C+it+act
The petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.917/2015, under Section 66C Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act for short) Police Station.../2015, under Section 66C IT Act, Police Station Sarai Rohilla, Delhi and the consequent proceedings emanating there from are quashed, subject to petitioner depositing costs of Rs.1,00,000/- with the ...
Information Technology Act, 2000: Elements, Applicability and
1. 2008 Amendment: In 2008, the IT Act 2000 underwent a pivotal amendment to effectively combat cybercrimes and regulate electronic communication. Section 66A was introduced, penalizing the transmission of "offensive messages," while Section 69 granted the government authority to intercept, monitor, or decrypt computer-generated information.
PDF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 --------- ... 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 ... the State Government and in any other case, the Central Government; ...
Dispute resolution framework under the Information Technology Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (" IT Act ") sets out a framework for resolution of disputes arising out of cyber-attacks like hacking, data theft, and phishing [3]. The framework allows victims of such attacks to claim damages and compensation from the attackers. The IT Act lays down a two-tier dispute resolution process: (i ...
Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000
About: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000 made it a punishable offence for any person to send offensive information using a computer or any other electronic device. The provision also made it punishable for a person to send information that they believed to be false. Section 66A had prescribed three years' imprisonment if a ...
Information Technology Act, 2000
Penalties under Information Technology Act, 2000. Penalty for damaging a computer system. Compensation in the case of failure to protect data. Failure to furnish the required information. Residuary Penalty. Appellate tribunal. Powers. Offences and their punishments under Information Technology Act, 2000.
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act 2000)
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
Information Technology Act, 2000
The Information Technology Act, 2000 covers the following offences -. Section 65: Tampering with computer source documents. Section 66: Hacking with a computer system. Section 66B: Receiving stolen computer or communication device. Section 66C: Using the password of another person. Section 66D: Cheating using the computer resource.
PDF Comparison between Information Technology Act, 2000 & 2008
The IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 has acquired striking changes the IT Act, 2000 from multiple points of view. The Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008 (IT Act 2008) is a considerable expansion to India's Information Technology Act (ITA-2000). The IT Amendment Act was passed by the Indian Parliament in October 2008 and came enthusiastically a year
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.

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

IT ACT 2000 – PENALTIES, OFFENCES WITH CASE STUDIES From

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

A Critical Analysis of Sec.79 of IT Act 2000

Who is an Intermediary?

You might like

Jolly George Verghese & Anr. v. The Bank of Cochin

Meaning of Interim Maintenance

Intelligible Differentia

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

SC Repels Challenge Against Sec. 70 Of IT Act Giving Power To Govt To Declare Computer Resource As ‘Protected System’ [Read Judgment]

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

Arguments on behalf of the Prosecution analyzed

Arguments on behalf of the Accused discussed

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

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

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

INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000

Leave a Reply Cancel reply