ENFORCEMENT OF CYBER LAWS

(LATEST DEVELOPMENTS AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS)

ABSTRACT

In the past few years Cyber Crimes have drastically escalated with the use of technology
nuances every other second. Cyber laws have manifested criminal cognizance to e-files,
computer documents as well as a whole lot of thread in relation to e-filing and e-commerce
transactions and subsequently presents a whole framework to regulate cyber undertakings.
Cyber law is the canon holding sway over the cyber dynamics that creates the illusion for
humans that most importantly is economical, handy and can be carried out anywhere.

The abuse of the new dynamics i.e. the technology has led us to the new kind of offences and
crimes, often referred as cybercrimes. Offenders of Cyber laws are generally seen taking pace
of falsification and misplaced trust to attain personal information of victims such as their ATM
pins, bank information, credit scorecard details, etc. Cyber Crimes refer to any crimes which
are made in respect of any computer, digital device, net, e-devices etc., that are now addressed
with the Information Technology Act enact in 2000. However, aspects of this arena are seen to
be revamping at times as well as interpreted by the Judiciary oftentimes.

Keywords: Cybercrimes, Cyber laws, Technology, development, judicial precedents.

I. INTRODUCTION:
The definition of the phrase “Cyber Crimes” cannot be witnessed in any statute or rulebook.
“Cyber” is a word used for anything in relation to computers, technology and Internet. It
follows that "cyber-crimes" are offences using computers, data technology, the internet, and
digital reality. One can discover laws that penalise cybercrimes in a number of statutes and
even in regulations created by the legislators of various Indian Statues.
To control the shot-up Cyber Crimes in India, the IT Act, 2000 was enacted, which is now
subject to various amendments and developments. Not only the IT act, but legislations
governing the cyber sphere in India can also be witnessed in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC),
and peculiarly any provisions of the IT act and the IPC can be seen going along with each other
with respect to cyber regulations, for instance, for hacking and Data theft, Section 44 and
Section 66 of the IT Act penalize the offender, while, Section 378 of the IPC touching on to
"theft" of movable property, Section 425 of the IPC offers with mischief. In the case of Gagan
 Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra1, sure folks have been accused of theft of
information and software program from their corporation and charged underneath sections 408
and 420 of the IPC and additionally below sections 43, sixty five and sixty six of the IT Act.
All of these sections, different than part 408 of the IPC, have been mentioned above. Section
408 of the IPC offers with crook breach of have confidence with the aid of clerk or servant and
states that "whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in
any manner entrusted in such ability with property, or with any dominion over property,
commits crook breach of believe in admire of that property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of both description for a time period which may also lengthen to seven years,
and shall additionally be dependable to fine".

II. CYBER LAWS IN INDIA

The Information Technology Act, 2000, which went into effect on October 17, 2000, governs
cyber law in India. This act covers any cybercrime perpetrated by a person using a computer,
computer system, or computer network that is physically situated in India. Given that the Act
was passed in 2000, few occurrences have been reported in this area. However, in 2015 we had
a historic, ground-breaking ruling. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India2, the Information
Technology Act of 2000's Section 66A was contested as being unconstitutional under the
guiding principles of the Indian Constitution. It challenged the constitutional validity of Section
66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 from the perspectives of the principles on which the
Indian Constitution was drafted upon. The court declared its judgment, marking the said section
Unconstitutional. It was a landmark judgment because it upheld Section 69A and Section 79
of the Information Technology Act, 2000(intermediaries).
There is a colossal need to have proper staffed institutions established up all over India to curb
Cyber laws, as we are already aware, cybercrime can only be reduced with good cooperation
from all stakeholders including Internet users, service providers, industries, etc. The
Government has set up an Inter Departmental Information Security Task Force (ISTF). Indian
Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT - In) is the agency set up to respond to computer
security incidents when they occur. Apart from these, there are a various number of other
institutions that have been set up in order to monitor and apprehend Cyber Criminals. Some of
these include:

1
Gagan Harsh Sharma v. The State of Maharashtra2019 CriLJ 1398
2
W.P.(Crl).No. 167 of 2012
 1. National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC)
2. Cyber Command for Armed Forces
3. Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), in addition to the creation
of sector-specific CERTs for power sector.
4. Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC)
5. Data Security Council of India (DSCI)
It is implied that Cyber Criminals can only be apprehended when they victims of the Crime be
it an individual or an organization, co-ordinate with the law enforcement agencies for effective
response. India, has to effectively improve its mechanisms to secure the Cyber Space and
provide maximum Cyber Security. These institutions being set up show progress and help to
curb the society of the Deep Web Criminals.3

III. LATEST DEVELOPMENT & AMENDMENTS IN THE IPC TO AVANT GARDE

CYBER LAWS:
Law has always been dynamic in nature, likewise cyber law has also been altered and modified
as and when need in various regulations. The law making body of India has from time to time,
made amendments and changes to cowl the Cyber Laws of India:

1. 29A was created in the Indian Penal Code to outline "electronic record" by way of linking
it with the definition given in the IT Act4;
2. sub-section (3) was once inserted in part four of the IPC (relating to the extension of the
IPC to greater territorial offences) that states that the provisions of the IPC shall be relevant
to any individual in any region "without and past India", committing an offence
concentrated on a laptop aid placed in India5;
3. In sections 118 and 119 of the IPC the phrases "voluntarily conceals via any act or omission
or through the use of encryption or any different statistics hiding tool, the existence of a
design" have been inserted earlier than the phrases "to commit such offence or makes any
illustration which he is aware of to be false respecting such design"6;
4. Part 464 of the IPC (which penalizes the making of a false document), the phrase "digital
signature" was once replaced with the phrase "electronic signature" in all places. The area
used to be additionally amended to consist of the making of false digital documents and

3
Cyber law in India, Volume 5, ISSN 2456-9704 (https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Cyber-Law-in-
India )
4
Act 21, 2000, Section 91 Schedule I, (with effect from October 17, 2000)
5
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2009) (with effect from October 27, 2009)
6
Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Act No. 10 of 2009) (with effect from October 27, 2009)
 affixing digital signatures beneath its ambit and the phrase "affixing digital signature" was
once given the equal which means as it has below the IT Act;

5. "electronic record" used to be covered inside the ambit of sections 164, 172, 173, 175, 192,
204, 463, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474 and 476 of the IPC that previously solely furnished
for "documents", "books", "paper", "writing" or "records", as the case may also be;

6. Section 466 of the IPC (which offers with forgery of courtroom data or of public
registers), the time period "register" was once described to encompass any list, statistics
or file of any entries maintained in an "electronic form", as described in part 2(1) (r) of
the IT Act7; and

7. Section 354D was inserted in the IPC that introduced the offence of Cyber Stalking.

When the IT Act was passed, its main focus was on introducing key elements of regional
technology law, such as digital signatures, providing jail awareness for digital archives, and
similar things. Its preamble quoted that, “provide prison focus for transactions carried out by
means of capability of digital information interchange and different capability of digital
communication, typically referred to as 'electronic commerce', which contain the use of options
to paper-based techniques of verbal exchange and storage of information, to facilitate digital
submitting of archives with the Government groups and similarly 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 things linked therewith or incidental thereto”8

IV. ROLE OF JUDICIARY IN CYBER LAW:

The nature of cybercrimes is intangible, i.e. it can only be observed and not touched or can be
seen with naked eyes. As of this nature, it would have been impossible for the traditional Law
and Justice System to cope up with the nuances of Cybercrimes taking place. In the case State
of Punjab and Others v. M/S Amritsar Beverages Ltd. and Others9, the court elucidated
that “Internet and other information technologies have brought with them the issues which were
not foreseen by law. It also did not foresee the difficulties which may be faced by the officers
who may not have any scientific expertise or not have the sufficient insight to tackle with the

7
Act 21, 2000, Section 91 Schedule I, (with effect from October 17, 2000)
8
Andrew Terrett, Lawyers Introduction to the Interne, Masons http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/it-terr1htm
9
2006(7) SCALE 587
 new situations. Various new developments leading to various kinds of crimes unforeseen by
our Legislature came to immediate focus. Information Technology Act, 2000, although was
amended to include various types of cybercrimes and punishment for them, does not deal with
all problems which are faced by the officers enforcing the Act.”
Given that India's Supreme Court has long served as the final arbiter of legal interpretation, the
Indian judiciary has played a significant role in resolving matters of cybercrime in the modern
era. The judicial and law enforcement agencies only fully comprehend that the tools needed to
investigate and prosecute criminal activity and terrorist acts conducted using computers
available and of a national scale. The Indian Judiciary has elucidated and given its
recommendations as well as has interpreted and made amendments in various Cyber laws that
are discussed below:

1) Tampering with computer source document:

Syed Asifuddin and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr10, It is on of the most initial
cases related to Section 65 of the IT Act. In this case the court held that the cell phones fulfilled
the definition of computer under IT Act and the unique electronic serial numbers which are
programmed into each handset like SID(system identification code), MIN(mobile
identification number), are the computer source code under the definition of IT Act which is
required to be kept and nominated by law.

2) Computer related offences:

The Judicial body of India has interpreted many a times many regulations related to the
computer offences such as, In the case of State of A.P v. Prabhakar Sampath11, the
complainant M/S SIS Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, carrying the business of research station,
filed a complaint by stating that somebody successfully hacked their server and downloaded
their e-reports through some free public sites. After investigation made by the police, the
accused was found guilty and charged under section 66 of IT Act for hacking content server
of complainant’s company.
While, in Shreya Singhal v UOI12, Constitutionality of Section 66A was challenged before
the court in a Public Interest Litigation. In consequence of which Section 66A was held

10
2006 (1) ALD (Cri) 96
11
CC 489 of 2010
12
Supra
 unconstitutional and struck down in its entirety being in contravention of Freedom of Speech
and Expression.

3) Offences by companies
There are wary of offences that are committed in the corporate world, by various companies
such as the white collar crimes, offences committed by businesses and government officials
etc. In the case of Sheoratan Agarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh13, it was held that “there
is no statutory compulsion that the person-in-charge or an officer of the company may not be
prosecuted unless he is ranged alongside the company. Each or any of them may be
separately prosecuted or along with the company if there is a contravention….by the
company.” But the judgement was held invalid and was overruled in the case of Avinash
Bajaj v. State14.
The Indian Judiciary has also elaborated and widened the concept of Cyber Terrorism, It is
a fear or danger against normal individuals or government which isn't predictable. Sec 66F
characterizes the discipline for digital psychological warfare under IT
Act, 2000. Psychological militant means an individual who includes in disturbance of
administrations, implies correspondence which is fundamental for local area or enjoys
wanton killing of people or in savagery. It additionally incorporates hacking, cryptography,
trojan assaults and infections and so on. Various Incidents in cities like Delhi, Ahmedabad,
Jaipur and Bangalore are live examples of Cyber Terrorism.

V. CONCLUSION
Offenders of Cyber laws are generally seen taking pace of falsification and misplaced trust to
attain personal information of victims such as their ATM pins, bank information, credit
scorecard details, etc. However, aspects of this arena are seen to be revamping at times as
well as interpreted by the Judiciary oftentimes.
Both the bodies of the Indian administrative system i.e., the Executive and the Judiciary has
played an immense role in advancing the cyber regulations. The Indian legal executive has
played very fruitful job in diminishing g digital wrongdoing offenses under IT Act, 2000.
Digital offenses are otherwise called present day offenses. Numerous corrections were made
under various Behaves like Indian corrective code, Proof Demonstration to concoct digital

13
1985 SCR (1) 719
14
(2005) 116 DLT 427
regulation cases. Along these lines, from above decisions and from this exploration paper
obviously the regulations for digital wrongdoing are perused with criminal regulations to
rebuff the blamed. Thus, consequently it is presumed that the legal executive or government
is exceptionally dynamic in distinguishing digital wrongdoing and tackling it.