Q.1. “The Jurisdiction on internet has become an issue worldwide”.

Justify your CO
opinion with suitable cases within and outside India. Comment on the work undertaken
by Internet Jurisdiction Policy Network Forum to resolve this issue.

A court doesn't have power over all people within the world.  A court before it might decide a
case, it should verify whether or not it has "personal jurisdiction" over the parties. A litigant
might not sue a litigator in a jurisdiction foreign to the litigator, unless that litigator has
proved some connection thereupon forum that can fairly justify him being sued there. 

The traditional approach regarding jurisdiction is that the court has to raise the issue to the
plaintiff whether or not he has the territorial, pecuniary, or subject material jurisdiction to file
the case before it. Although with web, the question of ‘territorial’ jurisdiction gets tricky
mostly because the web is spread all around the world without any boundaries. One may ar-
gue that it is the computer where all the data is stored and as computer is a physical object we
can locate the same and apply the territorial jurisdiction likewise. But this same analogy will
not work in case of Internet because it is the internet which holds all the data and transmits
the same when asked for and the Internet does not have any physical form. So main issue
what raises in cases relating to Internet is to determine the ‘place’ wherever the information is
‘held’? 
Analysis of the Issue
One of the primary condition a Court, anywhere in the world, needs to fulfill before trying a
case is territorial jurisdiction. Territorial jurisdiction means where the cause of action raised
or where either party of the case resides falls within the territory of the court and thus the
court has the power to try the matter. Now the concept of territorial jurisdiction becomes re-
ally tricky when the cause of action raises from the Internet which spread all over the world.
Under U.S. law. if it's justifiable to try and do thus, a court in one state can exercise jurisdic-
tion over an individual in another state or country whose conduct has sufficient effects within
the state and whose conduct constitutes adequate contacts with the state for the Court to exer-
cise it’s jurisdiction. As a result of this territorial check is ambiguous, courts in each state of
the U.S. is also able to exercise jurisdiction over parties anyplace within the world, primarily
based on web contacts with the state.
When it comes to the jurisdiction over internet mainly 3 types of jurisdictions are there;
Kinds of jurisdiction
In essence, there are three types of jurisdiction that exist in matters of deciding a States’ juris-
diction according to the International Laws. 
Prescriptive Jurisdiction
Prescriptive Jurisdiction means the authority of the State to form laws applicable to an indi-
vidual and in particular scenarios. However, International Law poses certain restrictions over
the power of the State to exercise the laws made by them, when it is an international conflict
which means two or more independent states are involved in a dispute. 
Jurisdiction to Adjudicate
Jurisdiction to Adjudicate means the ability of the State to make an individual or a certain
thing accountable according to the laws of the state and refer the same to a court or tribunal,
either civil or criminal. To exercise this jurisdiction, the state does not necessarily have to be
an actual; party to the dispute. The State just needs to establish an adequate connection be-
tween the State and the individual or thing, subjected to a trial. 
Jurisdiction to Enforce
Jurisdiction to Enforce means the ability of a State to induce or penalize somebody for dis-
obedience with laws. However, the laws of the State should be implemented by the officers
with approval or authorization from the State officers involved within the matter. Although, a
State might have jurisdiction to order in certain scenarios wherever the jurisdiction to adjudi-
cate is not present.
Long Arm Statute and Minimum Contact
The minimum contact rule primarily states that as far as a company contains a degree of con-
tact with the State filing the suit, they have to comply to the laws of the State and might be
subjected to the court and tribunals within the State.  
Precedents have laid down that negligible, or only a few contacts, are sufficient to determine
contact. However, in cases of minimal contact, the principles of right to fair play and substan-
tial justice kicks in and they impose certain restrictions to the authority and applicability of
the long arm statute jurisdiction. 
Indian Laws 
Under Indian Law Section 75 provides for Jurisdiction of extra-territorial operations. Al-
though, this provision cannot be read alone and has to be read along with provisions recog-
nizing orders and warrants for info issued by parties outside their jurisdiction and measure for
cooperation ‘s for exchange of material and evidence of computers crimes between law en-
forcement agencies. Such provisions of IT Act (referred as “the Act” here on) are as follows:
Sec 1 of the Act, states to what extent this act can be applied. It states that:
“(2) It shall extend to the whole of India and, save as otherwise provided in this Act, it ap-
plies also to any offence or contravention thereunder committed outside India by any person.”
Sec 75 of the Act, laid down the provisions in regard to offences or contravention committed
outside India. It states that:
“subject to the provision of sub section (2), the provision of this act shall also apply to any of-
fence or contravention committed outside India by any person irrespective of his nationality.
For the purpose of sub section (1), this act shall apply to an offence or contravention commit-
ted 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.”
The above mentioned Section 1(2) and Section 75 of the IT Act is applicable to any offence
committed inside and outside of this country. The power of exercising this act outside this
country is authorized by invoking the ability of additional territorial jurisdiction of nation. It's
immaterial to the actual fact that whether or not the person violating the law is a national of
India or not and whether or not the crime has been committed within or outside of India as a
result of it applies to somebody no matter what their citizenship is, if he harms or tries to the
Computer, automatic data processing system or network settled in this country either sitting
inside India or from any a part of the globe.
Section 46 of the act gives the authority to try the matter relating to the violation of this act
whether or not it has been committed in or outside India to Tribunals and Adjudicating offi-
cers in the Tribunals. The powers given to these tribunals are at per with the authority of a
civil court.  These tribunals are termed as Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
Sec (48) of the act provides for the institution of Cyber proceeding judicature.
“(1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish one or more appellate tribunals
to be known as the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal.”
This Tribunal is established by the Govt. as per this Act and therefore the government itself
decides the matters and places on wherever the Tribunal would exercise its jurisdiction. This
tribunal is the first appellate authority before which someone can be sued for violating the
provisions of this act. Further if someone is aggrieved by the decision of this body they have
the option of filing an appeal in High Court within sixty days from the date of communication
of such decision or order.

Indian Case laws

SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra
This is the first case associated with cyber defamation in India. The facts of this case were,
the litigator was a worker of the plaintiff's company who wont to send derogative, obscene,
vulgar, and abusive emails to his employers and conjointly to totally different subsidiaries of
the aforesaid company everywhere the globe. The motive behind causation those emails was
to malign the name of the corporate and its director everywhere the globe.
The High Court of Delhi exercised the jurisdiction over a matter of defamation of name of
company through e-mails. An ex-parte injunction was granted by the court.
SIL Import v. Exim Aides Silk Importers
In this case the court emphasized that a statute should be interpreted by the judiciary keeping
in mind the technological advancement we could achieve up to now. Till there's specific leg-
islation in relation to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts with relevance web disputes, or un-
less India may be an individual to a world pact below that the jurisdiction of the national
courts and scenarios under which they will be exercised are wheat out, the Indian courts need
to provide a wide interpretation to the prevailing statutes, for travail web disputes.