Information and Technology

Act
INTRODUCTION

The internet is expanding day by day, and humans are increasingly dependent on it to fulfil
their requirements for quick information. The internet is used to access information on
anything one desire, allowing for online work and eliminating the need to go outside for
employment. It also facilitates studying at home, which not only saves time but also provides
access to new information around the world.

While the internet can be used in various ways, some individuals misuse it through hacking to
steal and breach data for monetary gain. This is why we need the Information and
Technology Act, the first law in cybercrime established by legislation. This act provides a
legal framework for electronic governance by recognizing electronic records and digital
signatures. It defines cybercrimes and outlines penalties for those who breach it. It also
formation of Controller of Certifying Authority to regulate the assurance of digital signatures
and creates a separate Cyber Appellate Tribunal to resolve disputes.

BACKGROUD

This act is made by the Government of India on the recommendation of the UNCITRAL
(United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) Model Law understood the
problem of internet user and for safeguarding the interest of internet user. This act passed in
2000 and the act name called Information and Technology Act, 2000, or IT Act, 2000 or IT
Act. India is the 12th country to pass this bill for cybercrime. This Bill is introduced by Mr
Pramod Mahajan Minister of Communications and Information Technology in 2000 and this
bill passed in budget session and signed by president of India Mr K.R NARAYANAN on 09
may 2000 and this act commenced on 17/October/2000.

Initially this act consists of 13 Chapters, 94 sections, and 4 schedules out of that 3rd and 4th
schedule are omitted by Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. This act apply
whole of India.

APPLICABILITY

According to THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 does not apply on

(a) A negotiable instrument which are defined in section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881;

(b) A power-of-attorney which are defined in section 1A of the Powers-of-Attorney Act,

1882;

(c) A trust which are defined in section 3 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882;

(d) A will which are 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 involving the purchase, sale, or transfer of immovable property, or any
interest therein;

(f) Any transactions or document which may be notified by the Central Government in the
Official Gazette.

SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITION

 What is cyber-crime?
Cybercrime means criminal activities which are done through computer or by an
internet.
 What is e-commerce?
E-commerce stands for electronic commerce which means buying and selling of
goods and services through internet or any electronic means is called e-commerce.
 What is electronic record?
Electronic records are those records which are created electronic and managed by
means of a computer technology. For example, email, website, text message, social
media posting etc.
 What is authentic?
You know create the document and that is not been altered in anyway.

OBJECTIVE

The Information Technology Act, was made applicable in India with following objectives

 To give legal recognition to any transaction (done electronically) or use of internet

 To give legal recognition to digital signature for accepting any agreement via
computer.
 To provide facility of filling document online relating to school admission or
registration in employment exchange.
 To provide legal recognition for electronic storage
 It protects from cybercrimes and the privacy of internet users.
  To provide legal recognition for keeping books of accounts by bankers and companies
in electronic form.
 To make more power to IPO, RBI and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for restricting
electronic crime.
 To amend the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, The Bankers'
Books, Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

MAJOR AMENDMENT

In 2008, a significant adjustment was done. The introduction of Section 66A made sending
"offensive messages" illegal. Section 69 was also added, giving authorities the ability to
"intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource." It also
included laws addressing voyeurism, child porn, cyber terrorism, and pornography. Without a
debate, the amendment was approved by the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2008. The Rajya
Sabha approved it the following day. On February 5, 2009, President Pratibha Patil signed it
into law.

OFFENCE RELATED

Section Description Punishment

Imprisonment up to 3 years,
65 Tampering with computer source documents
or/and with fine up to ₹2lakh

Imprisonment up to 3 years,
66 Computer related offences
or/and with fine up to ₹5lakh

Imprisonment up to 3 years,
66B Receiving stolen computer or communication device
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Imprisonment up to 3 years,
66C Using password of another person
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Imprisonment up to 3 years,
66D Cheating using computer resource
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Imprisonment up to 3years,
66E Publishing private images of others
or/and with fine up to ₹2lakh

66F Cyber terrorism Imprisonment up to life.

 Imprisonment up to 5 years,
Publishing or transmitting obscene material in
67 or/and with fine up to
electronic form.
₹10lakh

Imprisonment up to 7 years,
67A Publishing images containing sexual acts
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Preservation and retention of information by Imprisonment up to 3 years,

67C
intermediaries or/and with fine.

Imprisonment up to 2 years,
68 Failure/refusal to comply with orders
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Power to issue directions for interception or

Imprisonment up to 7 years
69 monitoring or decryption of any information through
and possible fine.
any computer resource

Securing access or attempting to secure access to a Imprisonment up to 10 years,

70
protected system or/and with fine.

Imprisonment up to 2 years,
71 Misrepresentation
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Imprisonment up to 2 years,
72 Breach of confidentiality and privacy
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Disclosure of information in breach of lawful Imprisonment up to 3 years,

72A
contract or/and with fine up to ₹5lakh

Publishing electronic signature certificate false in Imprisonment up to 2 years,

73
certain particulars or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Imprisonment up to 2 years,
74 Publication for fraudulent purpose
or/and with fine up to ₹1lakh

Note: Section 66-A has been struck down by Supreme Court of India Order dated 24th
March, 2015 in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.
CRITICISM

Section 66A and restriction of freedom of speech

P Rajeev, a Kerala-based Rajya Sabha member, attempted to move a resolution in December

2012 that sought to alter Section 66A. D. Bandyopadhyay, Gyan Prakash Pilania, Basavaraj
Patil Sedam, Narendra Kumar Kashyap, Rama Chandra Khuntia, and Baishnab Charan Parida
were among those who backed him. P. Rajeev made the point that editorials and cartoons that
were permitted in old media were being suppressed in new media. Additionally, he claimed
that bill was enacted in December 2008 with little discussion.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar argued that the 66A only apply to person-to-person communication,
citing a comparable section under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. The misuse of the law, in
Shantaram Naik's opinion, was sufficient justification for any reforms, and he was opposed to
them. Mr. Kapil Sibal, who served as the department's minister at the time, argued in favour
of the law at hand by pointing out that the US and the UK had comparable regulations.
Furthermore, he mentioned that the Indian Post Office Act of 1898 contained a comparable
clause. However, P Rajeev said that the UK exclusively dealt with interpersonal
communication.

Section 69 and mandatory decryption

Any information can be intercepted and requested for decryption under Section 69. Refusing
to decode data is illegal. The Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 permits phone tapping by the
government. However, a 1996 Supreme Court decision states that the government can only
bug phones during a "public emergency". However, Section 69 is not subject to this
limitation. The Ministry of Home Affairs issued an order on December 20, 2018, citing
Section 69, allowing 10 central agencies to monitor, decrypt, and intercept "any information
generated, transmitted, received, or stored in any computer." Some contend that this violates
their fundamental right to privacy, while the Ministry of Home Affairs argues that it is legal
due to national security.

Section 69A and banning of mobile apps

The Section 69A-based prohibitions on Chinese apps have drawn criticism for potentially
violating both WTO agreements and Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees everyone the right to freedom of speech and expression. The ban has been
criticised by the Internet Freedom Foundation for failing to adhere to the necessary norms,
resulting in a lack of transparency and disclosure.

FUTURE MODIFICATION

Devendra Fadnavis, the chief minister of Maharashtra, informed the state assembly on April
2, 2015, that a new law was being drafted to replace the deleted Section 66A. Fadnavis was
responding to a question posed by Neelam Gorhe of the Shiv Sena. Gorhe had argued that the
law's removal would encourage internet criminal activity and questioned whether the state
government would craft legislation to address this issue. According to Fadnavis, the previous
law had not produced any convictions, thus this one would be robust and produce
convictions.

A group made up of representatives from the Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of

Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Delhi Police, and the Ministry of Home Affairs
would be formed, it was reported on April 13th, 2015, to create a new legislative framework.
According to reports, this action was made in response to concerns from intelligence agencies
that they were no longer able to block internet content that addressed matters of national
security or incited individuals to conduct crimes, such as online recruitment for ISIS. A new
"unambiguous section to replace 66A" has the endorsement of Milind Deora, a former
minister of state in the Ministry of information technology.

A proposal to replace the Information Technology Act with the more thorough and current
Digital India Act, which would address a larger variety of information technology challenges
and concerns, was reported in 2022. This law might presumably focus on issues such as
privacy, social media regulation, over-the-top platform regulation, and regulation of internet
intermediaries, introduction of new violations or offences, and governance of emerging
technologies.

LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

Facts:

In one instance, two teenagers were detained for making online comments about Mumbai's
shutdown following the passing of a Shiv Sena political leader. For publishing the obscene
comments online, they were charged under Section 66A. The Section's constitutionality was
thus contested in the Supreme Court on the grounds that it violates Article 19 of the
Constitution.
Issue:

Whether Section 66A is constitutionally valid or not?

Judgement

In this instance, the Court noted that the language of the Section is confusing and vague,
which violates the people' freedom of speech and expression. The entire Section was
therefore declared invalid on the grounds that Article 19 of the Constitution was being
broken. It stated that the Section gave police officers the authority to detain anyone who they
believed had posted or messaged something objectionable. They each had a different
interpretation of the term "offensive" because it was not defined anywhere in the Act. This
amounted to police misuse of authority and a danger to peace and harmony.

M/S Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd and Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. Union of India (2014)

Facts

So that cases might be resolved promptly and someone could keep an eye on CAT's
operations, the petitioners in this case urged the establishment of a chairperson to the Cyber
Appellate Tribunal. According to the replies, a chairperson would shortly be named.

Issue

Appointment of the CAT chairperson

Judgement

The Court must treat this as an urgent matter and keep in mind Section 53 of the Act because
it ordered the chairperson's appointment.

Conclusion

The Act is a step in the direction of safeguarding the data and private information kept by
online intermediaries. It includes a number of measures that are advantageous to the people
and safeguard their data from loss or misuse. However, as e-commerce and online
transactions grow, it becomes increasingly important to address issues such internet speed
and security, transactions that are made, the confidentiality of passwords and cookies, etc.
There is a need for a system to detect and manage cybercrimes because they are growing
rapidly.

REFERENCE:

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
3. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/
it_act_2000_updated.pdf