Author: Sangini Mehta, NMIMS, SCHOOL OF LAW, BENGALURU
To the Point
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the landscape of cybercrime investigation and prevention across jurisdictions. With the exponential rise in cyber offences such as identity theft, phishing, ransomware attacks, and cyberterrorism, law enforcement agencies are increasingly leveraging AI for real-time data analysis, predictive policing, and digital forensics. While AI enhances investigative capacity and efficiency, it also brings forth a need for strong legal frameworks to ensure that its use aligns with constitutional protections such as the right to privacy and due process of law.
Use of Legal Jargon
The incorporation of Artificial Intelligence in cybercrime investigation and prevention requires a nuanced understanding of the legal framework that governs digital evidence, constitutional rights, and procedural safeguards. Some key legal concepts relevant to this area include:
Electronic Evidence & Admissibility: According to Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, digital records (such as data collected through AI surveillance tools) are only admissible in court if they meet specific technical conditions and are properly certified by a competent authority.
Predictive Analytics in Law Enforcement: AI tools often rely on algorithms to anticipate criminal behavior or identify threats. This is commonly known as predictive policing. While helpful, it raises questions about legality, potential bias, and the need for accountability under criminal procedure law.
Constitutional Safeguards – Right to Privacy and Due Process: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) reaffirmed the right to privacy as a part of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). Any AI-based surveillance or data collection must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Opaque Algorithms and Fair Trial: AI often functions through “black box” models—complex algorithms that even developers can’t always fully explain. This creates issues in ensuring fair trial rights, including the right to know how evidence was produced or decisions were made.
Data Governance and Transparency Obligations: Any use of AI must adhere to principles of transparency, data minimization, and informed consent, particularly when processing personal or sensitive information. These principles are now central to India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, which introduces stricter control over how personal data can be used, stored, or shared.
Judicial Oversight and Algorithmic Accountability: Since AI-driven tools can affect individual freedoms and influence criminal outcomes, there must be judicial oversight, algorithmic audits, and mechanisms to ensure that AI systems are free from systemic bias, especially when deployed by state authorities.
Separation of Powers: The use of AI in law enforcement must not undermine the doctrine of separation of powers. Executive bodies (such as police departments) must act within the limits prescribed by law and remain subject to judicial review.
The Proof
AI tools have become critical for national and international cybercrime enforcement. From India’s Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to INTERPOL’s Cyber Fusion Centre, the proof of effectiveness lies in the results:
AI enables faster identification of phishing patterns, malware analysis, and recovery of digital evidence from encrypted systems.
AI is used to track cryptocurrency transactions involved in illicit trades.
Deep learning models can comb through thousands of chat logs or emails to detect terrorist communication or child exploitation rings.
In India, state-level police departments such as those in Telangana, Maharashtra, and Delhi are increasingly adopting AI-based threat assessment platforms and facial recognition tools for online threat monitoring.
The National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal uses AI-powered dashboards for pattern recognition and victim outreach.
Globally, Europol’s AI-augmented tools and the FBI’s Next Generation Identification system offer compelling examples of AI in action for identity tracking, behavior analysis, and breach detection.
Abstract
This article explores the evolving role of Artificial Intelligence in cybercrime investigation and prevention through a legal lens. As AI technologies empower law enforcement agencies to detect, predict, and respond to cyber threats with unprecedented speed and precision, the article examines how this intersects with fundamental rights and procedural safeguards. It delves into the legislative and judicial frameworks governing the use of AI in criminal investigations, especially in India, while drawing comparative insights from international jurisprudence. The analysis also considers challenges such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, evidentiary admissibility, and the potential for misuse, proposing a balanced roadmap for ethical AI implementation in cybercrime policy.
Case Laws
Here are key judgments that form the legal backbone for AI’s use in cybercrime investigation:
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) – Recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21; surveillance and data collection must pass the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
State v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) – Allowed the admissibility of electronic records even without a certificate under Section 65B, later overruled in Anvar P.V. case.
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) – Reaffirmed that electronic evidence is admissible only with compliance under Sections 65A and 65B.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – Struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, reinforcing the need for legal clarity and protection from arbitrary surveillance.
Riley v. California (2014, U.S. Supreme Court) – Held that police must obtain a warrant to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) – The Supreme Court ruled that video conferencing is a valid method for recording witness testimony, broadening the admissibility of tech-based evidence in legal proceedings.
Assn. for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002) – The Court upheld citizens’ right to information as part of Article 19(1)(a), laying a legal foundation for transparency in surveillance and data governance.
Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India (2017) – Addressed the liability of search engines in displaying content violating statutory prohibitions; indirectly raised issues of algorithmic responsibility.
Conclusion
The integration of Artificial Intelligence into cybercrime investigation represents a significant transformation in the enforcement landscape. With its capacity to process vast amounts of data, detect threats in real time, and support advanced surveillance operations, AI offers law enforcement an unprecedented edge in tackling digital crimes. Yet, these technological capabilities must operate within the framework of constitutional values, particularly those protecting individual rights, liberty, and due process. The true test lies in harmonizing technological advancement with legal safeguards. As AI-generated evidence and surveillance tools become commonplace, the justice system must adapt by instituting clear procedural and evidentiary rules that uphold transparency and accountability.
As India advances toward becoming a digital-first society, the use of AI in cybercrime prevention will undoubtedly play a pivotal role. However, this power must be exercised with responsibility and remain accountable to the rule of law and the foundational ideals of our Constitution.
FAQs
1. What is the main benefit of using AI in cybercrime investigations?
AI can process vast amounts of data quickly to detect patterns, anomalies, and criminal behavior—tasks that are slow and often impossible for humans to perform alone.
2. Is AI-based evidence admissible in Indian courts?
Yes, if it meets the criteria laid down under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, including a valid certification of authenticity.
3. Are AI tools 100% accurate in cybercrime detection?
No AI tool is perfect. They can produce false positives or negatives. Therefore, human interpretation, validation, and legal review remain essential
4. How do other countries regulate AI in policing?
The EU uses the AI Act, which classifies AI tools based on risk level. The U.S. follows sectoral regulations with court-imposed limits. Both stress transparency, fairness, and human oversight.
5. Can private companies use AI for cyber investigations?
Private entities may use AI tools for internal security but cannot perform functions that are exclusively within the domain of state law enforcement, unless expressly authorized.
