Author: P. Naga Lasya Sri, Christ Academy Institute of Law
TO THE POINT
India have many technical, jurisdiction and procedural obstacles associated with persecution of cybercrimes. The basis of cyber law in India is the Information Technology Act (IT Act) of 2000, but its appropriate validity is increasingly questioned in terms of complex cybercrime and changing digital threats.
ABSTRACT
India’s legislative reaction, IT Act in 2000, was groundbreaking when it was first introduced, but has now been criticized as outdated and inadequate. This article analyzes the effectiveness of IT law, examines many difficulties in persecuting cybercrimes within the current legal system, and discusses important case law that has influenced case law.
Use of Legal Jargon
Responses to frequently asked questions and reform proposals are included at the end of the article. Jurisdiction: the ability of Indian courts to listen to cases of cross-border crimes.
Digital evidence is information that can be used in court. The Platform’s obligation to account for content generated by users is called “intermediary responsibility.” Important provisions of the IT Act dealing with hacking, obscene and content closure are sections 66, 67, and 69a. If nonIndian crimes affect the Indian system, permission to persecute crimes is called extraterritorial liability.
THE PROOF
Evidence of growth in incidence: Cybercrime from phishing and hacking to cyberterrorism and online nuisances has become much more common in India. Low conviction rate: Even if reported cases increase due to procedural errors, lack of experience, and inadequate evidence, the conviction rate is still low. Obsolete rights: Although changed in 2008, the IT Act of 2000 still has not kept up to technology development and does not start with many modern cyberleats. A well-defined method for digital evidence.
CASE LAWS
- Delhi Police v. Web-Hosting Company (2001): In one of the first cases under Section 66, two men were arrested for hacking after a website was shut down over a payment dispute. The case highlighted early enforcement challenges and the need for clear digital evidence protocols.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for being unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of balancing cyber regulation with fundamental rights. This decision exposed the risk of overbroad provisions and the need for precise legislative drafting.
- Ban on Chinese Apps (2020-2022): The government invoked Section 69A to block several Chinese apps on grounds of national security, demonstrating the IT Act’s role in addressing cross-border cyber threats but also raising questions about due process and transparency.
CONCLUSION
Chinese App Prohibition (2020, 2022): citing national security concerns, the government used Section 69A to block a set of Chinese apps, fighting international cybertubes to combat the capabilities of IT law, and at the same time creating problems with proper procedures and transparency. Between fundamental rights and cyber regulation. This decision indicated the need for careful design methods and risks of excessive general provisions. It existed. The threat, its validity, is increasingly questioned. Regular legislative updates, international cooperation and increased structure of law enforcement are essentially important for India’s cybercrime to be effectively pursued and prevented. Lack of technical know-how, issues of jurisdiction, the transnational nature of many crimes and the challenges of obtaining digital evidence.
FAQ
1.How is cybercrime dealt with by the IT Act of 2000?
It also provides numerous cyberstructure definitions and punishments, including identity thef hacking, and the disclosure of pornographic material, as well as procedures for review and prosecution.
2.Can the IT Act of 2000 address Cyberthreats today?
Despite numerous reports of crime, the law has not been fully considered in light of the rapid technological advancements that were not expected in 2000 and the development of new types of cybercrime. Prosecutors must be strengthened by IT law, special cyber criminal courts, improved digital forensic infrastructure, and international legal cooperation.
3.How is digital evidence handled by food?
Despite the digital evidence collected, preserved and presented in accordance with Indian Evidence Act, its reliability and acceptability in court is often influenced by practical questions.
4. What are the main challenges in prosecuting cybercrimes in India?
Jurisdictional issues, difficulties in gathering digital evidence, lack of technical expertise, and cross-border nature of many offences.
5. How do courts handle digital evidence?
Digital evidence must be collected, preserved, and presented in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, but practical challenges often undermine its admissibility and reliability in court.
