Overview
- Enacted: 9 June 2000
- Came into force: 17 October 2000
- Objective: To give legal recognition to electronic records, digital signatures, and to prevent cybercrimes.
- Based on: The UNCITRAL Model Law on E-Commerce (1996).
Key Objectives
- Grant legal recognition to e-documents and digital signatures.
- Facilitate e-governance and online contracts.
- Define and penalize cybercrimes.
- Provide a legal framework for e-commerce transactions.
- Establish authorities like the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
📜 Important Provisions
1. Recognition of E-Transactions
- Sections 4–10A: Recognize electronic records, digital signatures, and electronic contracts as legally valid.
2. Cybercrimes & Offences
- Section 43: Unauthorized access, downloading, introducing viruses, damaging systems.
- Section 65: Tampering with computer source code.
- Section 66: Hacking and related offences.
- Section 66C: Identity theft.
- Section 66D: Cheating by impersonation using computer resources.
- Section 67: Publishing obscene material in electronic form.
- Section 67A, 67B: Punishment for sexually explicit material and child pornography.
3. Certifying Authorities
- Provide for the issue of Digital Signature Certificates.
4. Cyber Appellate Tribunal
- Established for resolving cyber disputes (later merged with TDSAT).
5. Amendments
- 2008 Amendment introduced concepts like:
- Electronic Signatures (broader than digital signatures).
- Data Protection (Section 43A – compensation for failure to protect sensitive personal data).
- Cyber Terrorism (Section 66F).
Penalties & Punishments
- Compensation for damages up to ₹1 crore (under Section 43).
- Imprisonment ranging from 3 years to life imprisonment for severe cybercrimes (like cyber terrorism).
- Fines vary between ₹1 lakh to ₹10 lakh.
Significance
- First comprehensive law for cyber security in India.
- Made online contracts, e-governance, and e-signatures legally valid.
- Acts as a deterrent against cybercrimes like hacking, phishing,
- data theft, and pornography.
- Related case laws
⚖️ 1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
Provision Involved: Section 66A of IT Act.
Issue: Section 66A criminalized sending “offensive” or “menacing” messages online. It was challenged for being vague and violating freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)).
Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, marking a landmark judgment for internet freedom in India.
---
⚖️ 2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)
Provision Involved: Section 67 of IT Act.
Facts: Suhas Katti posted obscene and defamatory content about a woman in a Yahoo chat group.
Judgment: The accused was convicted — this was the first conviction under the IT Act for cybercrime (cyber pornography and harassment).
---
⚖️ 3. Avnish Bajaj v. State (Bazee.com case) (2005)
Provision Involved: Section 67 of IT Act.
Facts: An obscene MMS clip of school students was sold on Bazee.com (now eBay India). Avnish Bajaj, CEO of Bazee.com, was arrested.
Judgment: The court highlighted intermediary liability, clarifying that company directors can’t be held personally liable if the
y had no knowledge of the act.
Comments
Post a Comment