Section 43 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with penalties and compensation for damage to

computer systems. Here are the key points:

Unauthorized Access: If a person accesses or secures access to a computer, computer system, or computer network
without permission, they are liable under this section.

Data Theft: Downloading, copying, or extracting data from a computer system without authorization is prohibited.

Introduction of Viruses: Introducing or causing the introduction of any computer contaminant or virus into a
computer system is punishable.

Damage to Systems: Damaging or causing damage to any computer system, data, or programs is covered under this
section.

Disruption: Disrupting or causing disruption of any computer system or network is an offense.

Denial of Access: Denying access to any authorized person to a computer system or network is punishable.

Assisting Unauthorized Access: Providing assistance to anyone to facilitate unauthorized access to a computer
system or network is prohibited.

Service Charges Manipulation: Charging services availed by one person to the account of another by tampering with
or manipulating a computer system is an offense.

Altering Information: Destroying, deleting, or altering any information residing in a computer resource without
authorization is punishable.

Theft of Source Code: Stealing, concealing, destroying, or altering any computer source code with the intention to
cause damage is covered under this section.

Violations of Section 43 can result in the offender being liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the
affected person.

SECTION 43 A

this section applies to any body corporate that possesses, deals with, or handles sensitive personal data or
information in a computer resource that it owns, controls, or operates.

Negligence: If the body corporate is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and
procedures, and this negligence results in wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, the body corporate is liable
to pay damages by way of compensation to the affected person.

SECTION 44

Section 44 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, outlines penalties for failure to furnish information, returns,
etc. Here are the key points:

Failure to Furnish Documents: If a person required to furnish any document, return, or report to the Controller or the
Certifying Authority fails to do so, they are liable to a penalty not exceeding ₹1,50,000 for each such failure1.

Failure to File Returns: If a person fails to file any return or furnish any information, books, or other documents
within the specified time, they are liable to a penalty not exceeding ₹5,000 for every day during which the failure
continues1.

Failure to Maintain Records: If a person fails to maintain books of account or records as required, they are liable to a
penalty not exceeding ₹10,000 for every day during which the failure continues.
SECTION 45

Section 45 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with residuary penalties. Here are the key points:

General Penalty: This section applies to any contravention of the Act or its rules and regulations for which no
specific penalty has been provided elsewhere in the Act.

Compensation and Penalty: If a person contravenes any rules or regulations made under the Act, they are liable to
pay compensation not exceeding ₹25,000 to the affected person or a penalty not exceeding ₹25,000.

SECTION 46

Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pertains to the appointment of adjudicating officers and the
process for adjudging contraventions under the Act. Here are the key points:

Appointment of Adjudicating Officers: The Central Government is empowered to appoint officers not below the
rank of a Director to the Government of India or an equivalent officer of a State Government as adjudicating
officers1.

Jurisdiction: These officers are responsible for adjudging whether any person has violated any provisions of the Act,
rules, regulations, directions, or orders made thereunder, which render them liable to pay penalty or compensation1.

Inquiry Process: The adjudicating officers conduct inquiries in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to
determine the liability of the person in question1.

Powers of Civil Court: While holding an inquiry, the adjudicating officer has the powers of a civil court, including
summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, requiring the discovery and production of documents,
receiving evidence on affidavits, and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents

SECTION 47

Section 47 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, outlines the factors that an adjudicating officer must consider
when determining the quantum of compensation for damages. Here are the key points:

Factors for Compensation: The adjudicating officer must take into account the following factors:

Amount of Gain: The gain of unfair advantage, wherever quantifiable, made as a result of the default.

Amount of Loss: The loss caused to any person as a result of the default.

Repetitive Nature: The repetitive nature of the default.

SECTION 48

Section 48 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, pertains to the establishment of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.
Here are the key points:

Establishment of Tribunal: The Central Government is empowered to establish one or more Cyber Appellate
Tribunals through an official notification12.

Purpose: These tribunals are specialized adjudicatory bodies designed to handle appeals against orders passed by
Adjudicating Officers under the IT Act1.

Jurisdiction: The Cyber Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction over the entire country and deals with cases related to
cybercrime and digital evidence3.
Composition: The tribunal is headed by a chairperson, who is typically a retired judge of the High Court, and
includes other members with expertise in information technology3.

Functions: The tribunal hears appeals, reviews its own decisions, and can pass orders including the imposition of
penalties and awarding of compensation.

SECTION 52D

Section 52D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, addresses the decision-making process within the Cyber
Appellate Tribunal. Here are the key points:

Decision by Majority: If the members of a bench consisting of two members differ in opinion on any point, they
must state the points on which they differ and refer the matter to the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal.

Role of the Chairperson: The Chairperson will then hear the points of disagreement and make a decision based on
the majority opinion of the members who have heard the case, including the original two members.

Ensuring Fairness: This process ensures that decisions are made fairly and reflect the majority view, even when
there is a disagreement among the members of the bench.

SECTION 55

Section 55 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, addresses the finality of orders made by the Cyber Appellate
Tribunal. Here are the key points:

Finality of Orders: No order of the Central Government appointing any person as the Chairperson or Member of a
Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall be called into question in any manner1.

Proceedings Validity: No act or proceeding before a Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall be called into question on the
ground merely of any defect in the constitution of the Tribunal1.

Purpose: This provision ensures the smooth functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal by preventing legal
challenges based solely on procedural defects.

SECTION 57

Section 57 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 allows a person to appeal to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal if
they are aggrieved by an order made by an adjudicating officer or controller under the Act:

The appeal must be filed within 45 days of receiving a copy of the order.

The Appellate Tribunal may entertain an appeal after the 45-day period if there was a sufficient reason for not filing
it on time.

The Appellate Tribunal will hear the parties to the appeal and pass an order that confirms, modifies, or sets aside the
original order.

The Appellate Tribunal will send a copy of the order to the parties and the concerned controller or adjudicating
officer.

The Appellate Tribunal will try to dispose of the appeal within six months of receiving it.

SECTION 58

Section 58 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, outlines the procedural aspects and powers of the Cyber
Appellate Tribunal. Here are the key points:

Procedure and Natural Justice: The Cyber Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Instead, it follows the principles of natural justice and has the authority to regulate its own procedures.
Flexibility in Operations: The Tribunal can decide on the place and manner of its hearings, providing flexibility in
its operations.

Powers of the Tribunal: The Tribunal has the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
including summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, requiring the discovery and production of
documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents,
and reviewing its decisions.

Objective: These provisions ensure that the Tribunal can effectively handle appeals and disputes related to cyber
law, maintaining a fair and just process.

SECTION 59

ection 59 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, addresses the right to legal representation before the Cyber
Appellate Tribunal. Here are the key points:

Right to Representation: An appellant has the right to appear in person or authorize one or more legal practitioners
or any of its officers to present their case before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.

Flexibility: This provision ensures that appellants can choose to represent themselves or seek professional legal
assistance, providing flexibility in how they present their case.

Ensuring Fairness: By allowing legal representation, the Act ensures that appellants can adequately defend their
rights and interests in proceedings before the Tribunal.

SECTION 60

Section 60 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to
appeals made to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal.

SECTION 61

Section 61 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that no court can hear any legal action or suit related to
matters that the Cyber Appellate Tribunal or an adjudicating officer can decide. It also states that no court or other
authority can grant an injunction for any action taken or to be taken under the powers given by the Act.\

SECTION 62

Section 62 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with appeals to the High Court from the Cyber
Appellate Tribunal (CAT):

Appeal - A person can appeal to the High Court within 60 days of the CAT's decision or order if they are aggrieved
by it.

Additional time - The High Court can allow an appeal to be filed within an additional 60 days if it is satisfied that
the appellant had a sufficient reason for not filing within the original time limit.

Points of appeal - The appeal can be made on any point of fact or law arising from the CAT's decision or order.

SECTION 63

Section 63 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with compounding contraventions:

Compounding - Compounding a contravention means to condone it for a consideration, usually monetary. This
allows the accused to avoid prosecution and a possible conviction.

Conditions -The Controller, authorized officer, or adjudicating officer can specify the conditions for compounding.
Penalty - The sum paid for compounding cannot exceed the maximum penalty for the contravention.

Exceptions - The provisions of section 63 do not apply to people who commit the same or similar contravention
within three years of the first compounding.

Subsequent contraventions - Any subsequent contravention after the three-year period is considered a first
contravention.

Proceedings - Once a contravention has been compounded, no further proceedings can be taken against the person
guilty of the contravention.

SECTION 64

Section 64 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 states that if a penalty or compensation is not paid under the
Act, it can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue: The license or Electronic Signature Certificate will be
suspended until the penalty is paid.

CHAPTER XI (OFFENCES)

SECTION 65

Section 65 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the tampering with computer source code:

Punishment - A person can be punished with up to three years in prison, a fine of up to two lakh rupees, or both.

What is covered

This section applies to anyone who intentionally or knowingly conceals, destroys, or alters computer source code. It
also applies to anyone who causes another person to do so.

What is computer source code

This includes the written instructions and commands used to run computers and their programs. It also includes the
design and layout of the computer source code.

When it applies

This section applies when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law.

SECTION 66

Section 66 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with computer-related offenses and provides for
punishment for those who act dishonestly or fraudulently:

The punishment for a violation of Section 66 can be up to three years in prison, a fine of up to Rs 5 lakh, or both.

The words "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" are defined in the Indian Penal Code.

SECTION 66 A

Section 66A made it a crime to send offensive messages using a computer or other electronic device. It also made it
illegal to send information that was known to be false.

Punishment- The punishment for sending offensive messages was up to three years in prison and a fine.

What was considered offensive -Messages that were grossly offensive, intended to deceive, or caused annoyance or
inconvenience were considered offensive.

Supreme Court ruling

In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in the Shreya Singhal case, ruling that it violated the freedom
of speech guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The court also ruled that online intermediaries should only take
down content when ordered to do so by the government or a court.

SECTION 66B

Section 66B of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in India deals with the punishment for dishonestly receiving
or retaining a stolen computer resource or communication device:

The punishment is imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both

The punishment applies to anyone who knowingly receives or retains a stolen computer resource or communication
device.

SECTION 66C

Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deals with identity theft and the punishment for it. The
section states that anyone who:

Fraudulently or dishonestly uses another person's electronic signature, password, or other unique identification
feature

Is punished with imprisonment for up to three years

May also be fined up to one lakh rupees

For example, if someone uses a real person's photograph or other personal details to create a fake profile, they
would be guilty of an offense under Section 66C.

SECTION 66D

Section 66D of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the punishment for cheating by personation
using a computer resource. This includes:

Imprisonment for up to three years

A fine of up to one lakh rupees

Examples of cheating by personation include: Creating a fake Facebook profile, Unauthorized access to another
person's account, and Hacking someone's income tax account.

SECTION 66E

Section 66E of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in India punishes the intentional or knowing capture,
publication, or transmission of a private area image without consent. The punishment for violating this section
includes:

Up to three years in prison

A fine of up to two lakh rupees

Both imprisonment and a fine

SECTION 66F

Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 of India defines cyber terrorism and prescribes the
punishment for it:
Definition

Cyber terrorism is any act that intends to threaten India's unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty. It can also include
acts that intend to strike terror in the people or any section of the people.

Punishment

Anyone who commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism can be punished with imprisonment for life.

Examples of cyber terrorism

Some examples of cyber terrorism include:

Denying or causing the denial of access to a computer resource to an authorized person

Attempting to access a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access

Introducing or causing to introduce a computer contaminant

Disrupting or causing damage to essential services or supplies

SECTION 67

Punishment

This section of the act penalizes the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The
punishment for the first conviction is up to three years in prison and a fine of up to five lakh rupees. For subsequent
convictions, the punishment is up to five years in prison and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees.

Scope

The section applies to material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or has the potential to corrupt people
who read, see, or hear it. It also applies to material that depicts children in sexually explicit acts.

Misuse

Some say that the section is widely misused and that the term "obscene" is not clearly defined. This leaves room for
misinterpretation and misuse. Gender-neutral

The section is gender-neutral, recognizing that online harassment can affect anyone. However, it is often used in
cases of cybercrime against women.

SECTION 67A

Section 67A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the punishment for publishing or sharing
sexually explicit material in electronic form:

Punishment: The punishment for the first conviction is a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 10
lakh. For a second or subsequent conviction, the punishment is a maximum of seven years in prison and a fine of up
to Rs 10 lakh.

SECTION 67B

Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, addresses offenses related to the publication or transmission
of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts or conduct. This section is crucial for combating child
exploitation and child pornography online. Here are the key points:

Scope: Section 67B covers any electronic material that portrays children in sexually explicit acts or conduct. This
includes images, videos, and other digital formats.
Penalties:

First Offense: Imprisonment for up to 5 years and a fine up to 10 lakh rupees.

Subsequent Offenses: Imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine up to 10 lakh rupees1.

Sub-sections:

67B(a): Criminalizes the publication or transmission of such material.

67B(b): Covers the creation, collection, seeking, browsing, downloading, advertising, promoting, exchanging, or
distributing material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner.

67B©: Addresses the facilitation of abusing children online.

67B(d): Penalizes the recording of abuse or sexually explicit acts involving children

SECTION 67C

Section 67C of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with the preservation and retention of information by
intermediaries:

The Central Government can prescribe the manner, format, and duration for which intermediaries must retain
information.

Intermediaries who intentionally or knowingly violate the provisions of this section may be liable to a penalty of up
to ₹25 lakh.

SECTION 68

Section 68 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives the Controller the power to direct a Certifying Authority
or its employees to take certain actions or stop carrying out certain activities:

To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Act, rules, or regulations made thereunder

To take measures specified in the order

If someone intentionally or knowingly fails to comply with an order under this section, they can be guilty of an
offense and face the following penalties: Imprisonment for up to two years, A fine of up to one lakh rupees, and
Both.

SECTION 69

Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives the Central and State Governments the power to order the
interception, monitoring, or decryption of information stored, transmitted, received, or generated in a computer
resource. The government can issue this order if it believes it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of:

India's sovereignty or integrity

India's defense

The security of the state

Friendly relations with foreign states

Public order

Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense

 The government must record the reasons for the order in writing. The Information Technology (Procedures and
Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring or Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, prescribe the procedures and
safeguards that must be followed. Some of these rules include:

Only a competent authority can issue an order for decryption, monitoring, or interception.

The competent authority must review the order within seven days.

The directions remain in force for 60 days from the date of issue.

SECTION 69A

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 gives the Indian government the power to block access to
information online:

What it allows

The government can block access to information on any computer resource, including information that is generated,
transmitted, received, stored, or hosted.

Who it applies to

The government can direct intermediaries, such as internet service providers, search engines, and web hosting
services, to block access to information.

When it can be used

The government can block information if it deems it a threat to India's sovereignty, integrity, defense, security,
public order, or friendly relations with foreign states. The government can also use this power to prevent the
incitement of cognizable offenses or to investigate offenses.

Examples of use

The government has used Section 69A to block access to the Blue Whale online gaming challenge, to Yahoo,
Google, and Microsoft for advertisements that violated the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques
Act, and to Facebook during the 2020 Delhi Riots.

Judicial oversight

The courts have ensured that Section 69A is only used in necessary and appropriate circumstances. For example, the
Supreme Court has ruled that Section 69A cannot be used to completely shut down an area unless it is "necessary"
and "unavoidable"

SECTION 69B

Section 69B of the Information Technology Act of 2000 gives the Central Government the power to authorize
agencies to monitor and collect information for cyber security. This includes:

Monitoring

The government can authorize agencies to monitor traffic data, information generated, transmitted, received, or
stored in any computer resource.

Prevention

The government can authorize agencies to identify, analyze, and prevent the spread of computer contaminants.

Technical assistance

The government can authorize agencies to provide technical assistance.

Online access

The government can authorize agencies to secure and provide online access to computer resources.

The government can make this authorization by notification in the Official Gazette.

SECTION 70

Section 70 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 covers protected systems and the penalties for accessing
them without authorization:

Protected systems

The government can declare a computer resource a protected system if it affects the Critical Information
Infrastructure (CII). The CII is a computer resource that could have a debilitating impact on national security, the
economy, public health, or safety.

Access authorization

The government can authorize people to access protected systems by writing an order.

Penalties

Accessing a protected system without authorization is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine.

Information security practices

The central government must prescribe information security practices and procedures for protected systems.

SECTION 70A

Section 70A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 allows the Central Government to designate a government
organization as the national nodal agency for Critical Information Infrastructure Protection:

The designation is made by publishing a notification in the Official Gazette.

The national nodal agency is responsible for all measures related to protecting Critical Information Infrastructure,
including research and development.

The manner in which the agency performs its functions and duties is prescribed.

SECTION 70B

Section 70B of the Information Technology Act of 2000 establishes the Indian Computer Emergency Response
Team (CERT) as the national agency for cyber security incident response. The CERT's functions include:

Collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information on cyber incidents

Forecasting and alerting of cyber security incidents

Emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents

Coordinating cyber incidents response activities

Issuing guidelines, advisories, vulnerability notes, and white papers relating to information security practices

The Central Government appoints the CERT through a notification in the Official Gazette. The CERT is also
provided with a Director General and other officers and employees.

SECTION 71
Section 71 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the penalties for misrepresentation or suppression
of material facts to the Controller or Certifying Authority:

The penalty for misrepresentation is a fine of up to one lakh rupees and/or imprisonment for up to two years.

This section applies to anyone who obtains a license or Electronic Signature Certificate through misrepresentation or
suppression of material facts.

SECTION 72

Section 72 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in India outlines the penalties for breaching confidentiality
and privacy:

Penalty

The penalty for breaching confidentiality and privacy is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to one lakh
rupees, or both.

Conditions

The penalty applies to anyone who:

Has access to electronic records, books, registers, correspondence, information, documents, or other material
without the person's consent

Discloses the material to another person

Does so in the exercise of powers conferred under the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder

SECTION 72A

Section 72A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in India deals with the punishment for disclosing personal
information in breach of a lawful contract:

Punishment

The punishment for disclosing personal information without the consent of the person concerned or in breach of a
lawful contract includes imprisonment for up to three years, a fine of up to five lakh rupees, or both.

Applicability

The punishment applies to anyone who has access to material containing personal information about another person,
including an intermediary.

Clarification

The government introduced the "Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and
sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011" to clarify the amendment.

SECTION 73

Section 73 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the penalty for publishing a false Electronic
Signature Certificate (ESC). The section states that:

The subscriber listed in the certificate did not accept it

The certificate has been revoked or suspended

The publication can only be for the purpose of verifying an electronic signature created before the suspension or
revocation
Anyone who violates the provisions of sub-section (1) can be punished with:

Imprisonment for up to two years

A fine of up to one lakh rupees

Both.

SECTION 74

Section 74 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the punishment for creating, publishing, or making
available an Electronic Signature Certificate (ESC) for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose:

The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to two years, a fine of up to one lakh rupees, or both.

SECTION 75

Section 75 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 states that the Act's provisions apply to any offense or
contravention committed outside of India, regardless of the offender's nationality. The Act also applies if the offense
involves a computer, computer system, or computer network located in India.

SECTION 76

Section 76 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the confiscation of computers, computer systems,
and other related items if the Act or its rules are violated. Here are some notes on this section:

If the court finds that the person in possession of the items is not responsible for the violation, the court can make
other orders against the person.

These orders can include confiscating the items or making other orders authorized by the Act.

The court can also make other orders instead of confiscating the items if it is satisfied that the person in possession is
not responsible for the violation.

SECTION 77

Section 77 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 states that penalties, compensation, or confiscation under the
Act cannot prevent the imposition of other punishments or the award of compensation under any other law.

SECTION 77A

Section 77A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 deals with the compounding of offenses. Here are some
notes on this section:

A court of competent jurisdiction can compound offenses that are not punishable by life or more than three years in
prison.

A court cannot compound an offense if:

The accused is liable for a different punishment or enhanced punishment due to a previous conviction

The offense affects the country's socio-economic conditions

The offense was committed against a woman or a child under 18 years of age

The accused can file an application for compounding in the court where the offense is pending for trial

The provisions of sections 265B and 265C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply.

SECTION 77B
Section 77B of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) states that offenses punishable by three years or more in
prison are cognizable and bailable. This is in spite of anything stated in the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973.

SECTION 78

Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives police officers the authority to investigate offenses under
the act. The section states that:

A police officer who is not below the rank of Inspector must investigate any offense under the act, regardless of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

An officer below the rank of Police Inspector can register an FIR for offenses punishable under Section 66E of the
Act.

However, the investigation must be conducted by someone who is not below the rank of an Inspector of Police.

CHAPTER XII (INTERMEDIARIES NOT TO BE LIABLE IN CERTAIN CASES)

SECTION 79

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides conditional immunity from liability for third-party
acts to intermediaries in certain cases. This is known as a "safe harbor" provision.

Immunity

Intermediaries are generally not liable for third-party information, data, or communication links they make available
or host.

Exceptions

Intermediaries can be liable if they:

Conspire, aid, or induce others to commit an unlawful act

Do not act with due diligence

Do not follow guidelines prescribed by the Central Government

Notice and take down

Intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content if they receive actual knowledge of it

Technical, automatic, and passive activities

Intermediaries are not liable if their activity is technical, automatic, and passive, and they do not have knowledge or
control over the information

Guidelines

The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 were notified in April 2011.

CHAPTER XIIA (EXAMINER OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE)

SECTION 79A

Section 79A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 requires the Central Government to notify an Examiner of
Electronic Evidence (EEE) to provide expert opinions on electronic evidence in court or other authority. The
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has developed a scheme to identify and select
EEEs.Here are some notes on Section 79A:

Application process
The application process includes:

Submitting a completed application form

Providing enclosures for a site with a well-defined scope

Being evaluated through a three-stage process

Receiving a unique Lab Registration Number (LRN)

Scope of approval

The scope of approval may include:

Computer forensics

Network forensics

Mobile devices forensics

Digital video/image and CCTV forensics

Digital audio forensics

Device specific forensics

Digital equipment/machines

Role of the EEE

The EEE plays an advisory role and their opinion is not bound to the Court.

SECTION 80

Section 80 of the Information Technology Act of 2000 gives police officers and other authorized government
officials the power to enter public places and arrest people suspected of committing an offense under the act:

Who can enter

Any police officer at the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher, or any other authorized government
official, can enter a public place.

What can be searched

The officer can search the public place.

Who can be arrested

The officer can arrest anyone found in the public place who is reasonably suspected of committing an offense under
the act.

What happens to the arrested person

If the arrested person is not a police officer, they must be taken to a magistrate or police station officer without
delay.

What applies

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to any entry, search, or arrest made under this section.
LEGAL RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) of 2023 formally recognizes electronic evidence as primary evidence in
Indian legal proceedings. This means that digital documents, emails, server logs, and other electronic data can be
admitted in court without requiring physical copies.

Certificate

The electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate in a prescribed format. The certificate is issued by a
responsible official or expert and has two parts: Part A is completed by the party presenting the evidence, and Part B
is completed by an expert.

Admissibility

The court must first examine the relevancy of the electronic records, then evaluate their admissibility, and finally the
party presenting the evidence must prove it.

The BSA's provisions for electronic evidence are similar to those in the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), but with the
addition of the requirement for an expert.

COPYRIGHT ISSUES IN CYBER SPACE

Cyberspace issues at the present

Copyright violations have become common with the rise of the Internet and the growth of related information
technologies. Copyright infringement affects many digital products and is not limited to a few hits; they are
omnipresent in cyberspace. The hazards to Intellectual Property Rights (I.P.R.) on the Internet are numerous, and
major infringement of copyright is just the edge of the iceberg. The development of and World Wide Web has led to
the establishment of cyberspace, a wild and lawless environment that creates serious copyright problems. To prevent
works from being duplicated and distributed, copyright owners have created technical safeguards such as the
Electronic Copyright Management System (ECMS).

Violation of Copyright

Plagiarism

Technology improvements have made it easier to reproduce content protected by copyrights. As a result, it has been
challenging, if not difficult, to prevent copyright violations. Creating and distributing thousands of copies of books,
films, music, and other media is simple.

Caching

One of the most fundamental copyright concerns on the Internet is where the border between personal and
commercial use should be drawn. Copyright Law of India distinguishes between public use reproduction and
reproduction that requires the correct holder’s allowance.

Unlawful database use

The Copyright Law of India 1957, Section 2(o), covers “Databases” as “Literary Works.” “Computer database” was
defined for the first instance in the Information Technology Act of 2000. Under Section 43 of the I.T. Act of 2000, a
person who violates rights and internet restrictions faces fines of up to ₹1 crore. Various offences, such as electronic
trespassing, electronic duplication, privacy invasion, theft of data, and others, are made crimes under Section 43 of
the Act.

Unlawful use of software within computers

A computer plan is known as a “collection of orders, group of words, symbols, patterns, or any other format, along
with a computer medium, capable of allowing a computer system perform a specific function or accomplish a
particular result,” as stated in Section 2(ffc) of Copyright Law.

TRADEMARK AND DOMAIN NAME ISSUES IN CYBER SPACE

What is trademark? A trademark is a recognizable insignia, phrase, word, or symbol that denotes a specific product
and legally differentiates it from all other products of its kind. A trademark exclusively identifies a product as
belonging to a specific company and recognizes the company's ownership of the brand.

Trademark has been a topic of discussion on the internet. But many risks are associated with its usage as well which
has to be taken care of. Cyberspace is a vast and comprehensive field because of which it raises numerous trademark
and trademark-related issues. The most important and prominent one is “Domain Name” related issues.

A domain name is part of the address and location of a site on the internet. While trademark have been around for a
long time, domain names are comparatively a latest concept attracting public attention.

With the globalization and commercialization of the Internet, Domain name has become a symbol of goodwill and
recognition. Besides cyberspace, Domain names are now being frequently used in real world as well. It is being
shown on television commercials, magazine covers, and even on the sides of buses etc. The basic structure of
internet is Internet Protocol which is used for computer server communication in the numeric form and known as IP
address in common parlance. But it is often difficult to retain such IP addresses in my mind for a longer period. So,
to rip apart such problem Domain names have been brought into picture. It is acting as a good alternative of IP
address. Some famous domain names are .BLOG for blogs, .COM for commercials, .CO for company, .LOANS for
loans, etc.

Disputes over ownership of the domain names are mounting up for a number of reasons. The domain name has been
considered as corresponding to a trademark. Therefore, those who own the mark for the no-internet business wish to
use the same on the internet; it is seen as a valuable addition to the branding of goods or services as a whole.
Trademark law has territorial influence. Therefore, different businesses trading under the same mark in various parts
of the world may have what they consider to be the same valid claim to a particular domain name, as no domain
name can be identical therefore only business house can have a particular name.

In India, the domain name disputes are administered and managed by the Indian Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (commonly as .INDRP Registry). The INDRP has its own set of rules and policies under which the complaint
is filed against the domain name infringement. The INDRP have their list of panel members to decide the
complaints.

Important case laws on the issue of domain name :-

Green Products Co. v. Independence Corn By-Products Co. (ICBP)-[1]Brief facts of the case are stated herein. Both
the companies were competitors to each other in the market of corncob by-product. ICBP got the domain name
(greenproducts.com) registered but did not post a website as yet. The court held that the intention of ICBP was to
use its confusing domain name to lure potential customers to the site once it was created and wanted to be benefited
unjustly from the use of Green Product’s name. Court further said that consumers might not get confused after
visiting the website but even after it, they may buy the product from ICBP’s site only. On these findings, the court
found it a fit case for infringement.

Maruti.com et al. v. Maruti Udyog Ltd.et al- [2]Brief facts of the case are stated herein. Where Maruti Udyog, an
Indian company which has its reputation with its name in India had also registered its domain name in the United
States with marutiudyog.com. Whereas the respondent got the domain name as “Maruti.com” When the plaintiff
made a complaint before WIPO panel, the decision was made in favour of Udyog. Also, the respondent had got
stamped as a cyber squatter three times by WIPO panel in WIPO arbitration cases filed by Onida, Hero Honda and
Maruti. Yet when the case approached the United States courts, the WIPO panel decisions were considered non-
binding. Even the United States Anti Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act was said not to have applied.

The court further held that as Maruti did not manufacture or sell its cars in the United States and so were not entitled
to protection under their land law of trademark i,e. Lanham Act, 1946.

OTHER TRADEMARK ISSUES IN CYBERSPACE

Apart from Domain Name issue , there are several other trademark issues in Cyberspace:-

1) Linking & Framing- Using deep links, frames and other graphics on your website can sometimes be
problematic as it is an infringement of other website owner’s right. For an instance- Deep linking allows visitors to
bypass information and advertisements at the home page and go directly to an internal page. There is no law or court
ruling that prohibits deep linking. However, businesses dislike deep links because:

Linked-to sites can lose income since their revenues are often tied to the number of viewers who pass through their
home page.

It may mistakenly create the impression in a user's mind that the two linked sites endorse each other.

On the other hand "Framing" is the process of allowing a user to view the contents of one website while it is framed
by information from another site, similar to the "picture-in-picture" feature offered on some televisions. Framing
may trigger a dispute under copyright and trademark law theories, because a framed site arguably alters the
appearance of the content and creates the impression that its owner endorses or voluntarily chooses to associate with
the framer (https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/linking-framing-inlining-30090.html)
2) Meta Tagging – It’s a technique whereby a word, let’s say “College” is inserted in the keywords section of the
site, in order to increase the chances of a search engine returning the site although the site may have nothing to do
with the inserted word.

3) Jurisdiction Issues- As we all know, internet greatly dilutes the significance of physical location of the parties,
as transactions in cyberspace are not geographically defined. Any person can access internet from any place in the
world. An information may pass from several networks. First decision by a Federal Court of Appeal on issue of
jurisdiction in cyberspace was Cybersell, Inc v. Cybersell, Inc[3]. Brief facts of the case are stated herein. Plaintiff
was an Arizona Corporation, that advertised its commercial services over the internet and defendant was a Florida
Corporation offering web page construction services over the internet. Plaintiff company alleged that the allege
Florida trademark infringer should be subject to personal jurisdiction of Federal Court in Arizona because a website
which advertises a product or service is intended for use on a worldwide basis. The court applied “Minimum
Contacts” test to determine the issue. Court held that conduct of defendant does not amount to “purposeful
availment “ under the said test. It was only a passive usage and not a commercial usage.

4) Dilution- Dilution happens when trademark owner’s trademark which is quiet famous or a similar one is used
in such a way to dilute the distinctive quality of the mark.

Dilution is therefore different from normal trademark infringement because trademark infringement always involves
a probability of customer confusion, whereas dilution can occur even if customers wouldn’t be misled. For example,
if a person sells sex aids named “Microsoft,” no consumer is likely to associate Fred’s products with the software
company, Microsoft. However, because Microsoft has become such a strong and famous mark, the use of the word
on sex aids would definitely trivialize the software company’s mark (dilute its strength by tarnishing its reputation
for quality or blurring its distinctiveness)

5) Trademark Searching and Policing- Sometimes when a company conducts trademark search, with domain
names, it is highly possible that search result may not show the trademarks actually in use. Same is the case with
trademark policing. Trademark owner should keep policing their trademark in order to prevent the loss of trademark
strength. Which sometimes becomes difficult as cyberspace is indeed a vast arena.