Re: Indian Information Technology Act 2000 Pdf Free
Asela Buchheit
The bill was passed in the budget session of 2000 and signed by President K. R. Narayanan on 9 May 2000. The bill was finalised by a group of officials headed by the then Minister of Information Technology, Pramod Mahajan.[1]
The original Act contained 94 sections, divided into 13 chapters and 4 schedules, out of which the third and fourth schedule were omitted later. The law applies to the whole of India. If a crime involves a computer or network located in India, persons of other nationalities can also be indicted under the law.[2]
The Act provides a legal framework for electronic governance by giving recognition to electronic records and digital signatures. It also defines cyber crimes and prescribes penalties for them. The Act directed the formation of a Controller of Certifying Authorities to regulate the issuance of digital signatures. It also established a Cyber Appellate Tribunal to resolve disputes rising from this new law.[2] The Act also amended various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891, and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to make them compliant with new technologies.[2]
A major amendment was made in 2008. It introduced Section 66A which penalized sending "offensive messages". It also introduced Section 69, which gave authorities the power of "interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource". Additionally, it introduced provisions addressing: pornography, child porn, cyber terrorism and voyeurism. The amendment was passed on 22 December 2008 without any debate in Lok Sabha. The next day, it was passed by the Rajya Sabha. It was signed into law by the then President Pratibha Patil, on 5 February 2009.[3][4][5][6]
In December 2012, P Rajeev, a Rajya Sabha member from Kerala, tried to pass a resolution seeking to amend Section 66A. He was supported by D. Bandyopadhyay, Gyan Prakash Pilania, Basavaraj Patil Sedam, Narendra Kumar Kashyap, Rama Chandra Khuntia and Baishnab Charan Parida. P Rajeev pointed out that the cartoons and editorials allowed in the traditional media were being censored in the new media. He also said that the law was barely debated before being passed in December 2008.[27]
Rajeev Chandrasekhar suggested that 66A should only apply to person-to-person communication pointing to a similar section under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. Shantaram Naik opposed any changes, saying that the misuse of law was insufficient to warrant changes. The then Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr Kapil Sibal, defended the existing law, saying that similar laws existed in the US and the UK. He also said that a similar provision existed under the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. However, P Rajeev said that the UK law dealt only with communication from person to person.[27]
In November 2012, IPS officer Amitabh Thakur and his wife, social activist Nutan Thakur, filed a petition in the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court claiming that Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. They said that the section was vaguely worded and frequently misused.[28]
Also in November 2012, a Delhi-based law student, Shreya Singhal, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India. She argued that Section 66A was vaguely phrased, and as a result, it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November 2012.[29][30]
In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the central government to respond to petitions filed by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) which claimed that the IT Act gave the government power to arbitrarily remove user-generated content.[31]
On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict that Section 66A is unconstitutional in entirety.[32] The court said that Section 66A of IT Act 2000 "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech" provided under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. But the Court turned down a plea to strike down sections 69A and 79 of the Act, which deal with the procedure and safeguards for blocking certain websites.[33][34] Despite this, as per a research paper by Abhinav Sekhri and Apar Gupta, Section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 continues to be used by police departments across India in prosecutions.[35]
The data privacy rules introduced in the Act in 2011 have been described as too strict by some Indian and US firms. The rules require firms to obtain written permission from customers before collecting and using their personal data. This has affected US firms which outsource to Indian companies. However, some companies have welcomed the strict rules, saying it will remove fears of outsourcing to Indian companies.[36]
The bans on Chinese apps based on Section 69A has been criticized for possibly being in conflict with Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India ensuring freedom of speech and expression to all, as well as possibly in conflict with WTO agreements.[40][41] The Internet Freedom Foundation has criticized the ban for not following the required protocols and thus lacking transparency and disclosure.[42]
On 2 April 2015, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Devendra Fadnavis revealed to the state assembly that a new law was being framed to replace the repealed Section 66A. Fadnavis was replying to a query by Shiv Sena leader Neelam Gorhe. Gorhe had said that the repeal of the law would encourage online miscreants and asked whether the state government would frame a law in this regard. Fadnavis said that the previous law had resulted in no convictions, so the law would be framed such that it would be strong and result in convictions.[43]
On 13 April 2015, it was announced that the Ministry of Home Affairs would form a committee of officials from the Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Delhi Police and the ministry itself to produce a new legal framework. This step was reportedly taken after complaints from intelligence agencies that they were no longer able to counter online posts that involved national security matter or incited people to commit an offence, such as online recruitment for ISIS.[44][45] Former Minister of State with the Ministry of Information Technology, Milind Deora has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A".[46]
In 2022, it was reported[47] that there has been a proposal to replace the Information Technology Act with a more comprehensive and updated Digital India Act, which would cover a wider range of information technology issues and concerns. This law could ostensibly have focal areas around privacy, social media regulation, regulation of over-the-top platforms, internet intermediaries, introducing additional contraventions or offences, and governance of new technologies.[48]
The Indian government closely connects data to citizens' privacy and this is demonstrated when Shiv Shankar Singh states, "Each person must be able to exercise a substantial degree of control over that data and its use. Data protection is legal safeguard to prevent misuse of information about individual person on a medium including computers."[49]
India's IT Act 2000 covers offenses involving computers, computer systems, or computer networks in India. It also makes acts like hacking, data theft, spreading of computer viruses, identity theft, defamation (sending offensive messages), pornography, child pornography, and cyber terrorism criminal offenses, and gives legal validity to electronic contracts and recognition of electronic signatures.
The Information Technology Act of 2000 came into force on October 17, 2000. This act is imposed upon the whole of India. Its provisions apply to any offense committed inside or outside India's geographic boundaries and irrespective of nationality.
It's founded upon the 1996 United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce (UNCITRAL Model), which the United Nations General Assembly suggested through a resolution on January 30, 1997.
Today, the India IT Act of 2000 is the most important law in India dealing with ecommerce and cybercrime. It is also considered one of the strictest privacy laws in the world, and to avoid potential penalties, those who operate from India need to understand what's in it.
For instance, the IT Act has 13 chapters and 90 sections. The last four sections deal with revisions to the Indian Penal Code. The Indian government revised the law several times, inserted four new offenses, and enhanced the punishment for the existing eight computer-related crimes.
Any person who is a victim of data theft, hacking, or spreading of viruses can apply for compensation from the Adjudicator appointed under Section 46 of the Act. The Adjudicator will review the case and decide if compensation is warranted.
Suppose the Adjudicator decides that compensation is warranted. In that case, the person will be able to receive compensation from the company or individual responsible for the data theft, hacking, or spreading of computer viruses.
The IT Act 2000 is applicable to companies that do business in India, including entities registered in the country, ones that outsource there, and ones that maintain servers within the country's borders.
The IT Act contains a list of offenses and corresponding punishments. Some of the more severe violations include tampering with computer source documents, hacking, receiving stolen computers, using another person's password and others.
Computer source code is the set of instructions that tell a computer what to do. It is the foundation of all computer programs, systems, and networks. If a person knowingly or intentionally destroys, conceals, or alters computer source code, they could be sentenced to imprisonment of up to three years and/or a fine of up to RS 200,000 (Indian rupees).
7fc3f7cf58