Site icon Legal Vidhiya

THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 – STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

Admin
Advertisements
Spread the love

This article is written by Saurabh Dwivedi of 8th semester of Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College Pune

Abstract

The Information Technology Act is a comprehensive law that regulates different facets of digital commerce, electronic communication, and cybersecurity. The Act, which was passed in 2000, was designed to meet the opportunities and difficulties that are increasing as a result of the rapid improvements in information technology. The article provides an in-depth analysis of the Information Technology Act of 2000, focusing on its objectives, the reasoning behind its enactment, landmark judgments related to the Act, and identified loopholes in its implementation.

Keywords

Information Technology, Digital commerce, Cyber-security, Data protection, Privacy, Electronic governance

Introduction

The Act characterizes different offenses connected with break of information and protection of an individual and gives discipline or punishments to them. It additionally discusses middle people and manages the force of web-based entertainment. With the headway of innovation and online business, there has been an enormous expansion in digital wrongdoings and offenses connected with information and genuine data. The government decided to regulate social media activities and the data they store because even data about the country’s security and integrity was not safe.

Objectives of the Act

The Information Technology Act of 2000[1] grants legal recognition to transactions involving electronic commerce or the electronic exchange of data and other electronic means of communication[2]. In order to make it easier for documents to be filed electronically with government agencies, this also entails using methods of communication and information storage that are not dependent on paper. In addition, it made changes to the Reserve Bank of India Act of 1934, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act of 1891. The goals of the Demonstration are as per the following:

In place of the earlier method of communication that was based on paper, grant legal recognition to all transactions that are carried out through the electronic exchange of data, other electronic means of communication, or e-commerce. Legally sanction and facilitate the electronic transfer of funds between banks and financial institutions. Legally recognize bankers for keeping the books of accounts in electronic form under the Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. Give digital signatures legal recognition for the authentication of any information or matters requiring legal authentication help departments and government entities get documents electronically. enable data to be stored electronically.

Statement of Objects and Reasons of Information Technology Act

As revised by the Information Technology Amendment Bill 2006, it was approved by the Lok sabha and the Rajya Sabha on December 22 and 23, 2008, respectively, and obtained presidential assent on February 5, 2009, and went into force on October 27, 2009. An Act to Facilitate Electronic Filing of Documents with Government Agencies and Further To Amend The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, The Bankers’ Books E Act, The Indian Evidence Act, and The Electronic Data Interchange and Other Means of Electronic Communication, Commonly Known As “Electronic Commerce,” which Involves the Use of Alternatives to Paper Based Methods of Communication and Storage of Information

Reason and Objectives

The Information Technology Act of 2000 was enacted in India with specific reasons and objectives in mind. Here are the main reasons and objectives behind the enactment of the Act:

Landmark judgments on Information Technology Act, 2000

  1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)[3]

The case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India challenges the constitutionality of section 66A of the Information Technology Act 2000 in light of the fundamental right to “Freedom of Speech and Expression” enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India overturned section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which protected freedom of expression by allowing for the arrest of individuals who posted allegedly offensive content on social media or the internet. The High Court in Shreya Singhal v. Association of India likewise held that the Segment was not saved by ideals of being a ‘sensible limitation’ on the right to speak freely under Article 19(2).

Facts

In this case, a shoe manufacturer sued the defendants for utilizing its trademarks and insignia, asking for an order of injunction against them.

Issue

Whether or not this situation qualifies for the “safe harbour” protection provided by Section 79 of the Act?

Judgment

The court in this case noted that the defendant was not an intermediary because their website operated as a distribution hub for a range of goods. In order to draw customers to the vendors, it marketed them and exploited information from third parties. According to the Court, e-commerce platforms are distinct from intermediaries and the rights that are given to them under Section 79 of the Act. It commanded the middlemen to exercise caution in their work and respect the trademark owner’s rights. When dealing with any merchant or dealer, they must take precautions to The Court further stated that intermediaries will not be entitled to the protection of safe harbor under Section 79 of the Act if they exhibit negligence with regard to IPR and engage in any kind of aiding or abetting of illegal or unlawful behavior. Any involvement in e-commerce would produce the same results. Additionally, it made reference to the intermediates standards, which specify that while showing any content on its website, no intermediary shall infringe upon the intellectual property rights of any third party. recognize the authenticity and validity of the products.

India’s first cybercrime conviction occurred in 2013. Everything began when a complaint was recorded by Sony India Private Ltd, which manages the non-resident Indian-focused website www.sony-sambandh.com. The website allows NRIs to purchase Sony products online and then send them to friends and family in India.

The business guarantees to deliver the products to those who require them. A Sony Color television and cordless headphones were ordered from the internet in May 2002 by someone posing as Barbara Campa, according to the cybercrime case study. She gave her charge card number for installment and mentioned the items to be conveyed to Arif Azim in Noida. The credit card company approved the payment and processed the transaction. In the wake of following the pertinent techniques of a reasonable level of effort and checking, the organization conveyed the things to Arif Azim.

The company took digital photos of Arif Azim accepting the delivery at the time of delivery. After one and a half months, the credit card company informed the company that the transaction was unauthorized due to the fact that the actual owner had denied making the purchase.

The Central Bureau of Investigation opened an investigation under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code after the company reported to it about internet fraud. The matter was explored, and Arif Azim was captured. Arif Azim was working at a call center in Noida when he got access to the American national’s credit card number, which he used fraudulently on the company’s website.

The CBI recuperated the variety TV and the cordless earphone, in this unique digital extortion case. The accused admitted his guilt because the CBI had evidence to support their case in this case. Arif Azim was found guilty for the first time of cybercrime by the court under Sections 418, 419, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court, notwithstanding, felt that as the blamed was a young man for 24 years and a first-time convict, a permissive view should have been taken. The court, in this manner, delivered the blamed waiting on the post-trial process for one year. The judgment is of gigantic importance for the whole country. In addition to being the first cybercrime conviction, it demonstrates that the Indian Penal Code can effectively address cybercrimes that are not covered by the Information Technology Act 2000. Furthermore, a judgment of this sort conveys an unmistakable message to all that the law can’t be had a good time with.

In 2013, in perhaps of the biggest remuneration granted in lawful settlement of a cybercrime debate, Maharashtra’s IT secretary Rajesh Aggarwal had requested PNB to pay Rs 45 lakh to the Complainant Manmohan Singh Matharu, MD of Pune based firm Poona Auto Ancillaries. After Matharu responded to a phishing email, a con artist had transferred Rs 80.10 lakh from his account at PNB, Pune. The complainant was approached to share the risk since he answered the phishing mail however the Bank was found careless because of an absence of legitimate security checks against misrepresentation accounts opened to dupe the Complainant.

Facts

Under the Dhirubhai Ambani Pioneer Scheme, the subscriber bought a Reliance device and Reliance mobile services at the same time. The subscriber desired to switch service providers as a result of other service providers’ superior tariff offerings. The Electronic Serial Number (hereafter referred to as “ESN”) was compromised by the petitioners. Reliance devices’ Mobile Identification Numbers were permanently connected with their ESNs; hence, if the ESN was reprogrammed, the device would now need to be authenticated by the Petitioner’s service provider rather than Reliance Infocomm.

Questions before the Court: i) Whether a telephone handset is a “Computer” under Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act?

ii) Whether manipulation of ESN programmed into a mobile handset amounts to an alteration of source code under Section 65 of the IT Act?

Decision

 According to Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act, a “computer” is any electronic, appealing, optical, or other fast information handling device or framework that performs constant, number juggling, and memory functions under the control of electronic, appealing, or optical driving forces. It also includes all information, yield, handling, capacity, PC programming, or correspondence offices that are connected or associated with the PC in a PC framework or PC organization. As a result, a phone handset falls under the purview of “computer” as that term is defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the IT Act.

Loopholes in Information Technology Act, 2000

The Demonstration gives different arrangements connected with advanced marks and electronic records, alongside the obligation of delegates, yet bombs in different angles. They are-

The Act’s provisions only talk about gathering citizens’ information and data and disseminating it. There is no provision for data breach. It gives no solution for the break and hole of information, nor does it notice the obligation or responsibility of anybody assuming it is penetrated by any substance or government association. A person or intermediary who refuses to cooperate with the government in surveillance will only face consequences.

The Demonstration flopped in tending to the protection issues of a person. Any mediator could store any delicate individual information of an individual and give it to the public authority for reconnaissance. This adds up to an infringement of the security of a person. The creators have ignored this concern.

However the Demonstration portrays specific offenses committed through electronic means, the disciplines given in that are a lot less complex. To decrease such violations, disciplines should be thorough.

With the assistance of cash and power, one can undoubtedly get away from obligation. On occasion, these cases go unreported as a result of a social shame that police won’t address such grievances. According to a report, police officers need to be knowledgeable about technology and trained to deal with cybercrimes in order to quickly investigate a case and refer it for swift resolution.

Cybercrimes are rising at a faster rate than ever before thanks to technological advancements. The offenses portrayed in the Demonstration are restricted, while then again, different kinds of digital wrongdoings are now overall, which in the event that not tended to as expected inside time, may make a threat. Although these crimes do not directly affect any human body, they can indirectly do so by misusing any individual’s sensitive data. Hence, the need of great importance is to control such violations. This is where the Demonstration needs.

Conclusion

the Information Technology Act of 2000 has played a crucial role in shaping India’s digital landscape and providing a legal framework for electronic transactions and data protection. Over the years, the Act has been instrumental in addressing various challenges and concerns associated with the rapid growth of information technology and the internet.

The Act has contributed significantly to the development of e-commerce, e-governance, and digital services in India. It has provided legal recognition to electronic contracts, facilitated the use of digital signatures, and established guidelines for electronic governance, making it easier for businesses and individuals to engage in online transactions securely.

Furthermore, the Act has provisions that aim to protect personal information and privacy. It establishes penalties for unauthorized access, hacking, and other cybercrimes, thereby promoting a safer online environment. It also enables the government to implement measures to protect critical information infrastructure, ensuring the security of digital systems and networks.

However, as technology continues to advance and new challenges emerge, it is important to periodically review and update the Act to keep pace with evolving digital trends. Amendments and revisions can help address emerging concerns such as cybersecurity, data privacy, and digital rights. Overall, the Information Technology Act of 2000 has been a significant milestone in India’s digital journey. It has provided a legal framework for electronic transactions, facilitated the growth of e-commerce, and ensured the protection of personal information in the digital realm. As technology continues to shape our lives, the Act will continue to play a vital role in safeguarding the interests of individuals, promoting digital innovation, and fostering a secure and trustworthy digital ecosystem.

[1] https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/13116/1/it_act_2000_updated.pdf Visited on 7/3/2023

[2] https://www.toppr.com/guides/business-laws-cs/cyber-laws/information-technology-act-2000/#Suggested_Videos  Visited on 3/07/2023

[3] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/ Visited on 3/07/2023

[4] https://blog.ipleaders.in/information-technology-act-2000/#Landmark_judgments_on_Information_Technology_Act_2000  Visited on 3/07/2023

[5] https://www.cyberralegalservices.com/detail-casestudies.php  Visited on 4/07/2023

[6] https://enhelion.com/blogs/2021/03/01/landmark-cyber-law-cases-in-india/ Visited on 4/07/2023

PDF 📄
Exit mobile version