Information Technology Act, 2000 | |
---|---|
Parliament of India | |
| |
Citation | Information Technology Act, 2000 |
Enacted by | Parliament of India |
Enacted | 9 June 2000 |
Assented to | 9 June 2000 |
Signed | 9 May 2000 |
Commenced | 17 October 2000 |
Introduced by | Pramod Mahajan Minister of Communications and Information Technology |
Amended by | |
IT (Amendment) Act 2008 | |
Related legislation | |
IT Rules 2021 | |
Status: Amended |
The Information Technology Act, 2000 (also known as ITA-2000, or the IT Act) is an Act of the Indian Parliament (No 21 of 2000) notified on 17 October 2000. It is the primary law in India dealing with cybercrime and electronic commerce.
Secondary or subordinate legislation to the IT Act includes the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
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]
Following is a list of offences and the corresponding penalties under the 2000 Act: [7] [8]
Section | Offence | Penalty |
---|---|---|
65 | Tampering with computer source documents | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine up to ₹2,00,000 |
66 | Hacking with computer system | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine up to ₹5,00,000 |
66B | Receiving stolen computer or communication device | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
66C | Using password of another person | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
66D | Cheating using computer resource | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
66E | Publishing private images of others | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine up to ₹2,00,000 |
66F | Acts of cyberterrorism | Imprisonment up to life. |
67 | Publishing information which is obscene in electronic form. | Imprisonment up to five years, or/and fine up to ₹10,00,000 |
67A | Publishing images containing sexual acts | Imprisonment up to seven years, or/and fine up to ₹10,00,000 |
67C | Failure to maintain records | Imprisonment up to three years, or/and fine. |
68 | Failure/refusal to comply with orders | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
69 | Failure/refusal to decrypt data | Imprisonment up to seven years and possible fine. |
70 | Securing access or attempting to secure access to a protected system | Imprisonment up to ten years, or/and fine. |
71 | Misrepresentation | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
72 | Breach of confidentiality and privacy | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
72A | Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract | Imprisonment up to 3 years, or/and fine up to ₹5,00,000 |
73 | Publishing electronic signature certificate false in certain particulars | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
74 | Publication for fraudulent purpose | Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and fine up to ₹1,00,000 |
From its establishment as an amendment to the original act in 2008, Section 66A attracted controversy over its unconstitutional nature:
Section | Offence | Description | Penalty |
---|---|---|---|
66A | Publishing offensive, false or threatening information | Any person who sends by any means of a computer resource any information that is grossly offensive or has a menacing character; or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine. | Imprisonment up to three years, with fine. |
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. [32]
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. [32]
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. [33]
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. [34] [35]
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. [36]
On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict that Section 66A is unconstitutional in entirety. [37] 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. [38] [39] 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. [40]
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. [41]
Section 69 allows intercepting any information and ask for information decryption. To refuse decryption is an offence. The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 allows the government to tap phones. But according to a 1996 Supreme Court verdict, the government can tap phones only in case of a "public emergency". But there is no such restriction on Section 69. [4] On 20 December 2018, the Ministry of Home Affairs cited Section 69 in the issue of an order authorising ten central agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt “any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer.” [42] While some claim this to be a violation of the fundamental right to privacy, the Ministry of Home Affairs has claimed its validity on the grounds of national security. [43] [44]
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. [45] [46] The Internet Freedom Foundation has criticized the ban for not following the required protocols and thus lacking transparency and disclosure. [47]
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. [48]
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. [49] [50] Former Minister of State with the Ministry of Information Technology, Milind Deora has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A". [51]
In 2022, it was reported [52] 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. [53]
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." [54]
The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 suppresses India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011. [55]
Definitions and restrictions on pornography vary across jurisdictions. The production, distribution, and possession of pornographic films, photographs, and similar material are activities that are legal in many but not all countries, providing that any specific people featured in the material have consented to being included and are above a certain age. Various other restrictions often apply as well. The minimum age requirement for performers is most typically 18 years.
Section 377 is a British colonial penal code that criminalized all sexual acts "against the order of nature". The law was used to prosecute people engaging in oral and anal sex along with homosexual activity. As per a Supreme Court Judgement since 2018, the Indian Penal Code Section 377 is used to convict non-consensual sexual activities among homosexuals with a minimum of ten years’ imprisonment extended to life imprisonment. It has been used to criminalize third gender people, such as the apwint in Myanmar. In 2018, then British Prime Minister Theresa May acknowledged how the legacies of such British colonial anti-sodomy laws continue to persist today in the form of discrimination, violence, and even death.
Internet censorship in India is done by both central and state governments. DNS filtering and educating service users in suggested usages is an active strategy and government policy to regulate and block access to Internet content on a large scale. Measures for removing content at the request of content creators through court orders have also become more common in recent years. Initiating a mass surveillance government project like Golden Shield Project is an alternative that has been discussed over the years by government bodies.
Telephone call recording laws are legislation enacted in many jurisdictions, such as countries, states, provinces, that regulate the practice of telephone call recording. Call recording or monitoring is permitted or restricted with various levels of privacy protection, law enforcement requirements, anti-fraud measures, or individual party consent.
Pornography in India is restricted and illegal in all form including print media, electronic media, and digital media (OTT). Hosting, displaying, uploading, modifying, publishing, transmitting, storing, updating or sharing pornography is illegal in India.
Mouthshut.com is a consumer review and rating platform founded in 2000 by Faisal Farooqui. The company hosts reviews and ratings written by users, on more than 800,000 products and services available in India. In 2012, the company actively petitioned against Section 66A of the Indian IT Act and the Intermediary Guideline Rules, leading to their eventual scrapping and reading down by the Supreme Court of India. The site has reviews across 400+ categories.
The hate speech laws in India aim to prevent discord among its many ethnic and religious communities. The laws allow a citizen to seek the punishment of anyone who shows the citizen disrespect "on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste or any other ground whatsoever". Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code prohibits citizens from creating disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different groups of people.
Raj Kundra is a British-Indian businessman and part time actor, who was ranked as the 198th richest British Asian by Success.
Aseem Trivedi is an Indian political cartoonist and activist, known for his anti corruption campaign Cartoons Against Corruption. He is a founder member of Save Your Voice, a movement against internet censorship in India. He is the recipient of "Courage in Editorial Cartooning Award 2012" of US based Cartoonists Rights Network International.
Rohinton Fali Nariman is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India. Before being elevated as a judge, he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. He was appointed the Solicitor General of India on 23 July 2011. He also served as a member of the Bar Council of India. He was designated as a Senior Counsel by Chief Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah in 1993 at the early age of 37.
Save Your Voice is a movement against internet censorship in India. It was founded by cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, journalist Alok Dixit, socialist Arpit Gupta and Chirag Joshi in January 2012. The movement was initially named "Raise Your Voice", before it was renamed. The movement started from Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh, under the frontier-ship of the movement's four founders; with a "Langda March" at Ujjain. The movement opposes the Information Technology Act of India and demands democratic rules for the governance of Internet. The campaign is targeted at the rules framed under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Mass surveillance is the pervasive surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population. Mass surveillance in India includes Surveillance, Telephone tapping, Open-source intelligence, Lawful interception, and surveillance under Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
MouthShut.com versus Union of India was a writ petition filed by Mouthshut.com, a consumer review social media company, and its founder Faisal Farooqui, to protect freedom of speech and expression on the Internet. In this case, they challenged Sec. 66A and sought modifications or nullification of IT Rules and Section 79 of the Information Technology Act of India. This case was pivotal in determining the responsibility of intermediaries for online speech in India. On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court issued a judgment in favor of the petitioner(s) and nullified Sec. 66A, deeming it unconstitutional. It also ordered the reading down of various other sections of the IT Act, including section 79 and the IT Rules. Consequently, individuals are free to post anything online, and publishers cannot be compelled to remove content without a court order. This decision applies to all user-generated content on the Internet.
Suhas Katti v. Tamil Nadu was the first case in India where a conviction was handed down in connection with the posting of obscene messages on the internet under the controversial section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The case was filed in February 2004 and In a short span of about seven months from the filing of the FIR, the Chennai Cyber Crime Cell achieved the conviction . In the case, a woman complained to the police about a man who was sending her obscene, defamatory and annoying messages in a Yahoo message group. The accused also forwarded emails received in a fake account opened by him in the victim's name. The victim also received phone calls by people who believed she was soliciting for sex work.
Shreya Singhal is an Indian lawyer. Her fight against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in 2015 brought her to national prominence in India.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on the freedom of speech under Article 19(2). The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India.
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) is an Indian digital rights organisation that advances liberty, equality, fraternity and social justice in the digital age. IFF has three verticals of work that include strategic litigation, policy engagement and civic literacy.
The Information Technology Rules, 2021 is secondary or subordinate legislation that suppresses India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011. The 2021 rules have stemmed from section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and are a combination of the draft Intermediaries Rules, 2018 and the OTT Regulation and Code of Ethics for Digital Media.
Apar Gupta is a lawyer, founder and writer on democracy and technology from India. In 2019 he was elected as an Ashoka Fellow for, "creating a model for digital rights advocacy in the country that is driven by the public, for the public," as the co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation.
Faisal Farooqui is an Indian technology entrepreneur and the founder and CEO of the review and rating platform MouthShut.com.