Evolving Judicial Perspectives On Combatting Cybercrime - Ensuring Justice For Victims

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Criminal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T19:45:09.297Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:09:55.999Z

EVOLVING JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES ON COMBATTING

CYBERCRIME: ENSURING JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS Likha Ram, Research Scholar, Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh Dr. Samir Bhadury, Assistant Professor, Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh

ABSTRACT

This article offers a comprehensive analysis of the judiciary’s stance on cybercrime, focusing on the measures implemented to protect victims. It examines the role of the Supreme Court and various High Courts in adjudicating cybercrime cases, highlighting the legal remedies extended to affected individuals. Further, this delves into significant judicial interpretations, landmark rulings, and authoritative directives that aim to uphold the rights and interests of victims within the cyber space. Finally, it focuses on a critical evaluation of judicial precedents on cybercrimes and the challenges encountered by the judiciary in such cases. Keywords: Cybercrimes, Cyber Legislations, Jurisdiction, Judiciary, Cybercrime Victims.

INTRODUCTION

The rapid evolution of the digital landscape has led to the enactment of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to address cybercrime challenges. However, its effectiveness has been undermined by inconsistent implementation within the criminal justice system. Law enforcement agencies often rely on the Indian Penal Code (Now, BNS) instead of utilising the Information Technology Act’s provisions. While this trend is slowly shifting due to the rise of cybercrimes, the transition remains gradual. The Supreme Court has emphasised that special laws like the Information Technology Act should take precedence over general laws when dealing with specific offences. 1 THE JURISDICTION OF CRIMINAL COURTS IN CYBERCRIME CASES Legal authorities need a clear legal framework to act, as actions without jurisdiction can be challenged. Proper legislation is essential for the valid enforcement of the law;

1. The Information Technology Act, 2000 - The Information Technology Act, 2000,

addresses cybercrime by establishing both territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction through Sections 1(2) and 75. These provisions allow Indian courts and law enforcement agencies to take cognizance of such offences committed outside India if they target Indian computer systems or networks.2 India’s legal framework for addressing cybercrime has been strengthened by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (replaced IPC), and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023(replaced Cr.P.C). These laws extend extra-territorial jurisdiction, enabling criminal courts to adjudicate cybercrime cases based on the crime’s location or the offender’s nationality, ensuring justice regardless of where the offence occurs or who commits it.

2. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 1(4) and 1(5) of this Sanhita, 2023

establish extra-territorial jurisdiction, it means that if any person is liable under the Indian law having in force for committing an offence outside India, such person shall be punished under the provisions of this criminal law as if such offence had been committed in India. This provision applies to offences committed by Indian citizens, on

1 CHINTAN PATHAK & ASSOCIATES, LANDMARK JUDGMENT ON CYBERCRIME AND CYBER

LAW 186-190 (1st ed., 2023).

2 PAVAN DUGGAL, CYBER LAW 2 (2nd ed. 2014).

Indian-registered ships or aircraft, or targeting computer resources located in India. Further, an explanation attached to this section provides that an “offence” means to includes “every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this criminal law”.3

3. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 202 of this Sanhita, 2023

states that offences like cheating committed through electronic communications, letters, or telecommunication messages will be tried by the court within whose jurisdiction the communications were sent or received. Further, Section 208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 allows the prosecution of Indian citizens for offences committed abroad or non-citizens for crimes committed on Indian-registered ships or aircraft. However, enforcement of this provision requires prior approval from the Central Government. Section 4 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 mandates that all offences under this Act, including cybercrimes governed by the Information Technology Act, 2000, be investigated and tried according to the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

This ensures uniformity in handling crimes and reinforces the protection of victim’s rights in the evolving criminal justice system4. JUDICIARY ON THE OFFENCES UNDER THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 Cyber offences under the Act address specific criminal violations that resulted from the unauthorised access to a computer, computer system or computer resources5. Sections 65 to 74 of the Act deals with cyber offences and its punishments.

1. Tampering with Computer Source Documents (S.65)- The purpose of this section is

to safeguard the intellectual property rights embedded in computer programs, adding an important dimension to the issue of copyright infringement6. In Syed Asifuddin v. The State of Andhra Pradesh7, The High Court ruled that...;

3 Explan. to s.1(5).

4 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

5 VAKUL SHARMA & SHEEMA SHARMA, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

LAW AND PRACTICE 187-188 (6th ed., 2019).

6 Ibid.

7 2005 Cr LJ 4314.

“each handset contains a unique set of numbers, such as the Electronic Serial Number (ESN) and System Identification Code (SID), which fall under the definition of ‘computer source code’ as outlined in Section 65 of the IT Act. When the ESN is altered, it constitutes an offence under section 65, as each service provider is required to maintain its own SID and allot a specific number to every device used for their services. 8” This judgment is significant because it not only clarifies the definition of “computer source code,” but also highlights the essential point that a cell phone functions as a computer. This recognition expands the scope of legal protections for digital devices. In ITC Limited and Another v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another9, the Allahabad High Court examined the scope of Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, particularly considering whether the deletion of information from a computer system qualifies as an offence under this provision. 10 Upon examination, the court concluded that if an individual deletes or alters information stored in a computer with the intent to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, or to diminish the value or utility of the information, it constitutes the offence of hacking under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act11.

2. Computer Related Offences (S.66) - Before 2009 amendment, this section was

referred to as “Hacking with Computer System.” Following the amendment, the term “hacking” was replaced with “computer-related offences.”12 In Abhinav Gupta v State of Haryana13, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the accused was a hacker who extracted information from secured computers for personal gain or that of a new employer. Justice Harbans Lal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court defined a “hacker” as a computer expert driven by curiosity to breach

8 Id. at 197-198.

9 7 SCC 66.

10 APARNA VISWANATHAN, CYBER LAW

INDIAN AND INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON DATA SECURITY, E-COMMERCE, CLOUD COMPUTING AND CYBER CRIMES 101 (1st ed., 2012).

11 Id. at 102.

12 Supra note 5 at 200.

13 LNIND 2008 PNH 208.

systems, and “hacking” as computer trespass. He further stated that proving hacking as an offence requires establishing mens rea (intent) to commit the act. 14 In the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Prabhakar Sampath15, ration decidendi for the case was that the accused downloaded e-reports of significant value, which, though difficult to quantify monetarily, required extensive research, time, and financial resources to produce. Given the considerable effort involved, the offence was deemed serious. The court observed that lenient punishment, such as a mere fine, would undermine the law’s deterrent purpose and could negatively impact intellectual property and research sectors. As a result, the accused was not granted any leniency in this case16. In the case of State v.

Salman Ansari17 the Investigating Officer played a crucial role in securing the conviction of the accused, who faced charges under various sections of the IPC (Now, BNS) and the IT Act, 2000. While charges were not proven due to lack of witness testimony, the Investigating Officer was able to seize forged SIM cards used by the accused to obtain confidential debit/credit card information through impersonation. The Officer established that the accused transferred money to fraudulent bank accounts by creating fake e-wallets. As a result, the prosecution successfully proved the charges under section 471 of the IPC and section 66 of the IT Act, leading to the accused’s conviction. The Investigating Officer’s efforts were instrumental in securing the conviction on these counts. 18

3. Other Computer Related Offences (S. 66A to 66D)- Sections 66A to 66D of the IT

Act, added in 2009, address issues like offensive messages, identity theft, and impersonation, aimed at combating spoofing and computer database theft that threaten digital trust and individual rights. A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F.

Nariman, delivered a landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India19, ruled

14 Supra note 10 at 98-99.

15 VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. CC. 489 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2015.

16 State of A.P. through Inspector of Police, Cyber Crimes P.S., CID, Hyderabad vs. Prabhakar Sampath, STUDOCU (Jan. 10, 2025, 10:04 PM), https://www.studocu.com/in/document/sinhgad-technical-educationsociety/business-law-and-practices-ii/state-of-ap-vs-prabhakar-sampath/80159971.

17 Cyber Case No. 21 of 2021, Jamtara Dist. Court.

18 Supra note 2 at 309-312.

19 AIR 2015 SC 1523.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional. The court found that Section 66A violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. As a result, comments on social media can no longer be considered offensive unless they fall under the provisions of the IPC,

1960 (Now, BNS). 20 This decision reinforced the importance of protecting free

expression in the digital age while ensuring that harmful speech can be addressed within a lawful framework. In 2013, a Public Interest Litigation was filed under Article 32 read with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India in Dilipkumar Tulsidas Shah v. Union of India21, the Supreme Court advised the State Governments that as regard to arrest of any person, concerned police officers have to obtain prior approval before arresting anyone under section 66A (prior to its repeal) of the Act. Specifically, officers must seek approval from an officer not below the rank of the Inspector General of Police (IGP) in metropolitan areas, or a Deputy Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police at the district level, depending on the case22. The constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Act was also examined in several writ petitions before the Supreme Court.

In the following cases, critical questions were raised about the balance between freedom of expression and the need to regulate harmful content in the cyber space viz. Rajeev Chandrashekar v. Union of India23, Common Cause v. Union of India24, People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. Union of India25, MouthShut. Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India26, Manoj Oswal v. Union of India27, Taslima Nasrin v. State of Uttar Pradesh28, and Anoop M. K. v. Union of India29. Given that these cases addressed the same subject matter, the Supreme Court tagged them with the main writ petition of Shreya Singhal case. The decision not only resolved the specific challenges but also set a significant precedent regarding the

20 Supra note 2 at 34.

21 W.P.(C) No. 97 of 2013.

22 Supra note 5 at 216.

23 W.C. (C) 21/2013.

24 W.C. (C) 23/2013.

25 W.C. Crl. 199/2013.

26 W.C. (C) 217/2013.

27 W.C. Crl. 225/2013.

28 W.C. Crl. 222/2012.

29 W.C. Crl. 196/2014.

unconstitutionality of Section 66A and its implications for freedom of expression in India. Prosecuting cybercrime often proves difficult due to insufficient evidence, as digital traces can be easily erased or manipulated and offenders typically act anonymously or remotely. This makes relating the accused to the crime challenging, hindering convictions and highlighting the need for advanced investigative tools, inter-agency cooperation, and stronger legal frameworks. Such is the case of State v. Sanjay Kumar Sahu30 where the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly used the password or any unique identification features of the victim.31

4. Publishing Obscene Information in Electronic Form (S.66E, 67, 67A, 67B) - The

Information Technology Act of 2000 indeed addresses various aspects of cyber obscenity, aiming to penalise inappropriate and harmful online behaviour. These provisions aim to create a safer online environment and to deter individuals from engaging in cyber obscenity. In Sharat Babu Digurmati v. Government (NCT of Delhi)32, the Supreme Court ruled that while Section 292 of the IPC criminalises the sale of obscene material, in cases involving electronic records, the relevant provisions of the IT Act must apply. Specifically, Section 67 of the IT Act deals with the publication or transmission of obscene content in electronic form and therefore, should be the applicable provision. 33 In this case, the appellant was charged under Sections 292 and 294 of the IPC, but not under Section 67 of the IT Act. The case of Ranjit D. Udeshi vs.

the State of Maharashtra34 is a significant ruling in obscenity law. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 292 of the IPC35 and reaffirmed the use of the Hicklin Test, reflecting a conservative stance on public morality. This approach prioritised decency over artistic freedom and free expression. The test, adopted from Regina v. Hicklin36, assessed whether the material in question

30 Cyber Crime Case No.3 of 2021, Jamtara Dist. Court.

31 Supra note 1 at 328-330.

32 2016 8 S.C.R. 1015.

33 Supra note 1 at 186-190.

34 1965 AIR 881, 1965 SCR (1) 65.

35 Section 292 of IPC is now covered under Section 294 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS).

36 (1868) 3 QB 360.

“tends to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to immoral influences. ” The Supreme Court introduced the “Community Standards Test” to determine obscenity. Applying these standards, the Court ruled that D. H. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley’s Lover was obscene, leading to its censorship and ban in India in 1964. 37 The Ranjit D. Udeshi case remained a cornerstone of obscenity law in India until the Supreme Court’s decision in Aveek Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal38, where the “Hicklin Test” was rejected in favour of the “Community Standards Test”. The Court held that an image of a nude or semi-nude woman is not obscene unless it arouses overt sexual desire. Only sexually explicit content that tends to “excite lustful thoughts” qualifies as obscene.

This determination, the Court emphasised, must be assessed from the standpoint of an average person, using contemporary community standards. 39 Whereas, in State v. Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude40 the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai opined that the concept of obscenity is subjective and varies from person to person. 41 In Court on its Own Motion v. State42, the Delhi High Court settled that any sting operation that infringes upon a person’s bodily privacy would render the private individual or agency conducting the operation liable under the law. On ‘offences related to obscenity in electronic form’, the Supreme Court of India in the Bazee. Com Case43 ruled that offences related to obscenity in electronic form shall be prosecuted under Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The provisions of this Act shall have an overriding effect on other laws for the time being in force. 44

37 Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra - Case Analysis, TESTBOOK (Jan. 19, 2025, 11:30PM),

https://testbook.com/landmark-judgements/ranjit-d-udeshi-vs-state-ofmaharashtra#:~:text=In%20this%

20 case %2C%20the%20Supreme,offended%20public%20decency%20and%20morality.

38 (2014) 4 SCC 257.

39 Law of Obscenity in India, LAW BHOOMI (Jan. 26, 2025, 02:30 PM), https://lawbhoomi.com/law-ofobscenity-inindia/#:~:text=The%20Aveek%20Sarkar%20v.,the%20contemporary%20community%20stand ards %20test.

40 CC No.2029/PW/2016, Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai.

41 Supra note 1 at 331.

42 WP(CRL) No.796/2007.

43 Avnish Bajaj v. State, (2005) 3 CompLJ 364 Del (India); Sharat Babu Digumarti vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC 18: AIR 2017 SC 150 (India).

44 Vignesh Ganesh, The Bazee.com Case- A Case That Defined Intermediary Liability, DIGI INFO MEDIA

(Jan. 31, 2025, 1:34 PM), https://digiinfomedia.online/the-bazee-com-case-a-case-that-defined-intermediaryliability/.

While dealing with pornographic material in electronic form, both the High Court of Kerala and the Supreme Court of India have ruled that watching adult pornography privately does not constitute an offence under Section 292 of the IPC (now, S. 294 of BNS). However, downloading sexually explicit material involving children is unequivocally an offence under Section 67B of the IT Act45. The case of the State of Tamil Nadu vs. Suhas Katti 46(C No. 4680 of 2004) is a landmark judgment in Indian cyber law, establishing a precedent for prosecuting cyber harassment. It was the first case in India to result in a conviction for posting obscene comments online under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000, particularly addressing issues of defamation and harassment through digital platforms. 47 The case is popularly known as “The Suhas Katti Case. ” The case of Rihan v.

State of Uttrakand48 highlights the need for more robust legal provisions to address digital abuse and exploitation, as current laws may struggle to keep up with evolving technologies. It highlights the challenges victims face in proving cybercrime, due to fleeting evidence. While the conviction represents a partial victory, it emphasises the ongoing gaps in legal protections for victims, calling for stronger laws to ensure effective prosecution of digital harassment and sexual violence. The case of Raju Thapa v. State of Uttrakand49 is about the transmission of sexual content. One of the key principles in this case is that the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused if there is any reasonable doubt about their guilt, ensuring no one is convicted without clear evidence.

The High Court also emphasised the importance of maintaining a proper chain of custody for digital evidence, highlighting the need for established forensic procedures to authenticate and prevent tampering of electronic data. JUDICIARY ON THE OTHER OFFENCES The rise in cybercrimes in India has led to key judicial interventions, addressing offences like

45 Aneesh v. State of Kerala, Crl.M.C.No.7421 of 2022 (India).

46 C No. 4680 of 2004.

47 Aparajita Patel, Suhas Katti v. State of Tamil Nadu, LAWFOYER (Jan. 31, 2025, 2:02 PM),

https://lawfoyer.in/suhas-katti-v-state-of-tamilnadu/.

48 Crl. App. 331/2012 (Uttra HC).

49 Crl. App. 286/2011 (Uttra HC).

fraud, stalking, defamation, and phishing. These cases highlight both progress and challenges, highlighting the need for a stronger legal framework to combat evolving cyber threats. Many financial frauds start with SIM cards obtained using fake documents. Once crimes are committed, cybercriminals are hard to trace, leaving victims to bear the consequences. In response to this issue, in the NGO Lok Niti Foundation case, the Supreme Court directed the government to implement a stringent mechanism within a year for 100% verification of mobile user’s identities. The Court emphasised that no fake or unverified identities should be accepted when issuing SIM cards, aiming to prevent future crimes. 50 While hearing a case related to cybercrime involving the sale of SIM cards using forged documents, and the non-registration of FIRs in such cases, the Patna High Court in Shiv Kumar vs.

State of Bihar & Ors. 51 has clarified that Officer-in-Charge of police stations who fail to register FIRs on complaints from telecom companies will face contempt of court proceedings. It emphasised that registering FIR is mandatory, and police must investigate any cognizable offence, regardless of its financial scale. 52 In 2001, India saw its first reported case of cyberstalking in the case of Manish Kathuria Vs Ritu Kohli. 53 Ms. Ritu Kohli was harassed online by someone impersonating her, leading to obscene calls from India and abroad. The Delhi police filed the case under Section 509 of the IPC, which addresses the insult of a woman's modesty, but this section only covers physical actions or verbal insults, not online offences. This case highlighted a legal gap, prompting the Indian government to consider amending laws to better protect.

The court ruled that Ritu Kohli’s case could only be filed under Section 509 of the IPC. As a result, Section 66A of the IT Act, 2008 was introduced to specifically address cyberstalking. In 2013, Section 354D was added to the IPC to formally define stalking as a criminal offence. These legal changes were a direct response to the need to amend laws following the Ritu Kohli case. 54 50 Press Trust of India, Verify Identity of All Mobile Users in A Year: Supreme Court to Centre, I E, February 6, 2017 at 4.

51 Crl. Misc. No. 3807 of 2020 Pat HC.

52 Legit Eye, Officer-in-Charge of Police Stations not registering FIRs on cyber-crime complaints of Telecom Companies will be held in contempt of Court: Patna HC, LEGIT EYE (Jan. 31, 2025, 06:30 PM), https://legiteye.com/officer-in-charge-of-police-stations-not-registering-firs-on-cyber-crime-complaints-oftelecom-companies-will-be-held-in-contempt-of-court-patna-hc/.

53 C.C. No. 14616/2014.

54 Amit Kumar and Dalip Kumar, Crimes of Stalking and Harassment Against Women in Cyberspace, 6

INT. J. MULTIDISCIP. RES. 6 (2023).

The SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra case is significant as it marked a key development in cyber defamation law in India. The Delhi Court’s decision to issue an ex-parte injunction demonstrated the judiciary’s willingness to address reputational harm caused through defamatory emails and cyberspace misconduct. The case also highlighted the court’s recognition of the global impact of online defamation, as it prohibited the defendant from sending harmful content not just within India, but also to the company’s subsidiaries worldwide. This case set an important precedent for protecting reputations and establishing legal remedies in the cyber space. 55 This Delhi High Court ruling is significant as it was the first Indian case of cyber defamation, where the court exercised jurisdiction and issued an exparte injunction to stop further defamatory emails. 56 The CBI v.

Arif Azim57 case, also known as the Sony Sambandh case, is significant as it marked India’s first cybercrime conviction. It established a precedent for prosecuting online fraud, demonstrating that digital offences could be successfully investigated and prosecuted under existing laws. The case also highlighted the importance of digital evidence and the role of corporate vigilance in detecting cybercrime, paving the way for stricter enforcement against online financial fraud in India. 58 Besides being India’s first cybercrime conviction, the case the IT Act, 2000, and sent a clear message that cyber offences would not go unpunished. 59 showed that IPC (Now, BNS) provisions could effectively address cybercrimes not covered by In a landmark judgment in the National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) v.

Ajay Sood & Others60, the Delhi High Court ruled that phishing constitutes an illegal act under Indian law. It defined phishing as a “misrepresentation made in the course of trade, leading to confusion about the source and origin of the email, causing significant harm to both the consumer and the entity whose identity or credentials are misused. ”61 This case brought phishing within the scope of Indian law, even in the absence of specific phishing legislation. 62

55 Indian Cyber Security, SMC Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra, INDIAN CYBER SECURITY

(Feb. 02, 2025, 04:30 PM), https://www.indiancybersecurity.com/case_study_smc_vs_jogesh_kwatra.php .

56 Ibid.

57 (2008) 105 DRJ 721: (2008) 150 DLT 769.

58 Ibid.

59 Ibid.

60 119 (2005) DLT 596.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid.

The Parliament Attack case (State vs. Mohd. Afzal and others)63, is significant for establishing the legal validity of digital evidence in Indian courts. It demonstrated that computerised call logs, laptops, and storage devices could play a crucial role in securing convictions, even in high profile terrorism case. The court’s stance that digital evidence is admissible unless concrete proof of tampering is presented set an important precedent for the treatment of electronic evidence in criminal trials. 64 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF CYBERCRIME PRECEDENTS The case laws highlighted the need for a fresh legal approach to cybercrimes, given the global nature of networks and the evolving concept of cyberspace. The judiciary must adapt to effectively address these challenges.

As e-governance, e-commerce, e-banking, and e-services rapidly expand, laws governing cyberspace crimes must align with legal standards to prevent inconsistencies in the justice system. Over the past two decades, the judiciary has shifted towards a more pragmatic approach in cybercrime cases. Courts have moved away from rigid interpretations, recognising the intangible nature of digital data, while still remaining faithful to the original intent of the legislature in enacting the relevant laws65. The cases discussed highlight the evolving nature of cybercrime and the challenges in addressing it through India’s existing legal framework. While judicial intervention has expanded traditional laws to cover online offences, the rapid pace of technological advancement often outpaces legal responses.

Continuous amendments are needed to address new forms of cybercrimes, and while courts have made strides in adapting the law, the lack of comprehensive cybercrime legislation remains a key challenge. One of the key issues in cybercrime cases is the difficulty in prosecuting cybercriminals due to the anonymity and cross border nature of these offences. Several cases reflect the challenges in prosecuting cybercriminals, particularly due to the difficulty of gathering concrete evidence in cyberspace. The State v. Sanjay Kumar Sahu case is an example, where the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s involvement in using fraudulent methods to access a victim’s

63 107 (2003) DLT 385.

64 Abhijeet Deb, Cyber Crime and Judicial Response in India, 3 IND.J.L.J. 113-114 (2012).

65 VISHWANATH PARANJAPE, CYBERCRIMES AND LAW 134 (2nd ed., 2019).

bank account. The court emphasised the importance of proving the specific details of the crime, such as the exact time and modus operandi, which was not sufficiently established in the case. This highlights the unique challenges of cybercrime prosecution. The anonymity of online perpetrators, the global nature of cybercrime, and the evolving technology that can obscure or manipulate evidence. As cyber criminals often operate across borders, international cooperation and advanced investigative tools are necessary to effectively combat cybercrime. Similarly, the legal landscape surrounding cyber obscenity faces challenges, particularly in terms of gathering sufficient evidence. Digital content can be easily altered, and the anonymous nature of online communication makes it difficult to establish the identity of perpetrators.

As new technologies like social media and messaging platforms emerge, the law must adapt to address emerging forms of online harassment and exploitation. Continuous amendments to legal frameworks are essential to ensure effective protection for individuals in cyberspace. Tackling cybercrime in India requires systemic reforms, including stronger identity verification, better cooperation between telecom companies and law enforcement, and proactive legal amendments. Advanced investigative methods, clear legal definitions, and international cooperation are also crucial for addressing these growing cyber threats effectively.

CHALLENGES

BEFORE THE JUDICIARY The Indian judicial system was already facing the problem of low conviction rates in criminal cases, and the advent of cybercrime and new technologies has further complicated the situation, creating additional hindrances in effectively addressing and prosecuting such offences. 66 Cybercrime poses unique challenges for the traditional legal system, which is built around physical evidence and in person interactions. As cyber offences are intangible, often borderless, and involve rapidly evolving technology, they are difficult to investigate and prosecute. Law enforcement and judicial systems frequently lack the technical expertise, resources, and tools to handle digital evidence effectively. This results in delays, weak prosecutions, or case dismissals.

The situation highlights an urgent need for legal reform, specialised training, and global cooperation to strengthen the fight against cybercrime. 67

66 Rajat Pahuja, Law Relating to Cyber Crime and Judiciary, 4 INT. J. RES. PUBL.REV. 3097 (2023).

67 Supra note 65 at 181.

As observed, many cybercrime case judgments passed by the Subordinate or the High Courts have been reversed by the Supreme Court, highlighting the complexity and evolving nature of cyber laws. These reversals often stem from misinterpretation of legal provisions or failure to grasp technological nuances. The Supreme Court’s role ensures legal clarity, uniformity, and alignment of judicial decisions with current digital realities, reinforcing the need for the judiciary to stay technologically informed to uphold justice effectively. Commenting on the problems faced by the judiciary and the enforcement agencies in dealing with computer related crime, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. M/s Amritsar Beverages Ltd. And Ors.

68 observed that; “The rise of the internet and information technologies has posed challenges to the criminal justice system, especially for officers who lack the expertise to address new cybercrimes. The rapid technological advancements have introduced crimes that lawmakers had not anticipated. While, the Information Technology Act of 2000 was amended to cover various cybercrimes and their punishments, it still does not fully address the challenges faced by officers tasked with enforcing the law69. ” Thus, cybercrime cases pose a major challenge for the judiciary due to their technical complexity and the often limited familiarity judges have with digital technologies. Several key factors hinder effective judicial sentencing in such cases, including70: i. Cybercrime poses legal challenges due to its borderless nature, complicating jurisdictional issues; ii.

There is uncertainty over court jurisdiction; iii. There are inconsistencies in international legal systems; and iv. There is a lack of clear definition of what constitutes cybercrime. v. In legal proceedings, collecting, preserving, and presenting digital evidence is challenging, as cybercriminals use sophisticated methods to hide their activities.

68 AIR 2006 SC 2820.

69 Supra note 2 at 134.

70 Id. at 133.

The evolving nature of digital data makes it hard to maintain its integrity and admissibility in court.

71 CONCLUSION

The enforceability of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, faces major challenges due to the undefined, complex nature of cyberspace. The rapidly evolving digital landscape and the borderless internet complicate jurisdiction and the application of these laws, particularly when foreign nationals are involved. Enforcement agencies may struggle to keep up with the complexities of online interactions and varying legal standards across countries. This raises concerns about the effectiveness of legal recourse and accountability in a globalised digital environment, where activities can occur outside national jurisdictions.

Therefore, there is a pressing need for international collaboration and clear legal definitions to ensure effective enforcement and protection for individuals, regardless of nationality. The Indian judiciary has not yet established a uniform stance on jurisdictional issues related to website accessibility, unlike the approach in the United States. At present, the Delhi High Court has ruled that simply having a website accessible in India is sufficient to establish jurisdiction in internet-related cases. 72 This reflects a growing judicial trend where courts are more inclined to claim jurisdiction based on a website’s online presence and accessibility, even if traditional jurisdictional criteria are not met. 73

71 Tania Islam, Indian Legal System in Dealing with Cybercrime, LAWCTOPUS (Feb. 10, 2025, 07:12)

https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/Indian-legal-system-cybercrime/ . 72 Casio India Co. v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd, 2003 (27) PTC 265 (Del) (India), Independent News Service Pvt. Limited v. India Broadcast Live and Ors, 2007 (35) PTC 177 (Del) (India).

73 Supra note 1 at 8.