Wired Worlds, Legal Lines - Redrawing Jurisdictional Boundaries In The U.S. And Indian Cyberspace
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Technology, Cyber & Privacy
Published:
Updated:
WIRED WORLDS, LEGAL LINES: REDRAWING
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES IN THE U.S. AND INDIAN CYBERSPACE
Gargi Mehta, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
In a world that is undergoing fast change, only globalization has remained consistent. Moreover, in this era of globalization, the appropriate, efficient, and effective flow of ideas across territorial boundaries has shown to be a crucial actor. The immensity of the internet might be assumed to have certain disadvantages. This article briefly explores the problem of internet jurisdiction, followed by a discussion of the Indian and American criteria for addressing this issue. How to maintain cyberspace's pervasiveness and global scope while preserving national laws, is one of the two key challenges facing the international community. Several pertinent recommendations on this important topic are made in the article's conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
A legal entity's ability to exert control over a person, a topic, or a region is what we mean when we say something has jurisdiction, even if the phrase has many different legal definitions. The ability, authority, or power to interpret and implement the law is defined as jurisdiction by Merriam-Webster. 1 In deciding jurisdiction, Indian courts take into account a variety of factors, such as the subject matter, the financial position, and the location. A special place is cyberspace, sometimes known as the internet. The internet's revolutionary qualities are mostly to blame for this. In a nutshell, 1 MERRIAM-WEBSTER, https://www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/jurisdiction (last visited Mar 9, 2022). the internet is a platform without boundaries that has unlocked a Pandora's box of human potential and growth.
2 Furthermore, the access to and cost of internet are growing quickly, even in India. This process is proceeding much more quickly now that "Digital India" has been established by the Indian government, and evidence from other organizations supports this finding. India is the secondfastest adoption of digital technology among 17 significant digital economies, according to data from the Mckinsey Global Institute. 3 The figure above denotes the growth of India as the fastest digital growing economy as per 2017’s study. India's digital economy grew at a pace of 15. 6% between 2014 and 2019, which was 2. 4 times higher than the country's overall economic growth in US dollars. 2 Leslie Daigle, On the Nature of the Internet, A Universal Internet in a Bordered World: Research on Fragmentation, Openness and Interoperability, CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 2016.
3 Press Release, Global Average Connection Speed Increases 15% Year over Year, according to Akamai’s ‘First Quarter, 2017 State of the Internet Report’, AKAMAI, (Mar. 5, 2022, 11:26 PM), https://www.akamai.com/newsroom/press-release/akamai-releases-first-quarter-2017-state-of-theinternetconnectivity-report.
The Government of India's flagship initiative, Digital India, which was introduced in July 2015, is reshaping the nation into a knowledge-based society and economy. India now has a huge chance to further expand up its digital economy by building on this basis. India has the second-largest global digital consumer base, and it is expanding more quickly than any other major economy. The digital divide in India is being reduced because to the country's inclusive digital strategy, which also extends the advantages of technology to all social groups. New digital ecosystems across a variety of industries, including financial services, agriculture, healthcare, logistics, the jobs and skills market, e-governance, and other fields, may contribute half of the potential economic value of trillion in 2025. 4 However, the expansion of the internet is not without its consequences.
It has thus brought to a series of jurisdictional issues. The challenges primarily result from a lack of coordination between the global legal systems' predominately territorial legal frameworks and the internet's transborder ecological structure. Because of this, the most pressing issue is how to stop technology from being abused while still preserving its fundamentally "borderless" nature. Even though a significant amount of the internet's transactions and services have been regulated by the governments of various countries, the legality and jurisdiction of the internet may at times be in doubt.
4 Report on India’s Trillion Dollar Digital Opportunity Released. (n.d.).
https://pib. gov. in/Pressreleaseshare. aspx? PRID=1565669 Jurisdiction itself serves as the basis for determining the court's ability to decide the matter. Prior to making a decision in any case, the court must have subject matter and territorial jurisdiction. Yet, when it comes to e-commerce platforms, this conventional idea is not implemented in the same way. The primary cause of this is the “lex fori” aspect of Indian law's jurisdiction. To properly address the remedy issue, it exacerbates the jurisdictional issue. Internet disputes and abuses, which can range from incidences of unacceptable material to cross-border access to user data, present an unprecedented challenge to the internationally confined legal system. The Internet is a piece of technology that has significantly enriched, supported, and encircled our lives in the twenty-first century.
Cross-border interaction, commerce, and communication have all been made easier. This has improved the effectiveness of corporate relationships but also made them more difficult from a conventional jurisdictional standpoint. Cloud computing, targeted advertising, and bitcoin have made the pain worse. A large institutional gap in internet governance is also revealed by the way the digital aspects of the twenty-first century continue to challenge conventional paradigms of international legal organization. As per the international law, a nation's sovereignty is of utmost importance. Nevertheless, with the growth of the internet and the lack of effective cyberspace regulation, one of the most hotly contested issues of the twenty-first century is who has authority over the internet.
Thus, the world faces two pressing issues: how to enforce national laws while maintaining cyberspace's ubiquitous and global character. Additionally, it is an undeniable fact that there is ineffective coordination of internet regulation, and cross-border legal issues on the internet can only be resolved through global collaboration efforts and the pursuit of common objectives. This is because the effects of the global online connection through the internet are directly proportional to the effects on economies and societies. In order to have more control over the internet, several national government perspectives employ national instruments rather than global collaboration and coordination. This graph below from the World Status Report of 2019 on Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network illustrates the same.
PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK
In order to understand the procedural framework, it is pertinent to analyze the Indian as well as the international legislation in relation to the same, which are mentioned as follows: Indian Legislation Indian Penal Code, 1960 A simple reading of Section 3 of the IPC, 1860 reveals that if an offense was committed outside of India and the defendant is brought to justice under Indian law, they would be handled in the same manner as if the offense had been committed there. Unfortunately, it does not appear to address the jurisdictional problem in e-commerce. Yet through a few case laws, the legal system dealt with the same issue. The High Court of Delhi accepted jurisdiction in the case of SMC. Pneumatics (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jogesh Kwatra when an email was used to smear the reputation of a business firm.
The court faces the following difficulties in jurisdictional conflicts resulting from e-commerce:
1. Identification of the defendant;
2. affordability of the lawsuit;
3. execution of the judgment;
4. and service of process.
Code of Criminal Procedural, 1973
A citizen of India who commits a crime while they are outside the country is still subject to prosecution under the relevant domestic laws, according to Section 1885 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1973. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Sections 15 through 20 of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure6 govern civil jurisdiction. Section
20 is the most important of those parts since it tackles situations that aren't addressed by the
first four clauses. In accordance with Section 20, the court may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in certain situations and places. In accordance with Section 20, the court may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in certain situations and places.
1. The defendant's main residence;
2. The place where the defendant's business is located.
3. The addresses of each defendant who lives there or works there to enhance his or her
financial interests, if there are many defendants.
4. The place of the cause of the action's genesis, either fully or partially.
Information Technology Act, 2000 The Information Technology Act of 20007 governs cyber legislation in India (IT Act). The IT Act's Section 758 deals with the notification of actions carried out outside of India. It specifies
5 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908.
6 The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908
7 The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000
8 The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 75, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000
that any offense performed outside of Indian borders that was intended for a computer system or network located in India is subject to the IT Act's restrictions. Law at the International Level, 2001 The first worldwide agreement to govern crimes committed online was the Budapest Agreement of 20019, which purportedly considered the existing laws in each nation. The Budapest Convention's Section 22 outlines the circumstances under which a nation may exercise jurisdiction when a crime is committed:
1. The offence was committed on the nation's territory.
2. The offense is committed on a ship flying the nation's flag.
3. The offence is committed aboard a domestically registered aircraft.
4. If the offense is criminal by law where it was done, it was committed by a citizen of the
nation. RELEVANT PRECEDENTS Indian Precedents
1. In the case of Ganga Bai v. Vijai Kumar10, The civil court's authority to hear civil lawsuits
is outlined in Section 9 of the CPC unless explicitly or subtly constrained was reiterated and the court ruled that the "right to bring a civil lawsuit" is a "inherent right" unless curtailed by law.
2. In another judgement, Hriday Nath v. Ram Chandra11, the Supreme Court came to the
conclusion
that the Indian judiciary had used the classic legal principle "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium," which states that where there is a right, there must be a remedy. As a result, jurisdiction frequently exists where the wrong is done.
9 Convention on Cybercrime, ETS No. 185, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-
/conventions/treaty/185, (last accessed 9 March 2022).
10 Ganga Bai v. Vijai Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393.
11 Hriday Nath v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1929 Cal 445
3. The defendant in the case of Banyan Tree Holdings v. A Murali Krishna Reddy12 started
building the Banyan Tree retreat in 2007, and the website for the defendant directed people to the Banyan Tree Holdings hospitality firm page, which was already operational. According to Banyan Tree Holdings, this was an attempt to take advantage of its current goodwill and mislead customers. In this instance, the Court examined the circumstances and, using American law as a guide, found that the website in question was not passive since it was reachable from New Delhi.13
4. The facts in the Casio India v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd.14 case were the same as
those in the Banyan Tree case. In contrast to what was decided in the Banyan Tree case, the court's stance in this instance was contradictory. According to the court, there was no need for proof that the consumer was deceived because the risk of deception permitted the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case. As a result, in contrast to what the court decided in the Banyan Tree case, it decided that the court's exercise of personal jurisdiction in this instance would be justified by the website's simple accessible in New Delhi.15
5. In World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/s. Reshma Collection & Ors.,16 an
American firm sold things online, in New Delhi, and throughout the world. According to the court, under such an agreement, it is also necessary to take into account how quickly and spontaneously the transaction was completed. As the buyer made the online purchase there, the court came to the conclusion that the cause of action must be filed there. The case of Choice Hotels International Inc. v. M. Sanjay Kumar & Ors.17 also upheld this point of view.
6. The court determined that a treatment given to an online transaction must be similar to a
treatment given to a physical transaction in the case of YouTube v. Geeta Shroff,18 which represents another stance. According to this strategy, the court would not be permitted to
12 Banyan Tree Holdings v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, CS (OS) No.894/2008.
13 Prabir Purkayastha, Rishab Bailey, Evolving a New Internet Governance Paradigm, ECONOMIC AND
POLITICAL WEEKLY 2014.
14 Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited 2003 (27) PTC 265 (Del).
15 Pritika Rai Advani, Intermediary Liability in India, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, 120-28 (2013).
16 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/s Reshma Collection & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3987
17 Choice Hotels International Inc. v. M. Sanjay Kumar & Ors., 2015 (62) PTC 269 (Del).
18 YouTube LLC v. Geeta Shroff, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9439.
exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in situations involving cross-border instances of internet-related harm.
7. In MD Air Deccan v. Shri Ram Gopal Aggarwal19, claimants sued after their luggage
was missing during a flight, and the courts in the consumer's home state were held to have jurisdiction. The claimant received the aircraft ticket through email after making the transaction online. The Court determined that the contract was finalized when the acceptance email was delivered to the consumer's address since the reservation was an offer and the email was an acceptance. European Union In the case of Shevill & Others v. Presse Alliance SA20, a defamatory item that was published in one place but circulated internationally. The European Court of Justice developed the mosaic approach to overcome this conundrum, which is as follows:
1. It has been proven that harm was caused at the publisher's home or the location where the
statement was published.
2. In addition, damage was found everywhere the message was made public and circulated.
Although the another case of the Svensk Handel21 the court did not outright reject the mosaic approach, it did state that it is preferable to concentrate on the center of interest, or the area where the most harm has resulted from the alleged crime, rather than taking into account all locations where harm has occurred. Nevertheless, because this method allows the plaintiff, or complainant, a choice as to where to make his complaint, it has drawn heavy criticism. He could take use of this advantage to choose a jurisdiction that is more open to his complaint and has a lower tolerance for insulting words published online.22
19 MD Air Deccan v. Shri Ram Gopal Aggarwal, First Appeal No. FA/7/2007.
20 Shevill & Ors. v. Presse Alliance S.A., Case C-68/93 [1995] 2 W.L.R. 499
21 Bolagsupplysningen OÜ Ingrid Ilsjan v. Svensk Handel AB, Case C-194/16, ECJ.
22 Stijn Hoorensm Dieter Elixmann, Jonathan Cave, The future contribution of the European Internet Industry Under the Three Scenarios, TOWARDS A COMPETITIVE EUROPEAN INTERNET INDUSTRY: A SOCIOECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF THE EUROPEAN INTERNET INDUSTRY AND THE FUTURE INTERNET PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, RAND CORPORATION 2012.
United States of America
1. In International Shoe v. Washington23, the Supreme Court held that in order to establish
personal jurisdiction over an alleged criminal, there must be some degree of contact with the other country created via the exchange or transaction under consideration. This decision implied that in order for the complainant country to exercise jurisdiction over the individual in issue in the case of an international dispute involving a wrong committed in cyberspace, there must have been a predetermined amount of interaction between the individual and the country filing the complaint. The Court also ruled that the defendant cannot be caught off guard and must have known they would be sued by this nation. To give an example, since the requisite degree of engagement would not have been established, the mere display of advertisements in another country that are accessible via a website is inadequate to establish personal jurisdiction over the person.24
2. It was determined in the case of Calder v. Jones that only applying the minimal contact
criterion is insufficient and that this level must be strengthened by the act's consequence existing in the state or country in question. The factual premise in the case was that an article was written in Florida, while the subject of the piece and the resources utilized to make the story were in California.
3. In the case of Calder v. Jones,25 it was established that just applying the standard of
minimal contact is insufficient, and that this level must be bolstered by the act's consequence being present in the state or nation in issue. The case’s factual assumption was that an article was written in Florida, but the subject of the piece and the materials used to produce the article were located in California. The following prerequisites must be satisfied for the exercise of interstate or cross-border personal jurisdiction in accordance with the effects test:
23 International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
24 Kal Raustiala, An Internet Whole and Free
Why Washington was Right to Give Up Control, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 140-47 (2017).
25 Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984).
a. A malicious act must have been committed. b. The complaint-making state must be the target of the act. c. The action taken must have a bearing on the complaint scenario.
4. The French case of Yahoo! Inc. v. Laligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme and
L'union des Estudiants Juifs De France26 is another significant ruling in the area of online jurisdiction. The US Court decided that jurisdiction did exist in this case based on the effects doctrine.
5. A court concluded that websites should be divided into three groups in the case of Zippo
Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com Inc.27 Websites that enable the following activities: a. Online business transactions; b. Information exchange between the host computer and the end user's computer; and c. Information accessibility.
6. The websites were categorized based on how interactive they were when compared to one
another. In order to exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, the Zippo test sets the following conditions: a. The alleged injury must take place inside the boundaries of the state that filed the complaint. b. That the interactive nature of the in question website must have contributed to the harm and must be taken into account when estimating the extent of the harm.
CRITICAL
ANALYSIS
Each state in the US has a different long-arm legislation that determines the legal theory 26 Yahoo! Inc. v. Laligue Contre Le Racisme Et L’antisemitisme and L’union des Estudiants Juifs De France,
169 F. Sipp 2d 1181, 2001.
27 Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119
governing jurisdiction. This is a reference to the courts' ability to provide jurisdiction to the courts the plaintiff has approached. The American law also does not distinguish between jurisdictional disputes between sister states and those involving other countries. When it comes to jurisdictional issues, American courts place two things above all else: first, doing the defendant justice and minimizing their discomfort, and second, honouring the sovereignty of other states that are near the case at hand28. They follow these two standards for settling jurisdictional conflicts online. A court is also regarded as competent under American law if the defendant willingly grants the court authority. Apart from the aforementioned prerequisites, several federal legislations, such as the Antiterrorism Act 1829, also allow jurisdiction to federal courts based on the plaintiff's citizenship.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trademark Act, 1999, and the Information Technology Act, 2000 are only a few of the laws that India has codified that are different from those in the United States. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs jurisdiction in India and defines competent courts as those located either where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. A court must also have jurisdiction over the area where the defendant or claimant resides, does business, has an office, engages in direct employment for profit, or where the cause of action originates in order to be qualified to hear consumer contracts. Indian courts often adopt a comprehensive approach to internet disputes, focusing on the origin of the cause of action and considering contractual analysis as a subset of the first.
Moreover, Indian law provides rules controlling the courts' authority to hear copyright and trademark disputes, giving a party that has been wronged long-arm protections comparable to those provided in the United States. In accordance with Indian law, these individuals may request jurisdiction over the region in which the claimants reside, engage in business, or are employed.
28 A.T. Von Mehren, D.T. Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate
A Suggested Analysis, 79 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1121-1179, 1123 (1966).
29 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions. (1992, October 29). LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www. law. cornell. edu/uscode/text/18/2331 SUGGESTIONS In today's increasingly digital world, the legal landscape for combating cybercrime is both intricate and crucial. The challenges faced by legal systems worldwide stem from the fundamental issue of jurisdiction, particularly when cybercrimes transcend national borders. Despite the apparent comprehensiveness of laws such as India's Information Technology Act, these legal frameworks often fall short when dealing with crimes that exploit the anonymity and geographical dispersal inherent in cyberspace. One of the most pressing concerns is that the current extradition treaties signed by India, as well as many other countries, do not adequately address cybercrime. These treaties often fail to classify cyber offenses as extraditable crimes, creating significant loopholes that criminals can exploit.
The Budapest Convention, the only multilateral treaty specifically addressing cybercrime, provides a framework for international cooperation but is not universally ratified, limiting its efficacy. Additionally, the enforcement and adjudication bodies established under the Information Technology Act are often hampered by inadequate institutional frameworks and a lack of global reach, rendering them ineffective against criminals who operate across multiple jurisdictions. The issue of jurisdiction in cybercrime is not only a legal problem but also a technical and diplomatic challenge. As pointed out by scholars such as Susan W. Brenner in her work "Cybercrime Jurisdiction: Are We Losing Ground to Cybercriminals? ", the decentralized and transnational nature of the internet complicates the application of traditional legal principles such as territoriality.
This is further exacerbated by the lack of harmonization between national laws, leading to inconsistent enforcement and prosecution of cybercrimes. To address these challenges, a multipronged approach is necessary:
1 Development of Global Cybercrime Legislation
A unified global framework is needed to address the jurisdictional challenges posed by cybercrime. This could involve the creation of new international treaties or the expansion of existing ones, such as the Budapest Convention, to include more countries and to explicitly address issues related to extradition and jurisdiction. The proposed legislation should be developed in collaboration with international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and the Council of Europe, ensuring that it is comprehensive and universally applicable.
2 Establishment of an International Cybercrime Authority
Drawing inspiration from international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), an authoritative global organization dedicated to cybercrime could be established. This body would have the mandate to mediate disputes, facilitate cooperation between nations, and ensure that cybercriminals cannot evade justice by exploiting jurisdictional loopholes. It would require strong enforcement powers and the ability to impose binding decisions on member states, much like the ICC's ability to prosecute individuals for crimes such as genocide and war crimes.
3 Harmonization of National Laws and Institutionalization of Global Standards
For any global cybercrime authority to be effective, there must be a concerted effort to harmonize national laws and ensure that they are in alignment with international standards. This could involve regular updates to national legislation, ensuring that it remains relevant in the face of rapidly evolving technology. Additionally, the physical representation of each state in the global authority could facilitate the ongoing maintenance and synchronization of laws, making the global legal framework more dynamic and responsive. The implementation of these strategies would not only strengthen the global response to cybercrime but also ensure that legal systems remain robust in the face of technological advancements.
As highlighted in numerous academic studies, including those published in journals like the "Oxford Journal of Law and Technology," such measures are essential for protecting citizens' rights and maintaining the integrity of the global digital infrastructure. By adopting a holistic and proactive approach, the international community can create a more secure and just cyberspace, where criminals are held accountable regardless of the borders they attempt to hide behind.
CONCLUSION
In an era where the world functions as a global village interconnected by the internet, balancing the protection of state sovereignty with the regulation of cyber activities poses a significant
challenge
While the United States and India have developed distinct yet thorough approaches to address jurisdictional complexities in internet-related disputes, both systems demonstrate the difficulty of navigating these issues within the framework of national sovereignty and international law. The United States, through its flexible criteria and established legal wisdom, has shown adaptability in dealing with novel challenges presented by online commerce. Its approach has been instrumental in shaping global understandings of minimal contacts and jurisdiction in the digital realm. Conversely, India’s strategy involves a combination of legal principles and legislative frameworks aimed at curbing technological misuse while aligning with its national legal ethos. Despite the differences in their methodologies, the influence of U. S.
jurisprudence on Indian courts is evident, particularly in the adoption of the minimal linkages concept. Jurisdictional issues, whether online or offline, are inherently complex, and the pursuit of flawless solutions often proves elusive. The ever-evolving nature of the digital world adds layers of complexity that make the creation of a comprehensive international convention addressing cross-border legal issues unlikely. As the world grows more interconnected and the legal challenges more intricate, it is imperative that stakeholders continue to work collaboratively across multiple fronts, ensuring that efforts are as coordinated and coherent as possible. The pursuit of international consensus on jurisdiction over the internet remains challenging. However, this challenge underscores the importance of academic research and robust conceptual foundations in shaping future legal frameworks.
Governments must fulfill their legislative responsibilities while ensuring that their jurisdictional principles remain within the bounds of international law. In conclusion, the formulation of new laws that govern internet jurisdiction presents a viable solution to these challenges. The adoption of standardized legal frameworks for online transactions could significantly simplify the process of determining applicable laws, thereby reducing the legal ambiguity surrounding cross-border online activities. As we move forward, the focus must remain on creating adaptable, globally informed legal systems that can effectively manage the complexities of the digital age.
REFERENCES
INDIAN CASES
1. Banyan Tree Holdings v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, CS (OS) No.894/2008
2. Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Limited 2003 (27) PTC 265 (Del)
3. MD Air Deccan v. Shri Ram Gopal Aggarwal, First Appeal No. FA/7/2007
4. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. M/s Reshma Collection & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine
Del 3987
5. YouTube LLC v. Geeta Shroff, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9439
FOREIGN CASES
1. Bolagsupplysningen OÜ Ingrid Ilsjan v. Svensk Handel AB, Case C-194/16, ECJ
2. Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984)
3. International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
4. Shevill & Ors. v. Presse Alliance S.A., Case C-68/93 [1995] 2 W.L.R. 499
5. Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119
STATUTES
1. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908
2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973
3. The Information Technology Act, 2000, § 75, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000
4. The Information Technology Act, 2000, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000
ARTICLES
1 A.T. Von Mehren, D.T. Trautman, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate
A Suggested Analysis, 79 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1121-1179, 1123 (1966)
2. Aaron Shull, Governing Cyberspace During a Crisis in Trust, CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL
GOVERNANCE INTERNATIONAL 2019 3. Convention on Cybercrime, ETS No. 185, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/fulllist/-/conventions/treaty/185, (last accessed 9 March 2022)
4 Kal Raustiala, An Internet Whole and Free
Why Washington was Right to Give Up Control, FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 140-47 (2017)
5. Leslie Daigle, On the Nature of the Internet, A Universal Internet in a Bordered World:
Research on Fragmentation, Openness and Interoperability, CENTRE FOR INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE INNOVATION 2016
6. MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jurisdiction (last visited Mar 9, 2022).
7. Prabir Purkayastha, Rishab Bailey, Evolving a New Internet Governance Paradigm,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 2014
8. Pritika Rai Advani, Intermediary Liability in India, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY,
120-28 (2013)
9. Stijn Hoorensm Dieter Elixmann, Jonathan Cave, The future contribution of the European
Internet Industry Under the Three Scenarios, TOWARDS A COMPETITIVE EUROPEAN
INTERNET INDUSTRY: A SOCIOECONOMIC
ANALYSIS
OF THE EUROPEAN INTERNET INDUSTRY
AND THE FUTURE INTERNET PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, RAND CORPORATION 2012