(This article is written by VIVAN DUTTA, NMIMS NAVI MUMBAI, BA LLB during his internship at LeDroit India)
Contents:
- Cybercrime jurisdiction
2. Legal framework
3. Types of cybercrime
4. Electronic evidence
Introduction:
Different sources and different sites have used different words to define cybercrime but all of them mean the same. The standard meaning of cybercrime would be “criminal activities carried out by means of computers or the internet.” Cyber Jurisdiction or Jurisdiction in Cyber Space- In simple terms, is the extension of principles of international jurisdiction into the cyberspace. Since cybercrime is a very broad aspect it has a legal framework to it . The legal framework of cybercrime in India is REGULATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2OOO. The act provides a legal framework for e-commerce in India. It focuses and deals with digital crimes or cybercrimes and electronic commerce.
Types of jurisdiction:
Understanding Jurisdictional Issues
There exists three kinds of jurisdictions which helps in matter determining a states’ jurisdiction and they are-
- Prescriptive Jurisdiction- It means the jurisdiction of the state to make laws which is applicable to persons and to certain circumstances. International law exercises certain restriction on state’s authority to prescribe laws if there is a conflict of interest with another state.
- Jurisdiction to Adjudicate- It refers to the power of the state to subject a person or thing to a court or administrative tribunal, either civil or criminal, whether or not the state is a party to the proceedings.
- Jurisdiction to Enforce- It means the power of a state to induce or punish someone for non-compliance with laws and regulations.
Apart from this, there is also another kind of jurisdiction called personal jurisdiction. It refers to that kind of jurisdiction over persons involved in a particular lawsuit.
Pecuniary jurisdiction means the jurisdiction related to money. Here it is seen whether the court is competent to try the case of the monetary value of suit in question.
Case laws relating to cyberspace jurisdiction:
- Shreya Singhal v. UOI:
The Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in its entirety. The Petitioners argued that Section 66A was unconstitutionally vague and its intended protection against annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, or ill-will were beyond the scope of permissible restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. The Court agreed that the prohibition against the dissemination of information by means of a computer resource or a communication device intended to cause annoyance, inconvenience or insult did not fall within any reasonable exceptions to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression. It further found that because the provision failed to define terms, such as inconvenience or annoyance, “a very large amount of protected and innocent speech” could be curtailed and hence its sweep was overly broad and vague.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, jurisdiction in cyber complaints remains a formidable challenge in the ever-evolving digital landscape. The borderless nature of the internet, coupled with the intricate web of international laws, necessitates ongoing efforts to establish clear and universally accepted frameworks. Achieving a streamlined and effective system for addressing cyber complaints requires collaborative initiatives, adaptive legal systems, and international cooperation to ensure a safer digital environment for all.
