Information Technology Act, 2000

2022-01-09T13:07:29Z

2402:8100:23DE:1D5D:1075:EFF4:B63E:4715:

{{short description|Act of the Parliament of India}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2016}}
{{Use Indian English|date=August 2016}}
{{Infobox legislation
| image =
| imagesize = 150
| imagelink =
| imagealt =
| caption =
| long_title = The Act to provide legal recognition for transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as "electronic commerce", which involve the use of alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information, to nusta editing electronic filing of documents with the Government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and favour
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
| citation = [http://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-act-2000 Information Technology Act, 2000]
| enacted_by = [[Parliament of India]]
| date_enacted = 9 June 2000
| date_assented = 9 June 2000
| date_signed = 9 May 2000
| date_commenced = 17 October 2000
| bill =
| bill_citation =
| bill_date =
| introduced_by = [[Pramod Mahajan]]<br/>{{small|Minister of Communications and Information Technology}}
| 1st_reading =
| 2nd_reading =
| 3rd_reading =
| white_paper =
| committee_report =
| amendments = [http://www.meity.gov.in/content/information-technology-act-2000 IT (Amendment) Act 2008]
| repeals =
| related = [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|IT Rules 2021]]
| summary =
| keywords =
| 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]].

[[Primary and secondary legislation|Secondary or subordinate legislation]] to the IT Act includes the Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011 and the [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]]'''.'''..

==Background==
The bill was passed in the budget session of 2000 and signed by President [[K. R. Narayanan]] on 9 June 2000. The bill was finalised by a group of officials headed by then [[Ministry of Communications and Information Technology|Minister of Information Technology]] [[Pramod Mahajan]].<ref name=ComeIntoForce>{{cite news|title=IT Act to come into force from August 15|url=http://www.rediff.com/business/2000/aug/09itact.htm|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Rediff]]|date=9 August 2000}}</ref>

==Summary==
The original Act contained 94 sections, divided into 13 chapters and 4 [[schedule]]s. The laws apply 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, .<ref name="PawarKolekar2015">{{cite book|author1=Sujata Pawar|author2=Yogesh Kolekar|title=Essentials of Information Technology Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m6mjBwAAQBAJ&pg=PT296|access-date=14 April 2015|date=23 March 2015|publisher=Notion Press|isbn=978-93-84878-57-3|pages=296–306}}</ref>

The Act provides a legal framework for electronic governance by giving recognition to [[electronic records]] and [[digital signature]]s. 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.<ref name="PawarKolekar2015"/> The Act also amended various sections of the [[Indian Penal Code|Indian Penal Code, 1860]], the [[Indian Evidence Act|Indian Evidence Act, 1872]], the Banker's Book Evidence Act, 1891, and the [[Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934]] to make them compliant with new technologies.<ref name="PawarKolekar2015"/>

=== Amendments ===
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 President [[Pratibha Patil]], on 5 February 2009.<ref name=Sec66A>{{cite web|title=Section 66A of the Information Technology Act|url=http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/section-66A-information-technology-act|publisher=[[Centre for Internet and Society (India)]]|access-date=14 April 2015}}</ref><ref name=Snooping>{{cite news|title=Yes, snooping’s allowed|url=http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/yes-snooping-s-allowed/419978/0|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Indian Express]]|date=6 February 2009}}</ref><ref name=DeafDumb>{{cite news|title=Deaf, Dumb & Dangerous - 21 Minutes: That was the time our MPs spent on Section 66A. How they played|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150326/jsp/frontpage/story_10924.jsp#.VRTZco6upng|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Telegraph (India)]]|date=26 March 2015}}</ref><ref name=AmendedCyberCrime>{{cite news|title=Amended IT Act to prevent cyber crime comes into effect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/amended-it-act-to-prevent-cyber-crime-comes-into-effect/article39398.ece|access-date=8 May 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=27 October 2015}} Vishal rintu -journalists of the new era</ref>

===Offences===

List of offences and the corresponding penalties:<ref name="2008FullAct">{{cite web|url=http://www.itlaw.in|title=The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008|access-date=7 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.itlaw.in/bareact/chapter-11-offences/|title=Chapter 11: Offences Archives - Information Technology Act|website=Information Technology Act}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Section!! Offence !!Penalty
|-
| 65
| Tampering with computer [[source code|source documents]]
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|200,000|INR}}
|-
| 66
| [[Computer crime|Hacking]] with computer system
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|500,000|INR}}
|-
| 66B
| Receiving stolen computer or communication device
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
| 66C
| [[Identity theft|Using password of another person]]
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
| 66D
| [[Internet fraud|Cheating using computer resource]]
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
| 66E
| Publishing [[Voyeurism|private images]] of others
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|200,000|INR}}
|-
| 66F
| Acts of [[cyberterrorism]]
| Imprisonment up to life.
|-
| 67
| Publishing information which is [[Pornography in India|obscene]] in electronic form.
| Imprisonment up to five years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|1,000,000|INR}}
|-
| 67A
| Publishing images containing [[Pornography in India|sexual acts]]
| Imprisonment up to seven years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|1,000,000|INR}}
|-No]] or [[Sexual predator|predating children]] online
|
|-
| 67C
| Failure to maintain records
| Imprisonment up to three years, or/and with fine.
|-
| 68
| Failure/refusal to comply with orders
| Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
| 69
| Failure/refusal to [[Key disclosure law|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 with fine.
|-
| 71
| [[Misrepresentation]]
| Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
|72
|Breach of confidentiality and privacy
|Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
|72A
|Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract
|Imprisonment up to 3 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|500,000|INR}}
|-
|73
|Publishing electronic signature certificate false in certain particulars
|Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
|74466
|Publication for fraudulent purpose
|Imprisonment up to 2 years, or/and with fine up to {{currency|100,000|INR}}
|-
|}

==Notable cases==

===Section 66===
* In February 2001, in one of the first cases, the Delhi police arrested two men running a [[web-hosting]] company. The company had shut down a website over non-payment of dues. The owner of the site had claimed that he had already paid and complained to the police. The Delhi police had charged the men for hacking under Section 66 of the IT Act and breach of trust under Section 408 of the [[Indian Penal Code]]. The two men had to spend 6 days in [[Tihar jail]] waiting for bail.
* In February 2017, A Delhi based Ecommerce Portal made a Complaint with Hauz Khas Police Station against some hackers from different cities accusing them for IT Act / Theft / Cheating / Misappropriation / Criminal Conspiracy / Criminal Breach of Trust / Cyber Crime of Hacking / Snooping / Tampering with Computer source documents and the Web Site and extending the threats of dire consequences to employees, as a result four hackers were arrested by South Delhi Police for Digital Shoplifting.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.itlaw.in/digital-shoplifting-four-hackers-arrested-south-delhi/|title=Four Hackers Arrested in Delhi, Cyber Crime, Gift Vouchers, Hacking, Section 65 / 66 of IT Act, Gyftr|date=2010-02-10|work=Information Technology Act|access-date=2017-05-07|language=en-US}}</ref>

===Section 66A===
* In September 2012, a freelance [[cartoonist]] [[Aseem Trivedi]] was arrested under the Section 66A of the IT Act, Section 2 of [[Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971]] and for [[sedition]] under the Section 124 of the [[Indian Penal Code]].<ref name=Sedition>{{cite news|title='If Speaking The Truth Is Sedition, Then I Am Guilty'|url=http://www.outlookindia.com/article/If-Speaking-The-Truth-Is-Sedition-Then-I-Am-Guilty/282245|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Outlook India]]|date=10 September 2010}}</ref> His cartoons depicting widespread corruption in India were considered offensive.<ref name=IndianCartoonist>{{cite news|title=Indian cartoonist Aseem Trivedi jailed after arrest on sedition charges|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/10/indian-cartoonist-jailed-sedition|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=10 September 2010}}</ref><ref>[http://www.cyberlawhub.com/it-act-2000/chapter-11-offences/section-66a-punishment-for-sending-offensive-messages-through-communication-service-etc.php Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.]</ref>
* On 12 April 2012, a Chemistry professor from [[Jadavpur University]], Ambikesh Mahapatra, was arrested for sharing a cartoon of [[West Bengal]] [[Chief Minister]] [[Chief Minister of West Bengal|Mamata Banerjee]] and then [[Minister of Railways (India)|Railway Minister]] [[Mukul Roy]].<ref name=PokingFun>{{cite news|title=Professor arrested for poking fun at Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140702120532/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/professor-arrested-for-poking-fun-at-mamata/article1-839847.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=2 July 2014|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=14 April 2012}}</ref> The email was sent from the email address of a housing society. Subrata Sengupta, the secretary of the housing society, was also arrested. They were charged under Section 66A and B of the IT Act, for defamation under Sections 500, for obscene gesture to a woman under Section 509, and abetting a crime under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code.<ref name=Mamata>{{cite news|title=Cartoon a conspiracy, prof an offender: Mamata|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/cartoon-a-conspiracy-prof-an-offender-mamata/article1-840108.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518131202/http://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/cartoon-a-conspiracy-prof-an-offender-mamata/article1-840108.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=18 May 2015|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=13 April 2012}}</ref>
* On 30 October 2012, a [[Pondicherry|Puducherry]] businessman Ravi Srinivasan was arrested under Section 66A. He had sent tweet accusing [[Karti Chidambaram]], son of then [[Finance Minister]] [[P. Chidambaram]], of corruption. Karti Chidambaram had complained to the police.<ref name=MangoMan>{{cite news|title=Arrest over tweet against Chidambaram's son propels 'mango man' Ravi Srinivasan into limelight|url=http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arrest-tweet-chidambaram-son-karti-ravi-srinivasan/1/227402.html|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[India Today]]|date=2 November 2012}}</ref>
* On 19 November 2012, a 21-year-old girl was arrested from [[Palghar]] for posting a message on Facebook criticising the shutdown in Mumbai for the funeral of [[Bal Thackeray]]. Another 20-year-old girl was arrested for "liking" the post. They were initially charged under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (hurting religious sentiments) and Section 66A of the IT Act. Later, Section 295A was replaced by Section 505(2) (promoting enmity between classes).<ref name=FearNotRespect>{{cite news|title=Mumbai shuts down due to fear, not respect|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/mumbai-shuts-down-due-to-fear-not-respect/article4111814.ece?ref=relatedNews|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=19 November 2012}}</ref> A group of [[Shiv Sena]] workers vandalised a hospital run by the uncle of one of girls.<ref name=10Sainiks>{{cite news|title=FB post: 10 Sainiks arrested for hospital attack|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/fb-post-10-sainiks-arrested-for-hospital-attack/article4114966.ece?ref=relatedNews|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=20 November 2012}}</ref> On 31 January 2013, a local court dropped all charges against the girls.<ref name=ScrapsFBRow>{{cite news|title=Facebook row: Court scraps charges against Palghar girls|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/facebook-row-court-scraps-charges-against-palghar-girls/article4365469.ece|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=31 January 2013}}</ref>
* On 18 March 2015, a teenaged boy was arrested from [[Bareilly]], [[Uttar Pradesh]], for making a post on Facebook insulting politician [[Azam Khan (politician)|Azam Khan]]. The post allegedly contained hate speech against a community and was falsely attributed to Azam Khan by the boy. He was charged under Section 66A of the IT Act, and Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different religions), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 505 (public mischief) of [[Indian Penal Code]]. After the Section 66A was repealed on 24 March, the state government said that they would continue the prosecution under the remaining charges.<ref name=AzamKhan>{{cite news|title=Teen arrested for Facebook post attributed to Azam Khan gets bail|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Teen-arrested-for-Facebook-post-attributed-to-Azam-Khan-gets-bail/articleshow/46620033.cms|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=19 March 2015}}</ref><ref name=UPtellsSC>{{cite news|title=UP tells SC that prosecution on boy for post against Azam Khan will continue|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/up-tells-sc-that-prosecution-on-boy-for-post-against-azam-khan-will-continue/|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Indian Express]]|date=24 April 2015}}</ref>

=== Section 69A ===

* On 29 June 2020, the [[Modi government|Indian Government]] banned 59 [[China|Chinese]] [[mobile app]]s, most notably [[TikTok]], supported by Section 69A and citing national security interests.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Government Bans 59 mobile apps which are prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order|url=http://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1635206|access-date=2020-11-24|website=pib.gov.in}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Soni|first=Aayush|date=2020-07-06|title=Can Chinese apps appeal India's ban? Section 69A of IT Act has the answer|url=https://theprint.in/opinion/can-chinese-apps-appeal-india-ban-section-69a-of-it-act-has-answer/455316/|access-date=2020-11-24|website=ThePrint|language=en-US}}</ref>
* On 24 November 2020, another 43 Chinese mobile apps were banned supported by the same reasoning, most notably [[AliExpress]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Government of India blocks 43 mobile apps from accessing by users in India|url=http://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1675335|access-date=2020-11-24|website=www.pib.gov.in}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2020-11-24|title=Indian government bans 43 apps: Here’s the list|url=https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/indian-government-bans-43-apps-here-s-the-list-71606218186438.html|access-date=2020-11-24|website=Hindustan Times Tech|language=en}}</ref>

==Criticisms==

===Section 66A and restriction of free speech===
From its establishment as an amendment to the original act in 2008, Section 66A attracted controversy over its unconstitutional nature:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! 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 (Kerala)|P Rajeev]], a [[Rajya Sabha]] member from Kerala, tried to pass a resolution seeking to amend the 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 that cartoons and editorials allowed in traditional media, were being censored in the new media. He also said that law was barely debated before being passed in December 2008.<ref name=Undemocratic/>

[[Rajeev Chandrasekhar]] suggested the 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 sufficient to warrant changes. The then [[Ministry of Communications and Information Technology|Minister for Communications and Information Technology]], [[Kapil Sibal|Mr Kapil Sibal]] defended the existing law, saying that similar laws existed in US and UK. He also said that a similar provision existed under Indian Post Office Act, 1898. However, P Rajeev said that the UK dealt only with communication from person to person.<ref name=Undemocratic>{{cite news|title=Section 66A of IT Act undemocratic: RS MPs|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Section-66A-of-IT-Act-undemocratic-RS-MPs/articleshow/17623782.cms|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=15 December 2012}}</ref>

====Petitions challenging constitutionality====

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 the Section 66A violated the freedom of speech guaranteed in the Article 19(1)(a) of the [[Constitution of India]]. They said that the section was vague and frequently misused.<ref name=UltraVires>{{cite news|title=After Mumbai FB case, writ filed in Lucknow to declare section 66A, IT Act 2000 as ultra-vires|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/After-Mumbai-FB-case-writ-filed-in-Lucknow-to-declare-section-66A-IT-Act-2000-as-ultra-vires/articleshow/17310326.cms?referral=PM|access-date=14 April 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=21 November 2012}}</ref>

Also 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 the Section 66A was vaguely phrased, as result it violated Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution. The PIL was accepted on 29 November 2012.<ref name=PIL66A>{{cite news|title=SC accepts PIL challenging Section 66A of IT Act|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-accepts-PIL-challenging-Section-66A-of-IT-Act/articleshow/17412246.cms|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=29 November 2012}}</ref><ref name=Shreya>{{cite news|title=Shreya Singhal: The student who took on India's internet laws|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32036574|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[BBC News]]|date=24 March 2015}}</ref>

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.<ref name=SCSeeksReply>{{cite news|title=SC seeks govt reply on PIL challenging powers of IT Act|url=http://www.livemint.com/Politics/DSjZ9XsezZ4fN2GGfkWu1N/SC-seeks-govt-reply-on-PIL-challenging-powers-of-IT-Act.html|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Live Mint]]|date=30 August 2015}}</ref>

====Revocation by the Supreme Court====

On 24 March 2015, the Supreme Court of India, gave the verdict that Section 66A is unconstitutional in entirety. The court said that Section 66A of IT Act 2000 is "arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech" provided under [[Fundamental rights in India|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.<ref name=Draconian>{{cite news|title=SC strikes down ‘draconian’ Section 66A|url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-strikes-down-section-66-a-of-the-it-act-finds-it-unconstitutional/article7027375.ece|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Hindu]]|date=25 March 2015}}</ref><ref name=KeyPoints>{{cite news|title=SC quashes Section 66A of IT Act: Key points of court verdict|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-quashes-Section66A-IT-Act/listshow/46673677.cms|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=24 March 2015}}</ref>

===Strict data privacy rules===
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.<ref name=StrictData>{{cite news|title=India data privacy rules may be too strict for some U.S. companies|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/india-data-privacy-rules-may-be-too-strict-for-some-us-companies/2011/05/18/AF9QJc8G_story.html|access-date=23 April 2015|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=21 May 2011}}</ref>

===Section 69 and mandatory decryption===
{{See also|Mandatory decryption}}
The 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.<ref name=Snooping/> On 20 December 2018, the [[Ministry of Home Affairs (India)|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.” <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/all-computers-can-now-be-monitored-by-govt-agencies/article25792523.ece|title=All computers can now be monitored by govt. agencies|date=2018-12-21|work=The Hindu|access-date=2018-12-27|others=Special Correspondent|language=en-IN|issn=0971-751X}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/a-spy-state-home-ministrys-blanket-surveillance-order-must-be-tested-against-fundamental-right-to-privacy/|title=A spy state? Home ministry’s blanket surveillance order must be tested against fundamental right to privacy|date=2018-12-24|website=Times of India Blog|language=en-US|access-date=2018-12-27}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/government-s-surveillance-order-key-to-national-security-mha-officials/story-4gNFGn0hyUuz0XrEDuq9NJ.html|title=Government’s surveillance order key to national security: MHA officials|date=2018-12-27|website=Hindustan Times|language=en|access-date=2018-12-27}}</ref>

=== Section 69A and banning of mobile apps ===
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 [[World Trade Organization|WTO]] agreements.<ref>{{Cite web|title=India Takes a Tough Stand on Neighbouring Apps|url=https://www.natlawreview.com/article/india-takes-tough-stand-neighbouring-apps|access-date=2020-11-24|website=The National Law Review|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Chinese apps ban – legality in domestic and international law|url=https://www.rfmlr.com/post/chinese-apps-ban-legality-in-domestic-and-international-law}}</ref> The [[Internet Freedom Foundation]] has criticized the ban for not following the required protocols and thus lacking transparency and disclosure.<ref>{{Cite web|title=59 Chinese apps banned {{!}} Is it legal? Here's what the Indian Information Technology Act says|url=https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/59-chinese-apps-banned-is-it-legal-heres-what-the-indian-information-technology-act-says-5481411.html|access-date=2020-11-24|website=Moneycontrol}}</ref>

==Future changes==
On 2 April 2015, the 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 [[Shiv Sena]] leader Neelam Gorhe. Gorhe had said that repeal of the law would encourage online miscreants and asked whether the state government would frame a law to 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.<ref name=NewLaw66A>{{cite news|title=Centre working on new law similar to Section 66A: Devendra Fadnavis|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social/Centre-working-on-new-law-similar-to-Section-66A-Devendra-Fadnavis/articleshow/46780443.cms|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Times of India]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref>

On 13 April 2015, it announced that the [[Ministry of Home Affairs (India)|Ministry of Home Affairs]] would form a committee of officials from the [[Intelligence Bureau (India)|Intelligence Bureau]], [[Central Bureau of Investigation]], [[National Investigation Agency]], [[Delhi Police]] and 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 incite people to commit an offence, such as online recruitment for [[ISIS]].<ref name=SofterSec66A>{{cite news|title=Section 66A of the IT Act likely to be back in softer avatar|url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-14/news/61142309_1_social-media-posts-shreya-singhal-ministry-official|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[The Economic Times]]|date=14 April 2015}}</ref><ref name=NewPanel>{{cite news|title=New panel to work on Section 66A alternative|url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-panel-to-work-on-sec-66a-alternative/article1-1336917.aspx|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150415090939/http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-panel-to-work-on-sec-66a-alternative/article1-1336917.aspx|url-status=dead|archive-date=15 April 2015|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Hindustan Times]]|date=14 April 2015}}</ref> Former Minister of State with the Ministry of Information Technology, [[Milind Deora]] has supported a new "unambiguous section to replace 66A".<ref name=Deora>{{cite news|title=Former IT minister Milind Deora: Why we need a new Section 66A|url=http://www.rediff.com/news/column/former-it-minister-milind-deora-why-we-need-a-new-section-66a/20150402.htm|access-date=6 May 2015|work=[[Rediff]]|date=2 April 2015}}</ref>

==Importance of the Information Technology Act==
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."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Shankar Singh |first1=Shiv |title=PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT |journal=Journal of the Indian Law Institute |date=2011 |volume=53 |page=671 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/45148583. Accessed 13 Mar. 2021.}}</ref>

== Secondary legislation ==
The [[Information Technology Rules, 2021|Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021]] suppresses India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Dalmia|first=Vijay Pal|date=4 March 2021|title=Information Technology (Guidelines For Intermediaries And Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021|url=https://www.mondaq.com/india/social-media/1042586/information-technology-guidelines-for-intermediaries-and-digital-media-ethics-code-rules-2021|access-date=2021-03-05|website=www.mondaq.com}}</ref>

==See also==
* [[Personal Data Protection Bill 2019]]
* [[Chilling effect]]
* [[Mouthshut.com v. Union of India]]
* [[Save Your Voice]]

==References==
{{Reflist|3}}

==Further reading==
* {{cite court |litigants=Shreya Singhal v. Union of India |court=[[Supreme Court of India]] |date=24 March 2015 |url=http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf |quote=}}
* {{cite news|author1=David Rizk|title=New Indian Internet Intermediary Regulations Pose Serious Threats to Net Users’ Freedom of Expression|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/new-indian-internet-intermediary-regulations-pose|work=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]|date=10 June 2011}}

==External links==
* {{cite web|url=http://www.itlaw.in|title=Information Technology Act, 2000 with 2008 amendments}}

{{Indian legislations}}

[[Category:Computing legislation]]
[[Category:Acts of the Parliament of India 2000]]
[[Category:2000 in India]]
[[Category:2000 in law]]
[[Category:Vajpayee administration]]
[[Category:Information technology in India]]
[[Category:Censorship in India]]
[[Category:Internet in India]]
[[Category:Manmohan Singh administration]]
[[Category:2008 in India]]
[[Category:2008 in law]]
[[Category:Medical privacy legislation]]
[[Category:Cyber Security in India]]

Bharatpedia - User contributions [en]

Information Technology Act, 2000