Internet Governance And Criminal Law
π Internet Governance and Criminal Law: Overview
Internet Governance refers to the rules, policies, standards, and practices that regulate the use and operation of the internet. It encompasses various aspects such as:
Cybersecurity
Data protection
Intellectual property rights
Privacy and surveillance
Content regulation and censorship
Domain name management
Criminal Law intersects with internet governance in addressing cybercrimes such as:
Hacking and unauthorized access
Identity theft
Cyberstalking and harassment
Distribution of obscene or illegal content
Online fraud and phishing
Cyberterrorism
The objective is to maintain law and order online, protect users, and safeguard critical infrastructure while balancing rights such as freedom of speech and privacy.
βοΈ Key Legal Frameworks
India
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)
Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections related to cybercrime
Rules under IT Act (Intermediary Guidelines, Data Protection rules)
International / Global
Multi-stakeholder model involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community
International treaties like the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime
π§ββοΈ Important Case Laws on Internet Governance & Criminal Law
1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) β Striking Down Section 66A of IT Act
Facts: Section 66A criminalized sending offensive or annoying messages online. This led to arbitrary arrests.
Judgment: Supreme Court struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional, violating Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech).
Significance: Landmark judgment balancing internet governance and free speech. Emphasized that criminal law provisions regulating internet content must be clear and not vague or overbroad.
2. Avnish Bajaj v. State (2008) β Intermediary Liability and Internet Governance
Facts: Obscene content involving minors was uploaded on Bazee.com, and the CEO was arrested under Section 67 of IT Act.
Judgment: The court held that intermediaries are not liable unless they have knowledge or fail to act when notified.
Significance: Set the foundation for intermediary liability principles under Section 79 IT Act, critical for internet governance.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) β Cyberstalking and Harassment
Facts: The accused created fake email IDs and posted defamatory and obscene content targeting a woman.
Judgment: Convicted under Sections 66 (IT Act), 509 (IPC) and 67 (obscenity).
Significance: One of the first convictions for cyberstalking, establishing that online harassment is punishable.
4. Ravi Shankar v. State (2019) β Cyberterrorism and Internet Governance
Facts: Accused used social media to spread terror-related content and incite violence.
Judgment: Court upheld conviction under Sections 66F (cyberterrorism) of the IT Act.
Significance: Reinforced that criminal law applies strictly to internet misuse threatening national security.
5. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) β Admissibility of Electronic Evidence
Facts: Digital evidence without proper certification was rejected by the trial court.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that electronic evidence must be accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
Significance: Strengthened legal standards for digital evidence in cybercrime prosecution, critical for criminal law enforcement in cyberspace.
6. Facebook India v. Union of India (2018) β Data Privacy and Internet Governance
Facts: A petition challenging governmentβs demand for user data and surveillance powers under IT Act.
Outcome: Discussions about the need for data protection and safeguarding user privacy intensified.
Significance: Highlighted the tension between government surveillance and individual rights in internet governance.
7. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2019) β Regulation of Political Ads Online
Facts: Case concerning the need to regulate online political advertisements to prevent misinformation.
Judgment: Court directed social media platforms to self-regulate political ads, highlighting governance issues.
Significance: Shows the evolving role of criminal and administrative law in regulating digital spaces.
π Summary Table
| Case Name | Legal Aspect | Key Outcome | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shreya Singhal v. UoI | Free speech & IT Act | Struck down Sec 66A | Protects online expression |
| Avnish Bajaj v. State | Intermediary Liability | Intermediaries not liable unless notified | Foundation of internet governance |
| State v. Suhas Katti | Cyberstalking | Conviction for online harassment | Online safety & harassment laws |
| Ravi Shankar v. State | Cyberterrorism | Upheld cyberterrorism conviction | Security in cyberspace |
| Anvar P.V. v. Basheer | Digital Evidence | Certification mandatory | Evidence standards in cybercrime |
| Facebook India v. UoI | Data privacy | Highlighted surveillance concerns | Privacy in internet governance |
| UoI v. ADR | Political ads regulation | Directed self-regulation | Regulating misinformation online |
Conclusion
Internet governance and criminal law overlap significantly in regulating online behavior, protecting rights, and ensuring security.
Courts have emphasized clear legal standards, fair enforcement, and balancing rights like privacy and freedom of speech.
The role of intermediaries, digital evidence standards, and counter-terrorism laws have become pivotal.
The legal framework continues to evolve globally and in India to address new challenges posed by the internet.
RELATED Blog
0 comments