IT Act 2000

 IT Act 2000


In 1996, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the model law on electronic commerce (E-commerce) to bring uniformity in the law in different countries.


The General Assembly of the United Nations recommended that all countries must consider this model law before making changes to their own laws. India became the 12th country to enable cyber law after it passed the Information Technology Act, 2000


Provides legal recognition to the transaction done via electronic exchange of data and other electronic means of communication or electronic commerce transactions.



Enacted by the Indian Parliament in 2000

Primary law in India for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce.


  • The act was enacted to give legal sanction to electronic commerce and electronic transactions, to enable e-governance, and also to prevent cybercrime.

  • Under this law, for any crime involving a computer or a network located in India, foreign nationals can also be charged.

  • The law prescribes penalties for various cybercrimes and fraud through digital/electronic format.

  • It also gives legal recognition to digital signatures.

  • The IT Act also amended certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Banker’s Book Evidence Act, 1891, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 to modify these laws to make them compliant with new digital technologies.

  • In the wake of the recent Indo-China border clash, the Government of India banned various Chinese apps under the Information Technology Act. Read more about this in an RSTV titled, ‘TikTok, Other Chinese Apps Banned’.


IT Act – 2008 Amendments

The IT Act, of 2000 was amended in 2008. 

Introduced the controversial Section 66A into the Act.

Section 66A

  • Section 66A gave authorities the power to arrest anyone accused of posting content on social media that could be deemed ‘offensive’.

  • This amendment was passed in Parliament without any debate.

  • As per the said section, a person could be convicted if proven on the charges of sending any ‘information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character’.

  • It also made it an offense to send any information that the sender knows to be false, but for the purpose of annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill-will, through a computer or electronic device.

  • The penalty prescribed for the above was up to three years imprisonment with a fine.

Arguments against Section 66A

  • Experts stated that the terms ‘offensive’, ‘menacing’, ‘annoyance’, etc. were vague and ill-defined or not defined at all.

  • Anything could be construed as offensive by anybody.

  • There was a lot of scope for abuse of power using this provision to intimidate people working in the media.

  • This also curbed the freedom of speech and expression enshrined as a fundamental right in the Constitution.

  • The section was used most notably to arrest persons who made any uncharitable remarks or criticisms against politicians.

The government contended that the section did not violate any fundamental right and that only certain words were restricted. 

It stated that as the number of internet users mushroomed in the country, there was a need to regulate the content on the internet just like print and electronic media.

The Supreme Court, however, in 2015, struck down this section of the IT Act saying it was unconstitutional as it violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

This was in the famous Shreya Singhal v Union of India case (2015).

Section 69A

  • Section 69A empowers the authorities to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource if it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense or for investigation of any offense.

  • It also empowers the government to block internet sites in the interests of the nation. The law also contained the procedural safeguards for blocking any site.

  • When parties opposed to the section stated that this section violated the right to privacy, the Supreme Court contended that national security is above individual privacy. The apex court upheld the constitutional validity of the section. 

  • The recent banning of certain Chinese Apps was done citing provisions under Section 69A of the IT Act.










Intermediary Guidelines Rules 2011


Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021


These new rules broadly deal with social media and over-the-top (OTT) platforms.


These rules have been framed in the exercise of powers under section 87 (2) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and 

In supersession of the earlier Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011.


New Guidelines for Social Media/Intermediaries:

  • Categories of Social Media Intermediaries:

    • Based on the number of users, on the social media platform intermediaries have been divided into two groups:

      • Social media intermediaries

      • Significant social media intermediaries

  • Due Diligence to be Followed by Intermediaries:

    • In case, due diligence is not followed by the intermediary, safe harbor provisions will not apply to them.

    • The safe harbor provisions have been defined under Section 79 of the IT Act, and protect social media intermediaries by giving them immunity from legal prosecution for any content posted on their platforms.

  • Grievance Redressal Mechanism is Mandatory:

    • Intermediaries shall appoint a Grievance Officer to deal with complaints and share the name and contact details of such officers.

    • Grievance Officer shall acknowledge the complaint within twenty-four hours and resolve it within fifteen days from its receipt.

  • Ensuring Online Safety and Dignity of Users:

    • Intermediaries shall remove or disable access within 24 hours of receipt of complaints of contents that expose the private areas of individuals, show such individuals in full or partial nudity or in a sexual act, or is in the nature of impersonation including morphed images, etc.

    • Such a complaint can be filed either by the individual or by any other person on his/her behalf.


    • Additional Due Diligence for the Significant Social Media Intermediaries:

      • Appointments: Need to appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a Nodal Contact Person, and a Resident Grievance Officer, all of whom should be residents of India.

      • Compliance Report: Need to publish a monthly compliance report mentioning the details of complaints received and action taken on the complaints as well as details of contents removed proactively.

      • Enabling Identity of the Originator:

        • Significant social media intermediaries providing services primarily in the nature of messaging shall enable the identification of the first originator of the information.

        • Required only for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, or punishment of an offense related to the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order,

          • Or of incitement to an offense relating to the above or in relation to rape, sexually explicit material, or child sexual abuse material punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.

    • Removal of Unlawful Information:

      • An intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court or being notified by the Appropriate Govt. or its agencies through an authorized officer should not host or publish any information which is prohibited under any law in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign countries, etc.

  • Rules for News Publishers and OTT Platforms and Digital Media:

    • For OTT:

      • Self-Classification of Content:

        • The OTT platforms, called the publishers of online curated content in the rules, would self-classify the content into five age-based categories- U (Universal), U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+, and A (Adult).

      • Parental Lock:

        • Platforms would be required to implement parental locks for content classified as U/A 13+ or higher, and reliable age verification mechanisms for content classified as “A”.

      • Display Rating:

        • Shall prominently display the classification rating specific to each content or program together with a content descriptor informing the user about the nature of the content, and advising on viewer description (if applicable) at the beginning of every program enabling the user to make an informed decision, prior to watching the program.

    • For Publishers of News on Digital Media :

      • They would be required to observe the Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act 1995 thereby providing a level playing field between the offline (Print, TV) and digital media.

    • Grievance Redressal Mechanism: A three-level grievance redressal mechanism has been established under the rules with different levels of self-regulation.

      • Level-I: Self-regulation by the publishers;

      • Level-II: Self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the publishers;

      • Level-III: Oversight mechanism.

    • Self-regulation by the Publisher:

      • Publisher shall appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer based in India who shall be responsible for the redressal of grievances received by it.

      • The officer shall take a decision on every grievance received by it within 15 days.

    • Self-Regulatory Body:

      • There may be one or more self-regulatory bodies of publishers.

      • Such a body shall be headed by a retired judge of the SC, a High Court or an independent eminent person and have not more than six members.

      • Such a body will have to register with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

      • This body will oversee the adherence by the publisher to the Code of Ethics and address grievances that have not been resolved by the publisher within 15 days.

    • Oversight Mechanism:

      • Ministry of Information and Broadcasting shall formulate an oversight mechanism.

      • It shall publish a charter for self-regulating bodies, including Codes of Practice. It shall establish an Inter-Departmental Committee for hearing grievances.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CMC and theories of Digital Media: Network theory, Mediatisation theory and Actor Network Theory, Online Disinhibition (1.4.5)

  Computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to the exchange of information and messages between individuals or groups using digital technologies. CMC can take many different forms, including email, instant messaging, online chat rooms, social media platforms, and video conferencing. CMC has had a significant impact on the way we communicate and interact with one another and has transformed the way we think about social interaction and community building in the digital age. Network Theory - Network theory is used to analyze the structure and dynamics of communication networks, both online and offline.  It was to understand how messages are transmitted and disseminated through social networks, and how these networks shape the flow of information in society. Researchers use network theory to analyze the patterns of media use and exposure among different groups and to understand how these patterns influence attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.  Network theory is also used in...
Read more

(2.1.4) Digital Media Revolution: Mass Media Adaptation, Trends, Revolution

The digital media revolution refers to the transformation of the traditional mass media industry in response to the rise of digital technologies and the internet.  This revolution has had a profound impact on how people consume and interact with media content, as well as on the structure and business models of the media industry. One of the most significant trends of the digital media revolution has been the shift from traditional broadcast media, such as television and radio, to online streaming platforms.  Services like Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime Video have disrupted the traditional television industry, allowing viewers to access content on demand and without commercials. Similarly, streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music have revolutionized the music industry, making it easier than ever for listeners to access and discover new music. Another major trend of the digital media revolution has been the rise of social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and ...
Read more

Paper 2 - Unit 4 - Digital Audience

  Understanding Audiences: Difference between Public, Crowd, Group, Mass & Audience Public: A public is a group of people who share a common interest or concern and are organized around a specific issue or event. They are usually gathered in a specific location or venue, such as a town hall meeting or political rally. Crowd: A crowd is a large group of people who are gathered together in a particular location, such as a concert, sporting event, or protest. They may share a common interest or experience, but they do not necessarily have a shared identity or purpose. Group: A group is a collection of individuals who share a common interest or identity and interact with each other on a regular basis. Groups can be formal or informal, and they may have specific rules or norms that govern their behavior. Mass: A mass audience refers to a large and diverse group of people who receive information through mass media channels, such as television, radio, or the internet. Mass audiences a...
Read more