{"id":13853,"date":"2026-04-07T16:21:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-07T10:51:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/?p=13853"},"modified":"2026-04-11T15:26:04","modified_gmt":"2026-04-11T09:56:04","slug":"chapter-xi-of-the-information-technology-act-2000-offences-and-procedural-aspects","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/chapter-xi-of-the-information-technology-act-2000-offences-and-procedural-aspects\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000 \u2013 Offences and Procedural Aspects"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000 \u2013 Offences and Procedural Aspects: A Practitioner\u2019s Guide<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Chapter XI<\/strong> of the Information Technology Act, 2000 <\/strong>(\u201cIT Act\u201d) is the core penal chapter dealing with cyber offences and related procedural aspects, and runs broadly from Section 65 to Section 78<\/strong>. It is routinely invoked together with IPC provisions in cybercrime prosecutions, so a clear grasp of its structure, ingredients, punishments, and procedural consequences is essential for effective defence and prosecution work.[1]<\/sup><\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Position of Chapter XI within the IT Act<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Chapter XI contains criminal offences, as distinct from the civil contraventions and compensation regime in Chapter IX (Section 43, 43A, etc.)<\/strong>. In practice, many fact situations start as a Section 43 contravention and escalate to Chapter XI once \u201cdishonestly\u201d or \u201cfraudulently\u201d is alleged, triggering criminal liability under Section 66 and related provisions.[5]<\/sup><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a>[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chapter covers: tampering with source code (Section 65), computer-related offences and variants (Sections 66, 66B\u201366F<\/strong>), obscenity and child sexual abuse material online (Sections 67\u201367B<\/strong>), data retention and intermediary obligations (Section 67C), governmental interception\/blocking powers (Sections 69\u201369B<\/em>), critical infrastructure (Sections 70\u201370B<\/strong>), confidentiality\/privacy breaches (Sections 72\u201372A), digital signature certificate-related misconduct (Sections 71, 73, 74<\/strong>), extra\u2011territoriality and confiscation (Sections 75\u201376), and rules on compounding, cognizability, bailability and investigation (Sections 77A, 77B, 78<\/strong>).[2]<\/sup><\/a>[8]<\/sup><\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chapter XI \u2013 Offences under the IT Act, 2000<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Section<\/th>Heading in Act (gist)<\/th>Core idea of offence \/ provision<\/th>Maximum punishment \/ nature<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
65<\/td>Tampering with computer source documents<\/td>Knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying or altering legally\u2011required computer source code<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b92 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
66<\/td>Computer related offences<\/td>Any Section 43 act (unauthorised access, data copying, virus, etc.) done dishonestly or fraudulently<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b95 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
66A*<\/td>Sending offensive messages (struck down)<\/td>Offensive\/menacing messages, annoying emails etc. (now unconstitutional in Shreya Singhal<\/em>)<\/td>Provision struck down by Supreme Court; no longer enforceable<\/td><\/tr>
66B<\/td>Dishonest receiving of stolen computer resource\/device<\/td>Dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen computer resource or communication device<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b91 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
66C<\/td>Identity theft<\/td>Fraudulent or dishonest use of electronic signature, password or other unique ID of another<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b91 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
66D<\/td>Cheating by personation using computer<\/td>Cheating by personation by using computer resource or communication device<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b91 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
66E<\/td>Violation of privacy<\/td>Intentionally capturing, publishing or transmitting image of a private area without consent<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b92 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
66F<\/td>Cyber terrorism<\/td>Acts using computer resources to threaten unity, integrity, security or sovereignty, or to attack critical infrastructure<\/td>Imprisonment for life<\/td><\/tr>
67<\/td>Obscene material in electronic form<\/td>Publishing or transmitting lascivious or prurient material in electronic form<\/td>For first conviction: up to 3 years and fine up to \u20b95 lakh; subsequent: up to 5 years and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/td><\/tr>
67A<\/td>Sexually explicit content<\/td>Publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act\/conduct in electronic form<\/td>First conviction: up to 5 years and fine up to \u20b910 lakh; subsequent: up to 7 years and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/td><\/tr>
67B<\/td>Child sexual abuse material (CSAM)<\/td>Publishing, transmitting, creating, browsing, collecting or facilitating sexually explicit depiction of children<\/td>First conviction: up to 5 years and fine up to \u20b910 lakh; subsequent: up to 7 years and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/td><\/tr>
67C<\/td>Preservation and retention by intermediaries<\/td>Duty of intermediaries to preserve and retain specified information as notified<\/td>Penalty up to \u20b925 lakh for intentional\/knowing contravention<\/td><\/tr>
68<\/td>Power of Controller to give directions<\/td>Non\u2011compliance with Controller\u2019s directions to Certifying Authorities etc.<\/td>Fine up to \u20b925 lakh (earlier imprisonment up to 2 years and fine up to \u20b91 lakh)<\/td><\/tr>
69<\/td>Interception, monitoring, decryption<\/td>Failure to assist in interception\/monitoring\/decryption ordered by Government<\/td>Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine<\/td><\/tr>
69A<\/td>Blocking for public access<\/td>Failure to comply with Government\u2019s directions to block public access to information<\/td>Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine<\/td><\/tr>
69B<\/td>Monitoring and collecting traffic data<\/td>Failure to comply with Government directions for monitoring\/collecting traffic data for cyber security<\/td>Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine up to \u20b91 crore<\/td><\/tr>
70<\/td>Protected systems<\/td>Securing or attempting to secure access to a \u201cprotected system\u201d (critical information infrastructure) without authorisation<\/td>Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine<\/td><\/tr>
70A<\/td>Critical information infrastructure authority<\/td>Provides for designated authority for critical information infrastructure (institutional, not an offence definition)<\/td>Structural\/procedural provision<\/td><\/tr>
70B<\/td>CERT\u2011In \u2013 incident response<\/td>Establishes CERT\u2011In as national nodal agency for cyber incident response (institutional)<\/td>Structural\/procedural provision<\/td><\/tr>
71<\/td>Misrepresentation<\/td>Misrepresentation or suppression of material fact in obtaining electronic\/digital signature certificate<\/td>Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine up to \u20b91 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
72<\/td>Breach of confidentiality and privacy<\/td>Unauthorised disclosure of information obtained by virtue of powers under the Act<\/td>Fine up to \u20b95 lakh (earlier up to 2 years and \u20b91 lakh)<\/td><\/tr>
72A<\/td>Disclosure in breach of lawful contract<\/td>Disclosure of personal information in breach of contract with intent to cause wrongful loss or gain<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine up to \u20b95 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
73<\/td>Publishing false electronic signature certificates<\/td>Publishing a false or misleading electronic signature certificate<\/td>Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine up to \u20b91 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
74<\/td>Publication for fraudulent purposes<\/td>Creation, publication or use of electronic signature certificates for fraudulent or unlawful purposes<\/td>Imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine up to \u20b91 lakh, or both<\/td><\/tr>
75<\/td>Extra\u2011territorial application<\/td>Applies to offences involving computer resources located in India, irrespective of offender\u2019s location<\/td>Jurisdictional rule, not a standalone offence<\/td><\/tr>
76<\/td>Confiscation<\/td>Provides for confiscation of computer resources, devices and media involved in contraventions\/offences<\/td>Procedural consequence \u2013 confiscation<\/td><\/tr>
77A<\/td>Compounding of offences<\/td>Allows court to compound IT Act offences with max imprisonment up to 3 years (subject to exceptions)<\/td>Compounding provisionlawgist+1<\/td><\/tr>
77B<\/td>Offences: cognizable\/bailable rule<\/td>Declares which IT Act offences are cognizable and which are bailable based on maximum imprisonment term<\/td>Classification rule for procedure<\/td><\/tr>
78<\/td>Investigation by police officers<\/td>Only police officer not below rank of Inspector may investigate IT Act offences<\/td>Procedural \u2013 investigation competence<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Tampering with computer source documents \u2013 Section 65<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Section 65 criminalises knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying or altering computer source code which is required by law to be kept or maintained. \u201cComputer source code\u201d<\/strong> is defined broadly to include program listings, commands, design and layout and program analysis in any form.[9]<\/sup><\/a>[7]<\/sup><\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Punishment can extend to three years\u2019 imprisonment, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both. Practically, this section is useful where the core grievance is destruction or manipulation of source code or configuration files (for example, by disgruntled employees or vendors) rather than just unauthorised access to data.<\/a>[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Computer-related offences \u2013 Section 66<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Originally titled \u201chacking\u201d<\/strong>, Section 66 was recast by the 2008 amendment to cover any act listed in Section 43 when done \u201cdishonestly or fraudulently\u201d<\/strong>. Section 43 itself covers unauthorised access, data copying, introducing viruses, causing denial of access, damage to computer systems, and similar actions.[6]<\/sup><\/a>[7]<\/sup><\/a>[11]<\/sup><\/a>[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If any such act in Section 43 is done with the mental element of dishonesty or fraud (as understood from Sections 24 and 25 IPC), the accused faces imprisonment up to three years or fine up to five lakh rupees or both. In practice, Section 66 is often clubbed with IPC provisions on mischief, theft or cheating, and the overlap between Section 66 and IPC sections (for example, 378, 425\u2013426, 420 IPC) has led to sustained debate and case law on dual applicability.<\/a>[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sections 66 to 66F \u2013 Overview<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Section<\/th>Statutory heading (gist)<\/th>Core conduct covered<\/th>Punishment \/ status<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
66<\/td>Computer related offences<\/td>Any act listed in Section 43 (unauthorised access, data copying, virus, damage, denial of access, etc.) when done dishonestly or fraudulently<\/strong>.<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> or fine up to \u20b95 lakh<\/strong>, or both.<\/td><\/tr>
66A*<\/td>Sending offensive messages through communication service, etc.<\/td>Sending, by computer resource or communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or menacing, or messages sent repeatedly to cause annoyance, inconvenience, etc. (as originally enacted).<\/td>Struck down as unconstitutional<\/strong> by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India<\/strong><\/em>; cannot be invoked or enforced.<\/td><\/tr>
66B<\/td>Dishonestly receiving stolen computer resource or communication device<\/td>Dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen computer resource or communication device, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen.<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> or fine up to \u20b91 lakh<\/strong>, or both.<\/td><\/tr>
66C<\/td>Identity theft<\/td>Fraudulent or dishonest use of electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any person.<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b91 lakh<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
66D<\/td>Cheating by personation by using computer resource<\/td>Cheating by personation by using computer resource or communication device (e.g. online impersonation scams).<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b91 lakh<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
66E<\/td>Violation of privacy<\/td>Intentionally capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of the \u201cprivate area\u201d of any person without consent, under circumstances violating privacy.<\/td>Imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> or fine up to \u20b92 lakh<\/strong>, or both.<\/td><\/tr>
66F<\/td>Punishment for cyber terrorism<\/td>Using computer resource to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror by causing death, injuries, damage to critical information infrastructure, etc.; also unauthorised access to protected systems with such intent.<\/td>Imprisonment for life<\/strong>, and fine (most serious offence in the chapter).<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

*Section 66A is void and should only be discussed historically (no current penal consequence).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ancillary computer offences \u2013 Sections 66B to 66F<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Dishonest receipt of stolen computer resources \u2013 Section 66B<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 66B punishes dishonestly receiving any stolen computer resource or communication device, mirroring Section 411 IPC in the digital context. Punishment can extend to three years\u2019 imprisonment or fine up to one lakh rupees, or both.<\/a>[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For advocates, this section frequently arises against re\u2011sellers of stolen laptops, smartphones or cloned POS terminals, and can be invoked alongside Section 411 IPC, though the latter is non\u2011bailable whereas Section 66B is bailable.<\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Identity theft \u2013 Section 66C<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 66C targets fraudulent or dishonest use of another person\u2019s electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature, i.e. \u201cidentity theft\u201d. Punishment is imprisonment up to three years and fine up to one lakh rupees.<\/a>[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This provision is commonly attracted in phishing, unauthorised use of login credentials, SIM swap frauds and Aadhaar\u2011linked misuse, often together with IPC provisions on forgery and cheating.<\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cheating by personation via computer \u2013 Section 66D<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 66D criminalises cheating by personation \u201cby using computer resource or communication device\u201d. It carries punishment of imprisonment up to three years and fine up to one lakh rupees.<\/a>[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the workhorse provision in online job scam, OTP scam, KYC fraud, and fake customer care cases, usually read with Sections 419 and 420 IPC, though Section 66D itself is bailable and compoundable under the IT Act.<\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Violation of privacy \u2013 Section 66E<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 66E punishes intentional capturing, publishing or transmitting of the image of the \u201cprivate area\u201d of any person without consent, under circumstances violating privacy. The offence is punishable by imprisonment up to three years or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both.<\/a>[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fact patterns include non\u2011consensual circulation of intimate images and voyeuristic recordings, and this section often operates alongside IPC provisions on outraging modesty and voyeurism.<\/a>[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cyber terrorism \u2013 Section 66F<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 66F defines \u201ccyber terrorism\u201d<\/strong>, covering conduct using computer resources that is intended to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror by causing death, injury, or damage to critical information infrastructure. It also covers attempts to access protected systems where the conduct is likely to cause death, injuries, disruption of essential services or adverse impact on critical information infrastructure.[15]<\/sup><\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The section prescribes imprisonment for life and is non\u2011bailable, making it the gravest offence in the chapter and one that significantly affects bail strategy and investigative powers.<\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sending offensive messages \u2013 Section 66A (now unconstitutional)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 66A (introduced in 2008) criminalised sending \u201cgrossly offensive\u201d<\/strong> or \u201cmenacing\u201d<\/strong> messages or persistently sending messages to cause annoyance or inconvenience, using computer resources. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India<\/strong><\/em>, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in its entirety for violating Article 19(1)(a) and not being saved under Article 19(2).[16]<\/sup><\/a>[17]<\/sup><\/a>[18]<\/sup><\/a>[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court held the provision to be vague and overbroad, and clarified that 66A is void ab initio<\/em> and cannot be enforced, while upholding the constitutionality of Section 69A and its blocking rules. Practitioners should insist that charges under 66A be quashed and that police and magistrates not invoke it despite occasional reports of its continued use.<\/a>[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Obscenity and sexually explicit content \u2013 Sections 67, 67A, 67B<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sections 67 to 67C \u2013 Obscenity, CSAM and Retention<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Section<\/th>Statutory heading (gist)<\/th>Core conduct covered<\/th>Punishment \/ nature<\/th><\/tr><\/thead>
67<\/td>Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form<\/td>Publishing, transmitting, or causing to be published or transmitted in electronic form any material which is lascivious<\/strong>, appeals to the prurient interest<\/strong>, or tends to deprave and corrupt<\/strong> persons likely to read, see or hear it.<\/td>First conviction: imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b95 lakh<\/strong>. Subsequent conviction: imprisonment up to 5 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
67A<\/td>Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form<\/td>Publishing, transmitting, or causing to be published or transmitted in electronic form any material containing sexually explicit act or conduct<\/strong> (higher gravity than simple obscenity).<\/td>First conviction: imprisonment up to 5 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/strong>. Subsequent conviction: imprisonment up to 7 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
67B<\/td>Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts, etc., in electronic form<\/td>Creating, publishing, transmitting, collecting, browsing, downloading, advertising, promoting, distributing or facilitating child sexual abuse material (CSAM)<\/strong>; enticing children into sexual online relationships; recording such abuse in electronic form.<\/td>First conviction: imprisonment up to 5 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/strong>. Subsequent conviction: imprisonment up to 7 years<\/strong> and fine up to \u20b910 lakh<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
67C<\/td>Preservation and retention of information by intermediaries<\/td>Imposes a duty on intermediaries<\/strong> (ISPs, platforms, hosts) to preserve and retain specified information for such duration, manner and format as the Central Government may prescribe.<\/td>Originally: imprisonment up to 3 years<\/strong> and fine for intentional\/knowing contravention. After 2023 amendment: liable to penalty up to \u20b925 lakh<\/strong> for contravention.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Obscene material in electronic form \u2013 Section 67<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 67 punishes publishing or transmitting in electronic form any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest, or whose effect tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to read, see or hear it. After the 2008 amendment, first conviction attracts imprisonment up to three years and fine up to five lakh rupees, with subsequent convictions raising this to imprisonment up to five years and fine up to ten lakh rupees.<\/a>[11]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provision is patterned on Sections 292\u2013293 IPC but customised for electronic dissemination, and courts examine context, community standards and intent while applying the obscenity test.<\/a>[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sexually explicit content \u2013 Section 67A<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 67A addresses publication or transmission of material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct in electronic form. For a first conviction, punishment may extend to five years\u2019 imprisonment and fine up to ten lakh rupees; for subsequent convictions, imprisonment may extend to seven years with the same maximum fine.<\/a>[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 67A is invoked in online pornography distribution, circulation of explicit videos and \u201crevenge porn\u201d cases, often along with IPC provisions depending on consent and coercion.<\/a>[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Child sexual abuse material \u2013 Section 67B<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 67B specifically targets child sexual abuse material (CSAM)<\/strong>, criminalising publishing, transmitting, creating, collecting, browsing, downloading, advertising, promoting or distributing material depicting children in sexually explicit acts or in obscene or indecent manner. It also covers grooming, enticing children to online relationships for sexually explicit acts, and recording such abuse.[25]<\/sup><\/a>[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The punishment mirrors Section 67A: first conviction up to five years and fine up to ten lakh rupees; subsequent convictions up to seven years and the same fine. Limited defences exist where material is kept or used for bona fide scientific, literary, artistic or religious purposes, but these are narrowly construed.<\/a>[22]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[23]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preservation and retention by intermediaries \u2013 Section 67C<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 67C imposes a statutory duty on intermediaries to preserve and retain specified information for such duration and in such manner as the Central Government may prescribe. Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes these obligations commits an offence; a 2023 amendment converted the consequence into a penalty that may extend to twenty\u2011five lakh rupees.<\/a>[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[27]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[28]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For advocates, Section 67C is crucial when seeking or challenging production of logs, IP addresses and other technical data, and in assessing intermediary liability where failure to retain data prejudices investigation.<\/a>[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Powers regarding certifying authorities \u2013 Sections 68, 71, 73, 74<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 68 empowers the Controller to direct Certifying Authorities or their employees to take specified measures or cease activities to ensure compliance with the Act, with disobedience punishable by up to two years\u2019 imprisonment or fine up to one lakh rupees. Section 71 penalises misrepresentation or suppression of material facts in obtaining digital\/electronic signature certificates, prescribing imprisonment up to two years or fine up to one lakh rupees, or both.<\/a>[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sections 73 and 74 deal with publishing false or misleading digital signature certificates or creating such certificates for fraudulent or unlawful purposes, carrying imprisonment terms and fines aimed at protecting the integrity of electronic authentication infrastructure. These provisions rarely arise in routine policing cases but are relevant in PKI\u2011driven environments such as e\u2011governance, banking and e\u2011tendering.<\/a>[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interception, decryption and blocking powers \u2013 Sections 69, 69A, 69B<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Section 69 \u2013 Interception\/monitoring\/decryption<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 69 empowers the Central and State Governments (or authorised officers) to direct interception, monitoring or decryption of information in any computer resource on grounds such as sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to a cognizable offence. Non\u2011compliance with a decryption direction can attract imprisonment up to seven years and fine.<\/a>[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For practitioners, legality of interception and adherence to procedure (including necessity, proportionality and recording of reasons in writing) becomes a key ground for challenging evidence obtained under this provision.<\/a>[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 69A \u2013 Blocking public access<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 69A enables the Central Government to direct any agency or intermediary to block public access to information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource, on similar grounds. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal<\/em> upheld Section 69A and the blocking rules as constitutionally valid due to their relatively narrow tailoring and procedural safeguards.<\/a>[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[17]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blocking orders must be reasoned and are typically confidential, so litigation often concerns transparency and procedural fairness around blocking rather than the mere existence of the power.<\/a>[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 69B \u2013 Monitoring traffic data for cyber security<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 69B authorises monitoring and collection of traffic data or information through any computer resource for cyber security, particularly for analysing, preventing and investigating cyber incidents. Intermediaries who intentionally or knowingly contravene directions issued under this section can face imprisonment up to three years and fines (one MeitY summary notes a possible fine up to one crore rupees).<\/a>[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These powers are often relevant in large\u2011scale incident response, DDoS investigations and national\u2011security\u2011linked cyber operations.<\/a>[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Protected systems and critical infrastructure \u2013 Sections 70, 70A, 70B<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 70 allows the Government to declare any computer resource which directly or indirectly affects critical information infrastructure as a \u201cprotected system\u201d; unauthorised access or attempts to access such systems can attract imprisonment up to ten years and fine. Critical information infrastructure includes systems whose incapacity or destruction would impact national security, economy, public health or safety.<\/a>[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sections 70A and 70B provide for a national nodal agency for critical information infrastructure and designate the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT\u2011In)<\/strong> as the national agency for incident response, respectively. These provisions are not offences themselves but are structurally placed in the same chapter and define the institutional actors whose reports often underpin prosecutions under Sections 66F, 69, 69A and 70.[2]<\/sup><\/a>[35]<\/sup><\/a>[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Confidentiality and privacy breaches \u2013 Sections 72 and 72A<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 72 punishes any person who, by virtue of powers under the Act, has secured access to any electronic record, book or information, and discloses it without consent in breach of the lawful contract or authority, with imprisonment up to two years or fine up to one lakh rupees, or both. It is aimed at public officials and others exercising statutory powers under the IT Act who misuse information obtained in that capacity.<\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 72A separately penalises disclosure of personal information by a person who, in pursuance of a contract, has obtained such information and discloses it without consent with intent to cause wrongful loss or gain; punishment may extend to three years imprisonment or fine up to five lakh rupees, or both. This provision is frequently cited in data\u2011sharing and call\u2011detail\u2011record leakage scenarios, and it complements sectoral data\u2011protection obligations.<\/a>[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Extra\u2011territorial application, confiscation and overriding effect \u2013 Sections 75, 76, 81<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 75 gives the Act extra\u2011territorial reach where an offence or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India, even if the accused is outside India. Section 76 provides for confiscation of computer resources, devices and media involved in the commission of any contravention or offence under the Act.<\/a>[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Separately, Section 81 (outside Chapter XI but important strategically) gives the IT Act an overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws, and has been relied on by courts to hold that, where conduct squarely falls under the IT Act, it may prevail over overlapping IPC provisions. This interplay significantly affects charge\u2011framing and questions of double jeopardy or parallel prosecution under IPC and IT Act.<\/a>[37]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[36]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Compounding, cognizability and bailability \u2013 Sections 77A and 77B<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 77A (inserted by the 2008 amendment) allows any court of competent jurisdiction to compound offences under the IT Act, except those punishable with life imprisonment or with imprisonment exceeding three years. The court cannot compound an offence where the accused is liable to enhanced punishment by reason of previous conviction, or where the offence affects the socio\u2011economic conditions of the country or is committed against a child under 18 years or a woman.<\/a>[38]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Section 77B lays down that offences punishable with imprisonment of three years and above are cognizable, while offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years are bailable. Government responses and practitioner commentaries emphasise that many financial cybercrime offences under the IT Act are therefore bailable yet cognizable, which has direct implications for arrest, investigation strategy and bail arguments.<\/a>[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[41]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Investigation powers \u2013 Section 78 and allied provisions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Section 78 provides that, notwithstanding the CrPC, only a police officer not below the rank of Inspector may investigate offences under the IT Act. This rank requirement has been reiterated in multiple training materials and practice guides, and irregularity in rank can be a ground to question the legality of investigation.<\/a>[42]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[43]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[44]<\/sup><\/a><\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In practice, cybercrime investigations depend heavily on digital evidence, and admissibility is governed by Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, as clarified by Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer<\/em> and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar<\/em><\/strong>. Courts have insisted that electronic records produced as secondary evidence must be accompanied by a proper Section 65B(4) certificate identifying the device, process and authenticity, failing which the material may be ruled inadmissible.[45]<\/sup><\/a>[46]<\/sup><\/a>[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Strategic points for practicing advocates<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Charge selection and overlap with IPC<\/strong>
    Many fact situations permit parallel invocation of IT Act provisions (e.g. Sections 66, 66C, 66D, 67, 67A, 67B) and IPC provisions (e.g. theft, cheating, forgery, obscenity), and courts have recognised both overlap and complementarity rather than automatic exclusion. Advocates should carefully assess whether the IT Act\u2019s overriding clause and special\u2011law status support arguing that the IT Act should prevail or that dual charges cause prejudice in sentencing, bail or compounding.    [12]<\/sup><\/a>[4]<\/sup><\/a>[37]<\/sup><\/a>[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Bail, cognizability and compounding strategy<\/strong>
    Because Section 77B makes several serious\u2011looking cyber offences bailable but cognizable (e.g. Sections 66B\u201366E), and Section 77A allows compounding of offences where the maximum imprisonment does not exceed three years, defence counsel can leverage these features for early settlement and bail. At the same time, the presence of Sections like 66F, 69 and 70, with higher maximum sentences and non\u2011bailable status, demands heightened attention to anticipatory bail and constitutional challenges.    [40]<\/sup><\/a>[8]<\/sup><\/a>[6]<\/sup><\/a>[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Evidence and 65B compliance<\/strong>
    Almost every Chapter XI prosecution hinges on electronic logs, device images, server records or communications, which must pass the Section 65B Evidence Act test to be admissible. Defence counsel should scrutinise the chain of custody, the Section 65B certificate, and compliance with Section 67C retention obligations and Section 69\/69A procedures, while prosecutors must ensure forensic\u2011grade collection and proper certification to avoid exclusion of crucial evidence.    [47]<\/sup><\/a>[48]<\/sup><\/a>[49]<\/sup><\/a>[30]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Post\u2011Shreya Singhal landscape<\/strong>
    With Section 66A invalidated but Sections 69A and 79 (safe\u2011harbour) read down and upheld, arguments around free speech increasingly shift to alleged misuse of obscenity provisions (67\u201367B) and blocking powers under 69A. Advocates must distinguish between mere offensive speech (no 66A any more) and content that genuinely meets obscenity or CSAM thresholds, ensuring that prosecution does not expand these provisions to constitutionally protected expression.    [17]<\/sup><\/a>[18]<\/sup><\/a>[21]<\/sup><\/a>[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Intermediary and corporate exposure<\/strong>
    Intermediaries and corporate entities face exposure not only under 67C, 69B and 72A, but also under Section 43A (civil compensation for failure of reasonable security practices), so compliance programmes and retention policies directly affect criminal risk. Practitioners advising corporates should align IT\u2011Act compliance with sectoral regulations and emerging data\u2011protection norms, given the Government\u2019s repeated emphasis on cyber security and citizen protection.    [11]<\/sup><\/a>[26]<\/sup><\/a>[32]<\/sup><\/a>[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Taken together, Chapter XI offers a specialised penal framework for cyber offences, but its real complexity emerges from how these provisions intersect with the IPC, the Evidence Act and constitutional guarantees\u2014making doctrinal clarity and close attention to procedural detail indispensable in day\u2011to\u2011day practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. <\/a>https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/bitstream\/123456789\/13116\/1\/it_act_2000_updated.pdf<\/a>      <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. <\/a>https:\/\/childsafety.cgpolice.gov.in\/assets\/img\/resource\/IT-Act-2000_English.pdf<\/a>      <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. <\/a>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/cyber-crime-laws-in-india\/<\/a>       <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    4. <\/a>https:\/\/www.argus-p.com\/papers-publications\/thought-paper\/cyber-crimes-in-the-ipc-and-it-act-an-uneasy-co-existence\/<\/a>       <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    5. <\/a>https:\/\/thelaw.institute\/regulation-of-cyberspace\/penalties-offences-information-technology-act\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    6. <\/a>https:\/\/cleartax.in\/s\/it-act-2000<\/a>              <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    7. <\/a>https:\/\/www.naavi.org\/ita_2008\/ch11_2008.htm<\/a>    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    8. <\/a>https:\/\/lawgic.info\/which-offences-under-the-information-technology-act-2000-are-cognizable-bailable-or-compoundable\/<\/a>    <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    9. <\/a>https:\/\/naavi.org\/importantlaws\/itbill2000\/ch11.html<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    10. <\/a>https:\/\/www.networkintelligence.ai\/blogs\/it-act-2000-penalties-offences-with-case-studies\/<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    11. <\/a>https:\/\/www.indiancybersecurity.com\/amendment_itact_2008.php<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    12. <\/a>https:\/\/www.juscorpus.com\/dual-applicability-of-the-it-act-2000-and-ipc-1860-a-comprehensive-analysis\/<\/a>   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    13. <\/a>https:\/\/www.dsci.in\/files\/content\/documents\/2023\/Information Technology Act 2000.pdf<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    14. <\/a>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/information-technology-act-2000\/<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    15. <\/a>https:\/\/mcrhrdi.gov.in\/splfc2023\/week9\/Information Technology Act & Cyber crime.pdf<\/a>      <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    16. <\/a>http:\/\/informationtechnologyactindia.blogspot.com\/p\/offences-section-65-to.html<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    17. <\/a>http:\/\/www.manupatracademy.com\/LegalPost\/MANU_SC_0329_2015<\/a>   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    18. <\/a>https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Shreya_Singhal_v._Union_of_India<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    19. <\/a>https:\/\/www.pmfias.com\/section-69a-section-66a-of-the-it-act\/<\/a>     <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    20. <\/a>https:\/\/globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu\/cases\/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    21. <\/a>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/section-67-of-information-technology-act-2000\/<\/a>   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    22. <\/a>https:\/\/internetdemocracy.in\/laws\/the-information-technology-amendment-act-2008\/section-67-and-67a\/<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    23. <\/a>https:\/\/legal.bihar.in\/section-67a-67b-it-act-punishment-for-obscene-and-csam-content\/<\/a>   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    24. <\/a>https:\/\/www.pib.gov.in\/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1885363<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    25. <\/a>https:\/\/lawgist.in\/information-technology-act\/67B<\/a> <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    26. <\/a>https:\/\/www.worldlawdigest.com\/india\/information-technology-act-2000-section-67c<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    27. <\/a>https:\/\/lawgist.in\/information-technology-act\/67C<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    28. <\/a>https:\/\/www.meity.gov.in\/static\/uploads\/2024\/03\/MeitY-JVA-1.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    29. <\/a>https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/handle\/123456789\/1362\/simple-search?query=Information+Technology+(Preservation+and+Retention+of+Information+by+Intermediaries+Providing+Digital+Locker+Facilities)+Rules%2C+2016&searchradio=rules<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    30. <\/a>https:\/\/corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com\/2020\/07\/section-65b-of-the-indian-evidence-act-1872-requirements-for-admissibility-of-electronic-evidence-revisited-by-the-supreme-court\/<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    31. <\/a>https:\/\/www.pib.gov.in\/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1602398<\/a>  <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    32. <\/a>https:\/\/www.asianlaws.org\/blog\/the-ultimate-guide-to-cyber-law-in-india\/<\/a>     <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    33. <\/a>https:\/\/www.drishtiias.com\/daily-news-analysis\/information-technology-act-s-section-69a<\/a>   <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    34. <\/a>https:\/\/www.iilsindia.com\/study-material\/352752_1610897516.docx<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    35. <\/a>https:\/\/www.mcrhrdi.gov.in\/splfc2021\/week11\/Information Technology Act & Cyber crime.pdf<\/a> <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    36. <\/a>https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Information_Technology_Act,_2000<\/a> <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    37. <\/a>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/punishments-cyber-crimes-ipc\/<\/a> <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    38. <\/a>https:\/\/lawgist.in\/information-technology-act\/77A<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    39. <\/a>https:\/\/www.mcrhrdi.gov.in\/FC2020\/week11\/Information Technology Act – Offences edited.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    40. <\/a>https:\/\/sansad.in\/getFile\/loksabhaquestions\/annex\/182\/AS226_y8fPvt.pdf<\/a> <\/li>\n\n\n\n
    41. <\/a>https:\/\/criminallawstudiesnluj.wordpress.com\/2023\/09\/02\/bail-in-cases-of-cyber-crimes-under-the-information-technology-act-2000-a-critical-re-evaluation-of-the-penal-framework\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    42. <\/a>https:\/\/testbook.com\/question-answer\/a-police-officer-empowered-to-investigate-cybercri–6900ff4e10bcc86292df7d21<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    43. <\/a>https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/cyber-crime-investigation-conducted\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    44. <\/a>https:\/\/jajharkhand.in\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/05_reading_material.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    45. <\/a>https:\/\/www.cyberprivilege.com\/cyber-forensics-in-india<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    46. <\/a>https:\/\/nja.gov.in\/Concluded_Programmes\/2019-20\/P-1163_PPTs\/2. Admissibility of Electronic Evidence.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    47. <\/a>https:\/\/jajharkhand.in\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/02_sop_english.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    48. <\/a>https:\/\/www.asvlawoffices.com\/cybercrime-investigation-framework-enforcement-mechanisms-and-judicial-coordination\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    49. <\/a>https:\/\/nja.gov.in\/Concluded_Programmes\/2017-18\/P-1026_PPTs\/7.Electronic Evidence.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    50. https:\/\/cag.gov.in\/uploads\/media\/IT-ACT-20210330163049.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    51. https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/pulse\/information-technology-act-2000-critical-study-from-jurists-axeyc<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    52. https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/450656990\/Offences-Under-Information-Technology-Act<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    53. https:\/\/police.py.gov.in\/Information Technology Act 2000 – 2008 (amendment).pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    54. https:\/\/www.dhyeyalaw.in\/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    55. https:\/\/www.tscld.com\/shreya-singhal-v-union-of-india-a-critical-analysis<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    56. https:\/\/eprocure.gov.in\/cppp\/rulesandprocs\/kbadqkdlcswfjdelrquehwuxcfmijmuixngudufgbuubgubfugbububjxcgfvsbdihbgfGhdfgFHytyhRtMjk4NzY=<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    57. https:\/\/lawx.in\/acts\/section\/17\/224\/2253<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    58. https:\/\/www.caclubindia.com\/acts\/29760-section-77a-information-technology-act-2000.asp<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    59. https:\/\/nja.gov.in\/Concluded_Programmes\/2019-20\/P-1198_PPTs\/2.LAWS RELATING TO CYBERCRIMES – ADVANCES & BOTTLENECKS.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    60. https:\/\/or.niscpr.res.in\/index.php\/JIPR\/article\/download\/4311\/4096\/73108<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    61. https:\/\/www.indiacode.nic.in\/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_45_76_00001_200021_1517807324077&orderno=103<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    62. https:\/\/blog.ccasociety.com\/section-67c-preservation-and-retention-of-information-by-intermediaries\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    63. https:\/\/testbook.com\/question-answer\/a-police-officer-empowered-to-investigate-cybercri–65edf09a579e9e4fed91e773<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    64. https:\/\/www.mcrhrdi.gov.in\/FC2020\/week11\/IT Act 2000 – Digital evidence.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    65. https:\/\/blog.ipleaders.in\/all-about-digital-evidence\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    66. https:\/\/nja.gov.in\/Concluded_Programmes\/2021-22\/P-1271_PPTs\/1.Digital Forensics Collection, Presservation and Appreciation of Electronic Evidence.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    67. https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/04\/19\/deciphering-legal-overlap-bombay-hc-expounds-on-interplay-between-ipc-and-it-act-legal-news\/<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    68. https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/posts\/b-b-associates-llp_cybercrime-cyberlaw-itact-activity-7369327614374748160-ha9G<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    69. https:\/\/ijrpr.com\/uploads\/V4ISSUE4\/IJRPR11489.pdf<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000 \u2013 Offences and Procedural Aspects: A Practitioner\u2019s Guide Chapter XI of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (\u201cIT Act\u201d) is the core penal chapter dealing with cyber offences and related procedural aspects, and runs broadly from Section 65 to Section 78. It is routinely invoked together with IPC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35,"featured_media":13855,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[29],"tags":[3847,3844,3853,3863,3876,3861,3864,3860,3870,3877,3849,3857,3875,3858,3840,3873,3848,3868,3871,3862,3865,3859,3845,3841,3843,3842,3846,3850,3852,3851,3854,3856,3855,3869,3874,3867,3866,3872],"class_list":["post-13853","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bachelor-laws","tag-chapter-11-it-act","tag-chapter-xi-offences","tag-cheating-by-personation-it-act","tag-child-sexual-abuse-material-online","tag-cognizable-and-bailable-it-act-offences","tag-compounding-of-it-act-offences","tag-csam-it-act","tag-cyber-crime-investigation-india","tag-cyber-crime-laws-in-india","tag-cyber-law-article","tag-cyber-offences-in-india","tag-cyber-terrorism-under-it-act","tag-digital-evidence-and-section-65b","tag-identity-theft-it-act","tag-information-technology-act-2000","tag-intermediary-liability-and-67c","tag-it-act-2000","tag-it-act-and-ipc-overlap","tag-legal-guide-for-practicing-advocates","tag-obscenity-in-electronic-form","tag-offences-and-penalties-under-it-act","tag-privacy-violation-it-act","tag-section-65-it-act","tag-section-66-it-act","tag-section-66b-it-act","tag-section-66c-it-act","tag-section-66d-it-act","tag-section-66e-it-act","tag-section-66f-it-act","tag-section-67-it-act","tag-section-67a-it-act","tag-section-67b-it-act","tag-section-67c-it-act","tag-section-69a-blocking-orders","tag-section-77a-it-act","tag-section-77b-it-act","tag-section-78-it-act","tag-shreya-singhal-section-66a"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13853","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13853"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13853\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13878,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13853\/revisions\/13878"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13853"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13853"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.infipark.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13853"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}