File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Jurisdiction Under Technology Laws

Background about how jurisdiction is a problem on internet
The Internet's transnational nature has resulted in unparalleled social, economic, and political opportunities for humanity. At the same time, it raises contradictions within an international legal order founded on the concept of territorial integrity established by the Treaty of Westphalia in the seventeenth century. Transnational connections have become ubiquitous thanks to the Internet. As a result, traditional forms of interstate collaboration fail to keep up with the digital complexities of the twenty-first century.

Online controversies and violations pose an unparalleled threat to the territorially bound international legal system, ranging from instances of offensive information to cross-border access to consumer data. The Internet's technological infrastructure was designed from the start to be trans border and non-territorial, a feature that is widely regarded as beneficial. However, since internationally available content and services may be lawful in one nation but unlawful or even criminal in another, ubiquity has exacerbated tensions.

As a result, determining relevant rules, allowing for their compliance, and establishing remedy procedures in cases of trans border cybercrime or illegal online behavior becomes more complex.

As Internet penetration reaches four billion users from over 190 nations, each with its own set of rules, traditions, and social sensitivities, tensions will continue to rise.

Governments, Internet platforms, technical operators, civil society associations, and foreign organizations, as well as ordinary people, are all concerned about the current situation.

The realpolitik of Internet regulation is becoming digital sovereignty. There are several examples of national regimes being extended beyond their borders: for example, governments with Internet portals or technological providers incorporated on their soil may enforce their national laws and regulations on these private actors, with clear transboundary consequences for all international users of these services.

Litigation also plays a significant role in establishing new global rules, with de facto consequences that extend well beyond the jurisdictions involved. While the freedom to be de-indexed was first developed in Europe for Google, it is now used by other search engines such as Microsoft Bing and Yahoo Search, and has had repercussions in Asia, Latin America, and Canada. As a result, local court rulings have the potential to set new international standards for state-Internet connections.

States are incentivized to erect sovereign boundaries on the Internet in order to establish the rule of law and defend civilians online.

Analysis And Justification As To Jurisdiction On Internet Being An Important Issue
Limit To Corporation On International

Managing trans border online environments present structural challenges for the current diplomatic system; existing legal interoperability processes often fail to diffuse uncertainty and resolve conflict.

Multilateral efforts - Only a small number of people support the concept of a democratic, all-encompassing Internet compact that would harmonize applicable laws and address the broad spectrum of cyber-cooperation concerns. Furthermore, treaty talks are infamous for taking a long time.

Also the most comprehensive deal to date to combat cybercrime, the Budapest Convention, took more than a decade to put on the agenda: if substantive talks took "just" four years, putting the issue on the agenda took more than a decade.

Ultimately, despite the fact that the Convention was ratified by more than 50 countries around the world (with the exception of a few major countries such as India and Brazil), some countries use the fact that it was first drafted within the Council of Europe as a justification against entering a regime in the drafting of which they were not involved.

Many valuable statements at the level of general principles have been established within multilateral organizations in recent years, demonstrating some degree of convergence.

MLAT: In the past, bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) allowing government-to-government legal cooperation were signed to deal with serious and unusual cross-border criminal proceedings.

Direct appeals from the public to the private sector - In the absence of effective and sufficient mechanisms for international collaboration, governments are rapidly submitting requests directly to private actors in other jurisdictions, such as Internet portals, hosting providers, registrars, and registries.

Jurisdiction In India 
When it comes to determining jurisdiction in the world of cyberspace, it becomes a difficult aspect of law. Jurisdiction is the right or competence of the court to hear and decide the cause and adjudicate upon the matter that is litigated before it, or the The court's authority to take cognizance of the case before it. Information Technology Act 2003
The Section 1 of the Act defines the scope of its operation. (2) It shall extend to the whole of India and, except as otherwise specified in this Act, it shall apply also to any offence or contravention thereof committed beyond India by any citizen.

Section 75 of the Act deals with the rules that relate to crimes or violations committed outside of India.

It states that Pursuant to subsection (2), the provisions of this act shall extend to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any citizen, regardless of nationality.
This act shall refer to an offence or contravention for the purposes of subsection (1).

Apart from the Information Technology Act of 2000, there is other applicable legislation under Indian law that grants India courts the power to adjudicate matters relating to cybercrime, such as:
  • The extraterritorial jurisdiction of Indian courts is also addressed in sections 3 and 4 of the Indian penal code of 1882.
  • Section 188 of the CrPC 1973 states that an offence committed by an Indian resident outside the country is liable to the jurisdiction of Indian courts
  • The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Convention on Cybercrime, was the first international treaty to address the Internet and cybercrime by taking into account national legislation, increasing international coordination, and developing investigative techniques.
  • The Council of Europe, Canada, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, and the United States all signed it in Strasbourg, France. Countries such as India and Brazil, on the other hand, have refused to follow the Convention because they were not involved in its drafting. However, due to an increase in cybercrime, India has been reconsidering its position on the convention since 2018.
  • Article 22 of the 2001 Convention on Cyber Crime grants authority to a government where a cyber crime is committed
    In its own country;
    On board a ship flying the country's flag;

    On board a plane that is legally licensed in the world
    Whether the crime is illegal by penal law in the country where it was done, or if the offence is committed outside of the country, it may be committed by one of the countries' nationals.

    In November 2000, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution approving his treaty. India, as a signatory, became a member in 2002. The Palermo Convention, also known as the UNTOC, requires state parties to pass domestic criminal offences that target organised criminal gangs, as well as new mechanisms for extradition, mutual legal aid, and law enforcement collaboration. Regardless,
    The Information Technology Act of 2000 was passed by the Indian Parliament in response to this convention.

Evidences / cases where jurisdiction was considered as issue Indian and American cases
SMC Pneumatics Vs. Jogesh Kwatra
This is a lawsuit of cyber defamation. This is India's first case of its kind. In this case, the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff's company who used to deliver insulting, pornographic, vulgar, and offensive emails to his bosses as well as to the company's various subsidiaries around the world. The aim of sending those emails was to smear the company's name.

The Delhi High Court has taken jurisdiction over a case of corporate image defamation via e-mails. The court ordered an ex-parte injunction.

SIL Import Vs.. Exim Aides Silk Importers
In this case, the court successfully demonstrated the need for judicial review of the law in light of recent technical advancements. Unless there is explicit laws governing the jurisdiction of Indian courts over Internet disputes, or unless India is a signatory to an international treaty establishing the jurisdiction of national courts over Internet disputes,

Sliding Scale Test And Its Case Laws:
In Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo . Com, Inc.46, an expansion of the purposeful availment test was attempted. The appellant, Zippo Manufacturing, was a cigarette lighter manufacturer based in Pennsylvania.

The defendant was a California company that operated an online news service and a website. It just had a presence in California. Viewers from other states had to go to the defendant's website to sign up for the defendant's news service by filling out an online form. submit an application Payment was done via credit card over the phone or over the internet.

Pennsylvania citizens made up about 3000 of the defendant's customers, who registered up for the programme by visiting the defendant's website and filling out an online application. Furthermore, the defendant had made agreements with seven Pennsylvania internet providers to securely connect to the defendant's news service to their subscribers..

In addition, the defendant had made arrangements with seven Pennsylvania internet service providers to allow their customers to access the defendant's news service. In a Pennsylvania court, the defendant was accused of patent dilution, misuse, and false designation.

The Constitutional limits on the exercise of personal jurisdiction vary based on whether a judge claims general or special jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant , according to the District Court.

Where a non-resident defendant engages in "systematic and persistent" practises in the forum state, a court can exercises personal jurisdiction over the defendant for non-forum State
The Zippo court went on to say that there is already a three-part test for deciding if it is reasonable to exert clear personal authority over a non-resident defendant: (1) the defendant must have a sufficient number of "minimum contacts" with the forum state, (2) the argument made against the defendant must derive from such contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be fair.

Websites is listed as:
  1. Passive
  2. interactive, and
  3. integral to the defendant's company by the court in Zippo.
The defendant's website was found to be interactive based on the evidence.

As a result, the court was found to have jurisdiction to hear the case.

In terms of the sliding scale test,
The claim of a court's authority was contingent on the degree of interactivity and economic existence of the transaction.
As a result of using the website, there has been an exchange of information. The courts have been ruling in favor of
It's difficult to figure out what level of interactivity is required for authority to be established.

Millennium Enterprise L.P. v. Millennium Music Inc.
A South Carolina company that distributed goods both offline and online was denied jurisdiction by an Oregon district court. The court believed that 'something more' was needed than just demonstrating that the website was interactive. a requirement The Defendant should be able to prove that he or she completed a trade in Oregon. as well as having made "deliberate and frequent communications" with Oregon via the website in order to establish that they should have expected to be hauled before an Oregon court.

In the case of People Solutions v. People Solutions,
A total of 53 people were involved. Despite the fact that consumers accessing the defendant's website could download content, receive product brochures, and place orders online, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction because the complainant failed to prove that the defendant had sold its goods or contracted for services with someone in the forum state through the website.

AAAA Development v. Mink, Despite the fact that the defendant's website contained printable mail-in order forms, a toll-free number, a mailing address, and an e-mail address,
Despite the fact that no orders were placed using the website , the forum court failed to exercise jurisdiction.

Effects Test And its Case Laws
As a result, the courts have stepped away from a subjective territoriality test.

to a measure of "objective territoriality" or "effects," in which the forum court would have jurisdiction if It has been shown that the defendant's website has an effect on the forum state. To put it another way, it must have caused the complainant any hurt or damage within the jurisdiction of the forum state Calder v. Jones was the first case to use the effects test.

The complainant was a California native who filed a libel suit against the National Enquirer in a California court based on a report that was written and distributed in the state. However for the Enquirer and its nearby distributing firm, the article's publisher and author were all in Florida.

Supreme Court held The supposedly libellous article was about a California resident's actions in the state. It questioned the professionalism of an entertainer with a California-based television career. this article drawn from California bore the brunt of the harm, both in terms of respondent's emotional pain and the damage to her professional reputation. In conclusion, California is the story's and the damage' suffered . Petitioners' jurisdiction As a result, based on the effects of their Florida behaviour in California, is proper.

On the evidence, it was held that the author and publisher 'expressly pointed' their tortuous conduct at California, that they knew the report would have a detrimental effect on the respondent, and that they should have fairly expected the brunt of the injury to be suffered by the complainant in the state where she lived and operated.

The court goes on to say that the petitioners aren't being charged with simple negligence. Rather, their deliberate and ostensibly tortuous acts were specifically targeted at California.
Petitioner South wrote an essay, and petitioner Calder edited it, knowing that it would have a potentially damaging effect on respondent. And they knew that respondent would bear the brunt of the damage.

Digital Equipment Corp. vs. Alta Vista Technology
The appellant, a Massachusetts corporation, filed a lawsuit against its licensee, claiming trademark infringement. Despite the defendant's claims, that it had arranged its affairs in such a way as to escape the forum state however Court held The defendant's use of its website to infringe on the plaintiff's mark had effect in the forum state, and its intent may be said to be attacking the forum state and its people.

In order to determine whether the forum court has authority in a dispute alleging patent violations by the use of the internet, the courts in the United States have recently introduced a mixture of the Zippo "sliding scale" test and the Calder "effects" test.

The Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network And Its Mission

The Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, or "I&J Policy Network," "Internet & Jurisdiction," or simply "I&J," is a multi - stakeholder association that promotes legal compatibility in cyberspace.

Its Secretariat enables transnational coordination and policy coherence by facilitating a global policy dialogue involving key stakeholders. The Policy Network's members collaborate to safeguard the Internet's cross-border nature, defend human rights, combat abuses, and empower the global digital economy.

The Economist, New York Times, Washington Post, Financial Times, Politico, and Fortune have also reported the organization's mission, which has been introduced to and accepted by important international processes such as the UN Internet Governance Forum, the UN Secretary-High-Level General's Panel on Digital Cooperation, the G7, G20, and the Paris Peace Forum.

Most web communications and data flows today are governed by different jurisdictions depending on where customers, servers, internet networks, or technological operators are located. Traditional forms of interstate legal interaction are unable to keep up with the modern revolution. Increasing pressures cause uncoordinated short-term responses in the absence of legislative standards and adequate mechanisms.

As a result, the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network links related stakeholder groups and crosses policy silos in a specific way. Its ground-breaking approach aims to fill gap between governance in internet.

In order to resolve cross-border legal issues on the internet, 79 % of stakeholders surveyed believe there is inadequate international cooperation and coherence.

Cross-border legal problems on the internet will become more acute in the next three years, according to 95% of them.

Just 15% of them think we do have the best institutions in place to deal with these issues.

The rise in cyber crime has a negative impact on cyberspace, posing a threat to national security. And if the appropriate safeguards and electronic security steps are taken, history suggests that it is almost difficult to eliminate violence from the virtual world.

Since cyberspace is a world with no boundaries, determining the jurisdiction of a court to adjudicate on the matter is challenging. As a result, the need of the hour is to create a specific rule that can be applicable to cases of cybercrime without difficulty or doubt.

The recent cybercrime incident clearly demonstrates that India is still vulnerable to cyber threats; thus, in order to resolve the problem, India should become a signatory to the Budapest Convention and ratify it. By demonstrating its global footprint, the nation would be better able to fight cybercrime and resolve jurisdictional disputes.

  1. Bertrand De La Chapelle & Paul Fehlinger Jurisdiction on the internet: How to move beyond the legal arms race Observer Research Foundation (OCT 14 2016)
  2. Information Technology Act 2000, No. 21 , Act Of Parliament , 2000 (India)
  3. Kirty Ranjan , Analysis of Cyber Jurisdiction In India , Legal Service India E Journal ,
  4. Volume 6 The Law And Technology Committee, The Indian Journal Of Law And Technology (2010)
Written By: Sparsh Dinkar Mishra, Batch: 2017- 2022, Symbiosis Law School Pune, Information Technology Law

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of th...

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Whether Caveat Application is legally pe...


Whether in a criminal proceeding a Caveat Application is legally permissible to be filed as pro...

The Factories Act,1948


There has been rise of large scale factory/ industry in India in the later half of nineteenth ce...

Constitution of India-Freedom of speech ...


Explain The Right To Freedom of Speech and Expression Under The Article 19 With The Help of Dec...

Copyright: An important element of Intel...


The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) has its own economic value when it puts into any market ...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly