Disclaimer & Confirmation

The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the "I agree" below and by visiting this site, you acknowledge that you are doing so voluntarily and of your own free will and further acknowledge that:

We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she must seek independent legal advice.

Tag: IT Act

Categories
News & Updates

Bombay High Court Clarifies Interplay between Information Technology Act, 2000 and Indian Penal Code 1860, in Cybercrime Cases

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its latest decision dated April 15, 2024, in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. held that while the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) is a special Act for addressing cybercrimes and has an overriding effect, it does not preclude the application of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) in cases where the offences are not adequately addressed under the IT Act.  

The Court deliberated upon whether actions covered under Section 43 read with Section 66 of the IT Act (Penalty and compensation for damage to computer, computer system, etc.) constitute fraudulent or dishonest behaviour. The Court emphasized that these provisions do not encompass situations where permission to use the computer system is obtained through deception from the custodian of a computer system and further observed that while the IT Act addresses dishonest and fraudulent acts, it lacks explicit provisions regarding deceit which is a crucial element in establishing offences under the IPC.

The case in question before the Court involved an Accused, who was formerly employed as a Technical Manager at Cosmo Films Limited, company. The allegations arose regarding the unauthorized use and dissemination of sensitive business information stored on a company-issued laptop. The Accused faced charges under Sections 408 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, along with Sections 43(b), 66, and 72 of the IT Act. The Accused approached the court claiming that the sections under IPC could not be invoked as those elements were covered in the sections under the IT Act and therefore, being charged under both the statutes would amount to double jeopardy.   

The court rejected the said contention of the Accused and highlighted that, certain aspects of offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust as defined by IPC are not entirely covered by the IT Act. Therefore, the IPC provisions can still be invoked even if any element of an offence under the IPC is absent from an act that is punishable under the IT Act. Thus, the court held that the provisions of IPC would still apply if any component necessary for an offence under IPC is missing from the conduct that is an offence under the IT Act.

Categories
News & Updates

MEITY Advisory for Intermediaries on Use of Artificial Intelligence Models

Among the first attempts to regulate the artificial intelligence landscape of India, the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (MeitY) published an advisory on March 1, 2024, notifying intermediaries/platforms under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Rules”) on the use of Artificial Intelligence model(s)/LLM/Generative AI, software(s) or algorithm(s) (collectively “Models”) by the intermediaries on or through its computer resource. The key provisions are produced hereafter.

  • The intermediaries to ensure that the use of Models does not permit the users to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any unlawful content as outlined in the Information Technology Act and Rules thereunder.
  • Intermediaries to seek explicit permission from the Indian Government prior to usage and deployment of under-testing and unreliable Models. Where such under-tested and unreliable Models are used, such Model has to be: (a) appropriately labelled to ensure that the users are aware of the inherent fallibility and unreliability of such model; and (b) a “consent pop-up” mechanism has to be used which would explicitly inform users about the possible and inherent fallibility or unreliability of the output generated.
  • Intermediaries providing software and/or other computer resource which facilitates synthetic creation, modification, or generation of information and may be used for generation of misinformation or deepfake content are advised to embed a permanent unique metadata or identifiers into such created content. These identifiers shall assist in tracing back to the intermediary, the user of the software and/or resources and/or first originator of such misinformation or deepfake.
  • All intermediaries shall ensure that their computer resource do not permit any bias or discrimination or threaten the integrity of the electoral process including via the use of the Models.