Copyright Certificate

Copyright © Department of Law

Faculty of Law
Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi-221005, INDIA, 2021
All rights reserved.
 UNDERTAKING FROM THE CANDIDATE

I, Anamika Singh, certify that the work embodied in this Ph.D. thesis entitled
“CYBERCRIME IN INDIA : CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS” is my own bonafide work
carried out under the supervision of Prof. D. K. Srivastava, Faculty of Law, Banaras
Hindu University. I am liable for shouldering the entire responsibility of research work
and am always ready to make improvements in it, if required.

Date: Anamika Singh

Place: Varanasi (India) (Research Scholar)
 ANNEXURE-E
[See Clause XIII.2 (b)(iii)]
Candidate’s Declaration

I, Anamika Singh, Enrolment No. 362425 certify that the work embodied in
this Ph.D. thesis is my own bonafide work carried out by me under the supervision of
Prof. D. K. Srivastava, for a period of March 2014 to September 2021 at Faculty of
Law, Banaras Hindu University. The matter embodied in this Ph.D. thesis has not been
submitted for the award of any other degree/diploma.

I declare that I have faithfully acknowledged, given credit to and referred to the
researchers wherever their works have been cited in the text and the body of the thesis.
I further certify that I have not willfully lifted up some other’s work, para, text, data,
results, etc. reported in the journals, books, magazines, reports, dissertations, theses,
etc., or available at websites and included them in this Ph.D. thesis and cited as my own
work.

Date: Anamika Singh

(Research Scholar)
Place: Varanasi (India)

Certificate from the Supervisor and head of the Department

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate is correct to
the best of my knowledge.

Prof. Ali Mehdi Prof. D. K. Srivastava

Head and Dean (Supervisor)
Faculty of Law Faculty of Law
Banaras Hindu University Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi Varanasi
 ANNEXURE-F
[See Clause XIII.1(c)&XIII.2(b)(iv)]
Course/Comprehensive Examination Completion certificate

This is to certify that Anamika Singh, a bonafide research scholar of this

faculty, has satisfactorily completed the course work/comprehensive examination
requirement which is a part of her Ph.D. programme.

(Prof. Ali Mehdi)

Date: Head and Dean
Place: Varanasi (India) Faculty of Law
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi
 ANNEXURE-F
[See Clause XIII.1(c) and XIII.2 (b) (IV)]
Pre-Submission Seminar Completion Certificate

This is to certify that Anamika Singh, a bonafide research scholar of this

faculty, has satisfactorily completed the Pre-Submission Seminar requirement, which
is a part of her Ph.D. programme. The Pre-Submission Seminar was held on 05/08/2021
on the topic entitled “CYBERCRIME IN INDIA: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS”.

(Prof. Ali Mehdi)

Date: Head and Dean
Place: Varanasi (India) Faculty of Law
Banaras Hindu University
Varanasi
 ANNEXURE-G
[See Clause XIII. 2(b) (v)]
Copyright Transfer Certificate

Title of the Thesis Cybercrime in India: Challenges and

Solutions
Candidate’s Name Anamika Singh

Copyright Transfer

The undersigned hereby assigns to the Banaras Hindu University all rights under
copyright that may exist in and for the above thesis submitted for the award of the Ph.D.
degree.

Date: September 2021 Anamika Singh

Place: Varanasi (India) (Research Scholar)

Note: However, the author may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce material
extracted verbatim from the thesis or derivative of the thesis for author’s
personal use provided that the source and the University’s copyright notice are
indicated.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I bow my head with great reverence in the pious feet and take my hand towards
my inner soul to the founder of the Banaras Hindu University, Bharat Ratna
Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya ji a man of great vision, and dedication
for creating a unique university, a temple of learning for thousands and thousands of
students including me. I am extremely thankful to our Vice-Chancellor Prof. V.K.
Shukla for providing me a suitable platform to carry out my research work.

With great reverence and gratitude, I offer my sincere regards to our Head and
Dean, Prof. Ali Mehdi, Faculty of Law, B.H.U. for all the opportunity and co-operation,
which I have received from him as a Dean of Faculty of Law, BHU.

I think it to be an opportunity and the privilege of my life to express my profound

and sincere gratitude to my Supervisor and mentor Professor D. K. Srivastava, Faculty
of Law, B.H.U. It is for his benevolent guidance, constant support, valuable suggestions
ever ready assistance, invaluable criticism, keen interest and everlasting affection during
the entire course of study that I have get success in the preparation and submission on this
thesis in time.

I offer my heartfelt gratitude to the members of my Research Progress Committee

Prof. D. K. Srivastava, Prof. A.K. Pandey & Prof. G.P. Sahoo. I am extremely grateful
to my teachers Prof. Ajendra Srivastava, Dr. Raju Majhi, Dr. Mayank Pratap, Dr.
Pradeep Kumar, Dr. Dolly Singh and Dr. Gurvinder Singh for their encouragement,
critical suggestion and inspiration during entire course of my research. I am also thankful
to our non-teaching staff for their support during my research.

I would like to thank to the librarians and staff of Central and Law School library
of B.H.U., Varanasi for showing much enthusiasm to manage my queries and requests for
various books and materials. I am thankful to all others who directly or indirectly helped
me to complete this work.
 My sincere thanks to my friends of Ph.D. Parvati Rana, Seema Kumari and
Ekta Dubey who gave me their indispensable and generous support to the successful
realization of this thesis. Special thanks to my dear friend Smita Shrivastava, without
her support, I do not think that I could overcome the difficulties during these years. I thank
her from the bottom of my heart, for stimulating discussions and for all the good time we
have had during our research work.

I humbly submit myself to the Almighty God for his blessings. Really you have
made wonderful plans for me.

Dated:

Place: Varanasi (Anamika Singh)

 ABBREVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

AER All England Law Reporter
ARPANET Advanced Research Project Agency Network Access
Service Provider
ATM Automatic Teller Machine
CBI CC Central Bureau of Investigation Cybercrime Cell
CERT Computer Emergency Response Team
CERT-IND Computer Emergency Response Team- India
CD Compact Disks
CCA Controller of Certifying Authority
CE Council of Europe
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FIR First Information Report
FTP File Transfer Protocol
G.7 Group7
G.8 Group 8
GATT General Agreement of Tariff and Trade Global Information
Infrastructure Commission
HC High Court
HTML Hypertext Markup Language
IBM International Business Machine
ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number
ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
ICERT Indian Computer Emergency Response Team
ICT Information and communication Technology
IEA Indian Evidence Act

i
INTERPOL International Police Organisation
IP Internet Protocol
IPC Indian Penal Code
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
ISD International Subscriber Dialling
ISP Internet Service Provider
IT Act Information Technology Act
IT Information Technology
LAN Local Area Network
LR Law Reporter
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OAS The Organisation of American States
OECD Organisation for Economic cooperation
PC Personal Computer
PKI Public Key Infrastructure
QB Queen's Bench
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
STD Subscriber Trunk Dialling
TCP Transmission Control Protocol
UK United Kingdom
UNCITRA United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
UNES United Nations Convention on Protection of the Child United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNO United Nations Organisation
URL Uniform Resource Locator
USA United State of America
VolP Voice over Internet Protocol
WAN Wide Area Network
www World Wide Web

ii
 LIST OF CASES

Cases
 Abhyanad Jha v. Dinesh Mishra Cr L J 1968 SC 117.
 Ajay Goswami Vs. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 143
 American Civil Union vs. Reno 521 U.S. 844 1997.
 Anthony v. State of Kerala, 1988 (2) Crimes 173 Kerala.
 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and others, (2014) 10 SCC 473.
 Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal 2020 SCC Online SC
571
 Armstrong v Executive Office of the President 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals 1993).
 Attorney General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann 36 ILR (1961) 5.
 Bobby Art International etc. v. Om Pal Singh Hoon AIR 1996 SC 1846.
 Bodala Murali Krishna v. Smt. Bodala Prathima (2007 (2) ALD 72).
 British India Steam Navigation Co. v. Shanmughavilas Cashew Industries 1990
(48) ELT 481 (SC).
 Chadrakumari v. Police Commissioner, AIR 1998 AP 302.
 Chandrakant Kalyandas Kakodkar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 1390
 Daya Singh Lahoria v. Union of India, (2001) 4 SCC 516.
 Dharambir v. CBI 148 (2008) DLT 289.
 DPP v. Doot (1973) AC 807.
 Earl Russel (1901) AC 446.
 Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 1), [1998] 3WLR 1456
 Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), [1999] 2WLR 272
 France v. Turkey, PCIJ Series A (1927) No.9
 Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chemical Industries, Ltd 167 F.R.D. 90 (D. Colo
1996)
 H.N. Rishud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196: 1955 Cr LJ 526.
 Hans Muller of Nuremberg v. Superintendent Presidency Jail, Cal., AIR 1955 SC
367.
 In Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881; (1965) 2 Cr LJ 8.
 Jagdeo Singh vs. The State and Others, MANU/DE/0376/ 2015

iii
 Jayesh S. Thakkar v. State of Maharashtra Bombay H.C., Writ petition No. 1611
of 2001,
 K.A. Abbas v. Union of India (1970) 2 SCC 780.
 K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275
 Meechie v. Multi-Media Marketing 1994 LGR 474.
 Miller v. California [1973]413 US 15. See also http: //www.usdoj.gov/.
 Miller v. California 413 US 15 (1975).
 Mrs. Havovi Kersi Sethna Vs. Mr. Kersi Gustad Sethna 2011(2) ALLMR 577
 Muhammed Ibrahim v. Public Prosecutor, (1963) 29 M.L.J. 289;
 Nasscom v. Ajay Sood & Others 2005 (30) PTC 437 Del.
 Northwest Airlines, et al v. Local 2000, et al. C.A. No. 00-08DWF/AJB (D.Minn.
2000) (Case settled without trial)
 Pope v. Illinois 481 US 497 (1987).
 Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. A.G. for Canada (1932)
 R v. Curl [1727] 2 S 788 KB.
 R v. Fellows [1997} 2 All ER 548.
 R v. Gold [1988] 1 AC 1063 (HL) & at [1987] 3 WLR 803 (Court of Appeal)
 R v. Governor of Braxton Prison and another, ex parte Levin, [1996] 3 WLR 657.
 R v. Governor of Pentonville, ex parte Osman, (1989) 3 All ER 701.
 R v. Thompson [1984] 3 All ER 565.
 R v. Thompson 928 F. 2d 504 (1991).
 R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte
(No. 3) [1999] 2 WLR 827
 R. v. Crop, [1992] 3 WLR 432
 R. v. Gold [1988] 2 WLR 984
 R. v. Thompson [1984]1 WLR 962
 Rajkapur v. Lakshman and Others, AIR 1980 SC 605
 Ram Singh and Others v. Col. Ram Singh 1985 (Supp) SCC 611.
 Rambabu Saxena v. State, AIR 1950 SC 155.
 Ranjit Udeshi and Others. Vs. The State AIR 1962 Bom 268
 Re, Bignall case [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 1
 Regina v. Hicklin [1898] LR QB 360.
 Regina v. Hicklin 1868 LR 3 QB 360,371

iv
 Roth v. United Sates [1957]354 US 476.
 S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1996) 4 SCC 596)
 Samaresh Bose v. Amal Mitra (1985) 4 SCC 289
 Shafhi Mohammad vs. The state of Himachal Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 801
 Shreya Singhal v. UOl Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of 2012.
 Sita Ram Agrawal, AIR 1966 SC 955.
 Smt. Mathri v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 986; (1964) 5 SCR 916; (1964) 2 Cr
LJ 57
 Societe Des Products Nestle S.A. and Another. v. Essar Industries and Others
2006 (33) PTC 469 (Del).
 Special Leave Petition (Cr.) No.2302 of 2017, order dated 30.01.18.
 State of Bihar v. A C Saldhana Cr L J 1980 SC 98.
 State of Delhi v. Mohd. Afzal & others 2003 (3) JCC 1669
 State of Rajasthan v. Rehman AIR 1960 SC 210.
 State of West Bengal v. Sampat Lall Cri.L.J.1985 SC 516.
 State v Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.
 State v. Mohinder Nath 1960 Cr L J 338
 State v. S.N. Sharma Cr L J 1970 SC 764.
 States v. Yunis 681 F Supp 896 (1988)
 Sukanto Halder v. State of West Bengal AIR 1952 Cal 214.
 Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti, Cc No. 4680 of 2004.
 Tomaso Bruno and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 7 SCC 178
 Tukaram S. Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate (2010) 4 SCC 329.
 U.S. v. Watchmakers of Switzerland Info Centre, 133 F Supp 40 (1955).
 U.S. v. Yunis (1988) 681 F. Supp 896
 Umashankar Sivasubramaniam v. ICICI Bank (Petition No. 2462/2008)
 United States v. Czubinski 136 928 r.2d 505 (2d cir),
 United States v. Morris, (1991) 504, F 2d the U S Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, 928.
 United States v. Robert Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir.)

v
 PREFACE

The problem of crime is associated with society since its inception. There is no
society without the problem of crime and criminals. The concept of crime is basically
concerned with the social order. Society changes the law and law changes the society.
The information technology has given new dimension to human life. However, the
misuse of Information technology by anti-social elements is a major problem associated
with it. As the dependence on technology is exponentially increasing, the number of
cybercrimes and their consequences are also increasing.

The development of civilization has been in stages, it developed from

agricultural society to industrial society and then to information society. It is essential
for smooth functioning of society that adequate efforts should be made to control crime.
The mitigation of crime for any society has always been a challenge. Cybercrime is the
newly developed species of crime, which is developing rapidly and an urgent attention
is needed for effective curbing of cybercrime.

There are basically two types of challenges in curbing cybercrime, that is,
substantive and procedural challenges. The present work attempts to study and analyse
challenges and tries to formulate effective solutions to curb these crimes. Chapter one
introduces the work and chapter two and three deals with substantive challenges in
combating cybercrime. Whereas chapter four deals with procedural challenges in
combating cybercrime, it includes jurisdictional challenges, investigative challenges
and evidentiary challenges. Chapter five attempts to give a pattern analysis of
cybercrime in India. It shows that there is a huge difference between reported cases and
cases disposed of by law enforcement machinery. Only a few cases have been disposed
of whereas number of pending cases are increasing exponentially. Chapter six deals
with conclusion and suggestions, it attempts to give some solutions to curb these crimes.

vi