Key Offences Under the Information Technology Act, 2000

The main offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 sit in Chapter XI, from Section 65 to Section 78. The ones you will meet most often are hacking (Section 66), identity theft (Section 66C), cheating by personation using a computer (Section 66D), privacy violation (Section 66E), cyber terrorism (Section 66F) and publishing obscene, sexually explicit or child sexual abuse material (Sections 67, 67A and 67B). Section 66A, which punished "offensive" messages, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 and cannot be used by any police officer or court.

This explainer is written for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for cyber law papers, and for any citizen who has received a suspicious call, lost money through a fake link or seen a private photo shared without consent. Knowing which section applies tells you what to write in a complaint and what to expect from the police.

Which sections create the main offences?

Read the bare Act for each of these. The punishments below are taken from the text of the Act as amended.

• Section 65, tampering with computer source documents: up to three years, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both.
• Section 66, computer related offences: any act listed in Section 43 (unauthorised access, downloading data, introducing a virus, damage and so on) done dishonestly or fraudulently. Up to three years, or fine up to five lakh rupees, or both. Section 43 by itself only creates civil liability to pay compensation; the dishonest or fraudulent intent is what turns it into a crime.
• Section 66B, dishonestly receiving a stolen computer resource or device: up to three years, or fine up to one lakh rupees, or both.
• Section 66C, identity theft: fraudulent use of another person's electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature. Up to three years and fine up to one lakh rupees.
• Section 66D, cheating by personation using a computer resource: up to three years and fine up to one lakh rupees.
• Section 66E, violation of privacy: capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of a person without consent. Up to three years, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both.
• Section 66F, cyber terrorism: imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.
• Section 67, obscene material in electronic form: up to three years and fine up to five lakh rupees on first conviction; up to five years and fine up to ten lakh rupees on a later conviction.
• Sections 67A and 67B, sexually explicit material and material depicting children in sexually explicit acts: up to five years and fine up to ten lakh rupees on first conviction; up to seven years and fine up to ten lakh rupees on a later conviction.
• Section 72, breach of confidentiality by a person given access under the Act: up to two years, or fine up to one lakh rupees, or both. Section 72A covers disclosure of personal information in breach of a lawful contract: up to three years, or fine up to five lakh rupees, or both.

How are these offences investigated and tried?

Three procedural sections matter in practice. Section 77B says offences punishable with three years and above are cognizable, and offences punishable with three years are bailable. Section 78 lets a police officer not below the rank of Inspector investigate. Section 77A allows a court to compound offences, except those punishable with life imprisonment or more than three years. Section 77A still refers to the old Code of Criminal Procedure; after 1 July 2024 such references are read with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), so check the current BNSS provision before you cite it in an answer.

For a citizen, the practical first step is simpler. The Ministry of Home Affairs runs the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, cybercrime.gov.in, and the toll free helpline 1930 for help in lodging online cyber complaints. Complaints received there are passed to the State police for action. If a retired teacher in Nagercoil loses money to a fake "digital arrest" call, calling 1930 quickly and keeping screenshots, transaction IDs and the caller's number is far more useful than waiting.

What did the Supreme Court decide on Section 66A?

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), reported as AIR 2015 SC 1523, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A in full as violating Article 19(1)(a) and not saved by Article 19(2). The same judgment upheld Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules, and read down Section 79(3)(b) so that an intermediary has to remove content only on a court order or a government notification.

Police kept registering 66A cases for years afterwards. On 12 October 2022, in an application filed by PUCL, a Bench led by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit directed that no citizen can be prosecuted under Section 66A, that 66A charges in pending cases must be deleted, and that publications on the IT Act must tell readers the section has been struck down. This article does exactly that.

What other judgments should a student know?

• Sharat Babu Digumarti v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (decided 14 December 2016): where obscene material is in electronic form, the IT Act as a special law governs. A person discharged under Section 67 could not then be tried under Section 292 IPC for the same act.
• Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (decided 23 September 2024): a Bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala set aside a Madras High Court order that had quashed a case from Tiruvallur. The Court held that viewing, possessing and storing such material can be an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act, read Section 67B of the IT Act as a wide provision, and asked courts to use the term "child sexual exploitative and abuse material" (CSEAM) in place of "child pornography".
• High Court view on overlap: in Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak v. State of Maharashtra (15 April 2024), a three judge Bench of the Bombay High Court held that IPC offences such as cheating can still be invoked alongside the IT Act where the IT Act offence does not cover every ingredient, for example deceit. Treat this as a High Court ruling, not a Supreme Court rule.

How do the BNS and BSA fit in?

The IT Act was not repealed in 2024. What changed is the general criminal law around it. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) replaced the IPC from 1 July 2024. Voyeurism is now Section 77 BNS (old Section 354C IPC), and the definition of organised crime in Section 111 BNS expressly includes cyber-crimes. Cheating is in Section 318 BNS (old Section 420 IPC). For proof, Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) replaces Section 65B of the Evidence Act, with a certificate in the Schedule. The older rulings Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) on the mandatory certificate remain the starting point for understanding that rule.

The IT Act is amended from time to time, so check the current text on India Code before relying on any section in a petition or an answer script.

How should you write about this in an exam?

1. Start with the section number and its ingredients, not with a history of the internet.
2. State the punishment and whether the offence is cognizable or bailable under Section 77B.
3. Cite one or two cases with correct names and years, and say what each held in one line.
4. Show the link to the BNS and BSA, giving the old IPC or Evidence Act section only as a pointer.
5. For a problem question on a fake bank call to a tenant in Madurai, apply Sections 66C and 66D first, then discuss whether Section 318 BNS can also apply.

Students who want to see how such complaints are drafted in real life can volunteer with the college legal aid clinic.

Sources

• Information Technology Act, 2000 (PRS Legislative Research): full text of the Act as amended, including Chapter XI.
• Supreme Court Observer, Section 66A order of 12 October 2022: report of the four directions on Section 66A.
• Supreme Court Observer on Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish: summary of the 2024 judgment on POCSO and Section 67B.
• PIB release of 12 March 2025: Ministry of Home Affairs reply on the 1930 helpline, cybercrime.gov.in and digital arrest scams.
• Bombay High Court judgment, 15 April 2024 (LiveLaw copy): full bench ruling on IT Act and IPC overlap, discussing Sharat Babu Digumarti.
• LiveLaw on Section 63 BSA: how the BSA certificate replaced Section 65B.