Knowledge Resources › The IT Act, 2000
Last updated: 20 August 2026
The Information Technology Act, 2000 is India’s primary law governing electronic activity and cyber offences. It was enacted in 2000 and substantially expanded by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Alongside enabling electronic commerce and governance, it sets out a range of cyber offences.
What the Act does
- gives legal recognition to electronic records and to electronic and digital signatures;
- facilitates electronic filing and record-keeping with government (e-governance); and
- creates offences and penalties for the misuse of computers, computer systems and data.
Some key provisions
- Section 43 — civil liability (damages) for unauthorised access, downloading, damage, or introduction of a virus to a computer or system.
- Section 66 — where an act under section 43 is done dishonestly or fraudulently, it is a criminal offence.
- Section 66C — identity theft (fraudulent use of another person’s password, digital signature, or other unique identification).
- Section 66D — cheating by personation using a computer resource.
- Section 66E — violation of privacy by capturing or publishing images of a private area without consent.
- Section 66F — cyber terrorism.
- Sections 67, 67A, 67B — publishing or transmitting obscene material, sexually explicit material, and child sexual abuse material, respectively.
- Section 43A — compensation payable by a body corporate that is negligent in protecting sensitive personal data. (Data protection is now principally governed by the DPDP Act, 2023.)
- Section 79 — “safe harbour”: an intermediary is generally not liable for third-party content, provided it meets the due-diligence conditions and acts on valid takedown orders.
Section 66A and the Shreya Singhal judgment
Section 66A, which criminalised sending “offensive” messages through electronic means, was struck down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) as an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). In the same judgment, the Court read down section 79, holding that an intermediary is required to remove content on receiving a court order or a government notification (rather than on a private complaint alone).
This is a broad overview only and does not cover every provision. It is for general information and is not legal advice; the application of any section depends on the specific facts.