Relevancy of physical location, in Jurisdiction and Governance
The Information Technology Act has provided a legal framework for smooth conduct of e-commerce facilitating and regulating electronic commerce however the problem of jurisdiction of this new arena is extremely complex especially with the expansion of trade and commerce.
Technology reduces and frequently eliminates the need for physical contact in the creation of legally noteworthy relationships between parties or between an actor and the state acting as regulator. The legal system then is bound to decide what relationship is necessary between the forums and whether either of the conduct is occurring outside the forum or the parties. It is the relationship between a party and a forum, not necessarily a physical connection between the forum and the conduct of that party that is critical and whether such a tie is sufficient to enable the forum to emphasize individual and prescriptive jurisdiction depends on an analysis of additional factors?
As e-commerce becomes an increasingly important segment of the global economy, with the growth and expansion of technology, Jurisdiction and governance of the web world becomes tougher.
Where services are performed, a security offered for sale, or a trademark infringed became the significant to both personal and prescriptive jurisdictional inquiries- as long as such an act occurred within the state’s boundaries, its declaration of both personal and prescriptive jurisdiction was proper and enforceable. Activities continue to remain relevant as long as they occur in “real” space, the place of such occurrences.
Not all assertions of jurisdiction were based on this kind of conduct-based inquiry.
For example, states continued to affirm jurisdiction over their citizens with respect to claims that arise outside of the state and to regulate conduct that occurs elsewhere which is proposed to and does cause considerable effects in the state. Nonetheless, a concern with where relevant acts took place is vital to many, if not most, decisions. In some contexts, some countries have already implicitly documented this in the detailed context of electronic commerce. Australia’s Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) presents default rules for the place of dispatch and receipt of electronic communications (including the place of an offer or acceptance of a contract) based on the party’s place of business or ordinary residence.
Acquiring jurisdiction over an individual who is not resident of India if a foreign country is the sight of the crime and the criminal is not even an Indian citizen, merely because a computer or a computer system in India has been utilised in some way or other linked with the crime. However if software/hardware in India is damaged by a hacker based in a foreign country, there can be no disagreement about India’s right to reach him and make him/her responsible and accountable for the crime committed in India alone. Contravention of any provisions of the Act is a matter of adjudication for compensation purposes by the adjudicating officer and for criminal action by the court. The Information Technology Act, 2000 apart from India, has extra-territorial jurisdiction to cover any offence or contravention committed outside India by any person.
To learn more about Cyber Law in India, stay connected to our blog or head on to our Law Firm Certified Courses and learn from leading law firms in India. [Click Here]