--- layout: default title: "Indian Cyber Crime Soars 350% in 3 Years" description: "A Business Standard report by Devanik Saha for IndiaSpend examining the surge in cyber crime cases in India, featuring commentary from Sunil Abraham on classification issues and the flaws in the Information Technology Act." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2015-01-19 authors: ["Devanik Saha"] source: "Business Standard" permalink: /media/indian-cyber-crime-soars-business-standard/ created: 2026-01-08 --- **Indian Cyber Crime Soars 350% in 3 Years** is a *Business Standard* article published on 19 January 2015 by Devanik Saha for IndiaSpend. The report analyses National Crime Records Bureau data showing registered cyber crime cases increasing from 966 in 2010 to 4,356 in 2013, as India's internet user base expanded. The article features analysis from Sunil Abraham, then Founder-Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, alongside data on conviction rates, demographic patterns, and concerns about draconian provisions in cyber laws. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
đź“° Published in:
Business Standard
đź“… Date:
19 January 2015
👤 Authors:
Devanik Saha (IndiaSpend.org)
đź“„ Type:
Data Report
đź“° Article Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

With internet usage soaring in India, so is cyber crime, but India's laws do not appear to be adequate to tackle the surge.

In the three years up to 2013, registered cases of cyber crime were up 350%, from 966 to 4,356, according to statistics from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

India was projected to have 302 million internet users by the end of 2014, and will, this year, overtake the United States as the second largest number of internet users after China. About 24% of the population will then be online.

As cyber crime rises, there are indications that the criminal justice system is unable to cope, with a minuscule percentage of convictions reported, although there is no reliable, nationwide data.

"Illegal gains" and "harassment" are the top cyber crime motives, the data reveal. The majority of crimes are registered under "others"; 2,144 cases were registered in this category in 2013. Such a high number of cases registered in "others" implies that the current laws and regulations aren't detailed enough to tackle cyber crime.

Instead of bunching cyber crime in the "others" category, they should be specifically classified, said Sunil Abraham, founder-director of Bangalore's Centre for Internet & Society.

Those who are arrested under these laws are overwhelmingly young. Data show that the age group of 18-30 accounts for the highest percentage of cyber crime with 1,638 persons arrested in the age bracket out of a total arrests of 3,301 in 2013.

Some cyber laws are considered too draconian for a modern, democratic society, being forced open by the spread of the Internet. These laws are now being opposed by various experts, lawyers and free-speech activists.

Consider the particularly contentious section 66A, which deals with "offensive" messages sent through a computer or other personal communication devices. Anyone found guilty can be imprisoned for up to three years and fined.

In 2012, two girls were even arrested under section 66A in Mumbai for questioning the shutdown of Mumbai over Bal Thackeray's death on Facebook, with one of them being arrested for just "liking" her friend's post.

To prevent such abuses, the Supreme Court has ruled that arrests can only be made after clearance from an Inspector General of Police in cities and a Superintendent of Police in the districts.

"Recently certain incidents have been reported wherein section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has been invoked solely as well as with other sections of Indian Penal Code against certain persons for posting/communicating certain content which was considered by the police to be harmful," the Supreme Court judgement said. "Due diligence and care may be exercised while dealing with cases arising out of the alleged misuse of cyberspace." The Supreme Court is now examining the constitutional validity of section 66A.

Abraham said the problem is various sections of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, such as Section 66A and section 69 (power to issue directions to block public access through any computer resource) are "deeply flawed". He said these laws were "copy-paste jobs" from British and American laws.

Cyber crime appears to be concentrated in states with major cities, indicating that urbanisation–and so internet penetration–is a factor. Maharashtra accounts for the most persons arrested under the IT Act, 2000, and Uttar Pradesh reported the most arrests under the older Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Indiaspend.org is a data-driven, public-interest journalism non-profit

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background This article appeared during a transitional period for India's digital governance framework, when rapid internet expansion collided with inadequate legal infrastructure designed for earlier technological contexts. The 350% increase in registered cyber crime cases between 2010 and 2013 coincided with India's smartphone revolution and the proliferation of social media platforms, creating novel enforcement challenges for police forces with limited digital forensics capacity and outdated procedural frameworks. The NCRB data revealing that 2,144 cases—nearly half of all registered cyber crimes in 2013—fell into the "others" category highlighted fundamental taxonomic deficiencies in India's crime classification system. Existing categories derived from the Information Technology Act and Indian Penal Code failed to capture emerging offence types such as online financial fraud, identity theft, ransomware attacks, and various forms of digital harassment. Abraham's call for specific classification reflected broader concerns that policymakers lacked granular data necessary for evidence-based legislative reform. The demographic concentration of arrests amongst 18-30 year-olds indicated both generational patterns in technology adoption and potential selection bias in enforcement. Younger populations were more likely to engage in digital activities that could trigger legal action, but also more vulnerable to arrests for speech-related offences under vague provisions like Section 66A. This pattern raised questions about whether enforcement targeted genuine criminal activity or disproportionately criminalised youth expression and political dissent. Section 66A's status as "particularly contentious" stemmed from its extraordinarily broad language punishing messages sent through communication devices that were "grossly offensive", caused "annoyance", or were meant to "deceive". These subjective standards granted police wide discretion to criminalise online speech, leading to arrests for activities ranging from political satire to reporting on public officials. The 2012 arrest of two women in Mumbai for Facebook posts questioning the city shutdown after Bal Thackeray's death became emblematic of Section 66A's abuse, sparking nationwide protests and legal challenges. The Supreme Court's interim procedural safeguards requiring senior police approval before Section 66A arrests represented an attempt to curb misuse without immediately striking down the provision. However, these administrative checks proved ineffective in practice, as lower-level officers continued making arrests that were later ratified by superiors. The Court's acknowledgment that it was examining Section 66A's constitutional validity foreshadowed the landmark March 2015 judgement in *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*, which struck down the provision as unconstitutional—a decision that came just two months after this article's publication. Abraham's characterisation of IT Act provisions as "copy-paste jobs" from British and American laws pointed to a recurring critique of Indian technology legislation: that it transplanted legal frameworks from different constitutional and technological contexts without adequate adaptation. Section 66A drew language from the UK's Communications Act 2003, whilst Section 69's blocking powers resembled provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act. However, these transplants operated within India's distinct constitutional structure and faced different patterns of abuse, creating enforcement dynamics their original designers had not anticipated. The geographic concentration of cyber crime cases in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh reflected both urbanisation patterns and resource distribution. Maharashtra's dominance in IT Act arrests corresponded to Mumbai and Pune's status as major technology and financial centres, whilst Uttar Pradesh's high IPC arrest figures suggested that less technologically specific offences—like fraud and forgery conducted through digital means—were more common in states with lower digital literacy and infrastructure. This geographic disparity raised concerns about uneven enforcement capacity and the potential for cyber crime to migrate to jurisdictions with weaker investigative capabilities. ## External Link - [Read on Business Standard](https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/indian-cyber-crime-soars-350-in-3-years-115011900329_1.html)