Section 65 of the IT Act, 2000 and its Link with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Introduction

Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises tampering with computer source documents. It protects the integrity of software systems and electronic infrastructure. In the modern legal framework, such tampering may also attract liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) where the act results in wrongful loss, destruction of property, or public harm.

Thus, Section 65 operates as a special cyber offence, while BNS provides general criminal liability.

Section 65 – Tampering with Computer Source Documents

Provision

Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys, or alters computer source code required by law to be maintained commits an offence.

Essential Ingredients

1. Existence of computer source code

2. Code required to be preserved by law

3. Intentional or knowing tampering

4. Unauthorised act

📌 Mens rea is essential.

Punishment

Imprisonment up to 3 years

Fine up to ₹2 lakh

Or both

Purpose of Section 65

Protect digital infrastructure

Prevent cyber sabotage

Preserve evidentiary reliability

Safeguard public and corporate systems


Flowchart – Section 65 Offence


Computer Source Code Exists

            ↓

Legally Required to be Preserved

            ↓

Intentional Alteration/Destruction

            ↓

Tampering Established

            ↓

Punishment under Section 65


Link with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Although BNS does not use the term “source code”, electronic records are recognised as property, and tampering may attract the following provisions:

✅ Section 324 BNS – Mischief causing damage to the property

If tampering causes wrongful loss or damage to digital systems, it may amount to mischief.

✅ Section 316 BNS – Criminal breach of trust

If a person entrusted with system access destroys source code dishonestly.

✅ Section 336 BNS – Forgery of electronic record

If tampering is done to falsify electronic records.

✅ Section 318 BNS – Cheating

If tampering is done to obtain wrongful gain.

Electronic records are legally recognised as property, therefore destruction attracts criminal liability.


Doctrine Applied

👉 IT Act = Special law

👉 BNS = General law

Legal principle:

Special law prevails, but general law supplements.

Thus, prosecution may occur under both statutes depending on consequences.


Flowchart – Interaction of IT Act and BNS

Tampering with Source Code

            ↓

Offence under Section 65 IT Act

            ↓

Causes wrongful loss/public damage?

            ↓

Yes → BNS provisions also apply

            ↓

Dual criminal liability possible


Judicial Perspective

State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004)

Facts:

The accused misused digital platforms and tampered with electronic communication to harass a woman online.

Issue:

Whether electronic tampering attracts liability under the IT Act.

Judgment:

The court recognised electronic misconduct as punishable under the IT Act and emphasised protection of digital integrity.

📌 Significance: First conviction under IT Act; validated cyber offence framework.


Avnish Bajaj v. State (Bazee.com Case, 2005)

Facts:

Illegal material was circulated through an online platform.

Issue:

Liability of intermediaries and digital systems.

Judgment:

The court stressed accountability in electronic environments and recognised the importance of safeguarding digital infrastructure.

📌 Significance: Reinforced legal responsibility in cyberspace.


Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)

Relevance:

Supreme Court emphasised integrity of electronic records and strict compliance with digital evidence safeguards.

📌 Supports rationale behind Section 65. Critical Analysis Challenges in enforcing Section 65: Difficulty proving intention, Technical forensic complexity, Jurisdiction issues, Rapid software evolution, Overlap with general criminal law. However, its importance grows with increasing cyber dependency.

Conclusion

Section 65 of the IT Act provides a specialised framework to punish tampering with computer source documents, ensuring digital security and evidentiary reliability. When such acts cause broader harm, provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita may apply simultaneously. Together, these laws create a dual-layered protection system safeguarding India’s digital infrastructure.

Section 65 functions as a special cyber safeguard, while BNS ensures broader criminal accountability, creating a comprehensive legal shield against digital sabotage.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

📘 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)

🔹 Where BSA Applies All Judicial Proceedings in or before any Court Civil and Criminal trials (in courts of law) Proceedings before tribunals if declared as courts by statute Oral evidence → statements made in court by witnesses Documentary evidence → documents produced for court’s inspection 🔹 Where BSA Does NOT Apply Affidavits presented to any Court or officer Even if notarized, it’s not “evidence” unless statute allows ✔️ Acceptable only if CPC, CrPC, or a Special Act permits Arbitration proceedings Conciliation / mediation / Lok Adalat proceedings (not judicial) Statements made outside court (unless admitted through exceptions like dying declaration, admissions, etc.) 🔹 Statutory Exceptions (When Affidavit = Evidence) Civil Procedure Code (Order XIX) → Court may accept affidavit instead of oral evidence Election Petitions → Affidavits required Company Law Tribunals (NCLT/NCLAT) → Affidavits accepted Family Courts...
Read more

🏛️ Court Fee Refund after Settlement: Rajasthan High Court Clears the Air

In a notable judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur has upheld the right of litigants to seek a full refund of court fees when a matter is settled through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms even after a decree is passed and during execution proceedings . 📌 Case Snapshot Case Title : Harish Madhan v. Kshema Power & Infrastructure Co. Pvt. Ltd. Citation : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13265/2025 Date of Judgment : 17th July 2025 Judge : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga ⚖️ Background Harish Madhan, the petitioner, filed a recovery suit in 2023, which was decreed ex-parte in his favour in February 2024. During execution proceedings, the parties settled the matter through conciliation , and the case was disposed of via the National Lok Adalat in December 2024. Relying on Section 65-B of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, 1961, Harish sought a refund of the court fees paid. However, the trial court rejected the application, stating...
Read more

Bombay Court Ruling: Sending Obscene WhatsApp Messages Is a Serious Criminal Offence

Image
Date of Judgment : 18 February 2025 Court : Sessions Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai Case Title : Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude v. State of Maharashtra Sections Involved : Section 509 IPC (Insulting the modesty of a woman) Sections 67 & 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Electronic transmission of obscene material) Case in Brief  A female corporator in Mumbai received a barrage of inappropriate and obscene WhatsApp messages from an unknown number late at night during a public event in her constituency. The messages, containing sexually suggestive texts and images, deeply disturbed her. After informing her husband, she lodged a police complaint. Investigations revealed that the messages were sent from a number registered in the name of the accused, Narsingh Bhujangrao Gude. The trial court convicted him, and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court, which upheld the conviction and imprisonment. Legal Findings 1. Electronic Evidence Is Admissible If Properly Certi...
Read more