Interface between law and technology: Cyber

Jurisdiction.
Introduction:
Jurisdiction is the power and authority of a court to hear and
determine a judicial proceeding and the power to render a
particular judgment in question. Jurisdiction is a term of
comprehensive import embracing every kind of judicial action. It
roots from the two Latin terms juris meaning law and dicere
meaning to speak. Without jurisdiction, a courts judgment is
ineffective and impotent. Such jurisdiction is essentially of two
types, namely:
Subject matter jurisdiction: It is defined as the competence of
the court to hear and determine a particular category of cases. It
requires determination whether a claim is actionable in the court
where the case is filed.
Personal jurisdiction: It is a simple competence of the court to
determine a case against a particular
category whether the person is
subject to the court in which case is filed or the court has an
authority over a person, regardless of their location. Personal
jurisdiction is also called "in personam jurisdiction." The power of
a court to hear and determine a lawsuit involving a defendant by
virtue of the defendant's having some contact with the place
where the court is located. Personal jurisdiction, gives a court the
authority to make decisions binding on the persons involved in a
civil case. Every state has
personal jurisdiction over persons within its territory. Conversely,
no state can exercise personal jurisdiction and authority over pers
ons outside its territory unless the persons have manifested some
contact with the state.

These two jurisdictions must be conjunctively satisfied for a

judgment to take effect.
Jurisdiction becomes an issue when the problems root through a
relationship formed on the cyber space where the numerous
parties reside in different parts of the world and are yet linked
through a virtual nexus. Internet, as we all know, is a virtual and
not a physical space. It knows no boundaries. So, are we to
consider the cyber space a world in its own or are we obliged by
the law to define, regulate and control its limits? Especially when
it comes to crimes committed and contracts not fulfilled on the
cyber space.
History:
Under the traditional legal system, the transactions between two
parties when both were situated in distinct territorial jurisdiction,
were governed either by the laws of the country which the parties
agreed will govern the transactions, or by the laws of the country
in which the transaction was performed. These traditional notions
of jurisdiction have no relevance to the activities carried out on
the internet, as the internet has no relevance to the location. The
internet allows persons from geographically distinct locations and
jurisdiction to transact with each other, with little or no
comprehension of the consequences of their actions in the
jurisdiction within which they are operating. In fact, the absence
of geographical limitations could lead the incautious to believe
that the laws of their home state apply to their actions, when in
fact they are inadvertent violations of the laws of another State.
In these circumstances, the courts could and do,
assume jurisdiction over the offence and try the offender within th
eir own jurisdiction, resulting in situations where persons located
in a completely different jurisdiction may be tried in court
of different jurisdiction. But there are no uniform laws on the
National or International level to regulate and overlook the same.
There are no effective extradition laws in India to provide

presence of and prosecute International offenders before its

courts in case of cybercrimes.
Objective:
The objective of my study is to analyze and examine the
jurisdictional aspect of cyber laws in India and the extent to which
they apply on persons operating at the International level and its
overall impact on the working and implementation of cyber laws
in India (the Information Technology Act, 2000). This paper also
aims at analyzing the need of a uniform Universal code to
regulate cyber space as it doesnt exist distinctly in any country
but in the world as a whole. The paper also examines the various
theories of Jurisdiction followed on cyber space.
Scope:
The study involves:
1. The Information technology Act, 2000
2. The convention on cyber crimes
3. Code of Civil Procedure
Aspects:
1. How to determine jurisdiction in cyber space (E-commerce,
E-contracts) and ensure its implementation.
2. How to draw a nexus between a crime and the regulating
nation for a national court to adjudicate criminal and
regulatory sanctions internationally.

Cases:
1. Bhagwan Dass Govardhan Dass Kedia v Purshottam Dass &
Co
2. Cybersell,Inc. vs. Cybersell, Inc 1997 US
3. Modi Entertainment Network and anr v. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt.
Ltd. 4

4. Braintech v. Kostiuk
5. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India and Anr