top of page

Information Technology Act 2000 Section 68

IT Act Section 68 governs the power to issue directions for interception, monitoring, and decryption of digital information.

Information Technology Act Section 68 empowers the government to issue directions for interception, monitoring, or decryption of any digital information generated, transmitted, received, or stored in any computer resource. This provision is crucial in combating cyber threats, terrorism, and safeguarding national security in the digital age.

In today's interconnected world, cybercrime and digital threats pose significant risks to individuals, businesses, and governments. Section 68 enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access digital data lawfully, balancing privacy with security needs. It impacts users by setting legal boundaries for digital surveillance and affects intermediaries by requiring compliance with lawful orders.

Information Technology Act Section 68 – Exact Provision

This section grants the government authority to intercept or monitor digital communications under specific circumstances. It ensures lawful access to digital information to prevent serious threats. However, such powers are subject to strict conditions to protect citizens' rights.

  • Authorises government interception and monitoring of digital data.

  • Applicable for national security, public order, and foreign relations.

  • Includes decryption of encrypted information.

  • Requires special authorisation by the Central Government.

  • Targets information in any computer resource.

Explanation of Information Technology Act Section 68

Section 68 outlines when and how digital information can be intercepted or decrypted by authorised officials.

  • Allows Central Government or authorised officers to intercept digital data.

  • Applies to information generated, transmitted, received, or stored digitally.

  • Triggered by concerns over sovereignty, security, public order, or foreign relations.

  • Permits interception, monitoring, or decryption of computer resources.

  • Prohibits unauthorised interception or decryption by others.

Purpose and Rationale of IT Act Section 68

This section aims to empower the government to protect national interests by enabling lawful surveillance of digital communications. It balances security needs with privacy rights.

  • Protects sovereignty and integrity of India.

  • Prevents cyberterrorism and serious cybercrimes.

  • Supports intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

  • Ensures secure electronic communications.

  • Regulates lawful interception procedures.

When IT Act Section 68 Applies

Section 68 applies when digital information interception is necessary for national security or public order. Only authorised officials can invoke it under specific conditions.

  • When interception or monitoring is required by government.

  • Invoked by Central Government or authorised officers.

  • Evidence of threat to sovereignty, security, or public order.

  • Applies to digital data in computers or networks.

  • Exceptions include lawful encryption and privacy safeguards.

Legal Effect of IT Act Section 68

This section creates the legal framework for government interception of digital data. It restricts unauthorised access and grants powers to law enforcement with safeguards.

Penalties apply for unauthorised interception or failure to comply with lawful orders. It interacts with IPC provisions on privacy and security offences.

  • Authorises lawful interception and decryption.

  • Restricts unauthorised digital surveillance.

  • Penalties for non-compliance or illegal interception.

Nature of Offence or Liability under IT Act Section 68

Section 68 primarily establishes regulatory compliance and criminal liability for unauthorised interception. It is a cognizable offence with strict procedural safeguards.

  • Imposes criminal liability for illegal interception.

  • Offence is cognizable and non-bailable.

  • Arrest may require warrant depending on circumstances.

  • Compliance mandatory for intermediaries and service providers.

Stage of Proceedings Where IT Act Section 68 Applies

This section is relevant during investigation, evidence collection, trial, and appeal stages involving digital interception cases.

  • Investigation includes obtaining digital data and logs.

  • Evidence collection involves decrypted information.

  • Complaints filed by authorised government officers.

  • Trial conducted under IT Act and IPC provisions.

  • Appeals follow regular judicial procedures.

Penalties and Consequences under IT Act Section 68

Penalties include imprisonment and fines for unauthorised interception or failure to comply with lawful orders. Corporate and intermediary liability may also arise.

  • Imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.

  • Corporate entities liable for non-compliance.

  • Intermediaries must assist lawful interception.

  • Compensation claims possible for affected parties.

Example of IT Act Section 68 in Practical Use

Consider a scenario where the government suspects a terrorist plot communicated via encrypted emails. Under Section 68, authorised officers direct the decryption and monitoring of these emails to prevent the attack. The intercepted information leads to timely action and arrests, showcasing the section's role in national security.

  • Enables lawful access to encrypted digital communications.

  • Supports prevention of serious cyber and security threats.

Historical Background of IT Act Section 68

The IT Act 2000 was introduced to regulate electronic commerce and cybercrime. Section 68 was added to empower lawful interception in the digital era. The 2008 Amendment enhanced provisions for cyber security and surveillance.

  • Introduced with IT Act 2000 for digital regulation.

  • Amended in 2008 for stronger cybercrime controls.

  • Evolved with growing digital communication challenges.

Modern Relevance of IT Act Section 68

In 2026, cybersecurity threats and data privacy concerns make Section 68 vital. It balances digital surveillance with privacy, especially amid fintech, social media, and digital identity growth.

  • Supports digital evidence collection.

  • Ensures online safety and national security.

  • Addresses enforcement challenges in cyberspace.

Related Sections

  • IT Act Section 43 – Penalty for unauthorised access and data theft.

  • IT Act Section 66 – Computer-related offences.

  • IT Act Section 69 – Powers to issue directions for interception and monitoring.

  • IPC Section 420 – Cheating, relevant for online fraud.

  • Evidence Act Section 65B – Admissibility of electronic evidence.

  • CrPC Section 91 – Summons for digital records or documents.

Case References under IT Act Section 68

No landmark case directly interprets this section as of 2026.

Key Facts Summary for IT Act Section 68

  • Section: 68

  • Title: Power to Intercept Digital Information

  • Category: Cybersecurity, Surveillance, Regulation

  • Applies To: Central Government, authorised officers, intermediaries

  • Stage: Investigation, trial, appeal

  • Legal Effect: Authorises lawful interception, restricts unauthorised access

  • Penalties: Imprisonment, fines, corporate liability

Conclusion on IT Act Section 68

Section 68 is a critical provision empowering the government to intercept, monitor, and decrypt digital information for safeguarding national interests. It ensures that digital surveillance is conducted lawfully, balancing security with privacy rights.

As cyber threats evolve, this section remains essential for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Compliance by intermediaries and clear legal safeguards protect citizens while enabling effective digital crime prevention.

FAQs on IT Act Section 68

What authority does Section 68 grant?

Section 68 authorises the Central Government or authorised officers to intercept, monitor, or decrypt digital information for national security and public order.

Who can invoke Section 68?

Only the Central Government or officers specially authorised by it can invoke Section 68 under specified conditions.

Does Section 68 allow interception without consent?

Yes, but only when authorised by the government for specific reasons like security or public order, following legal procedures.

What penalties exist for unauthorised interception?

Unauthorised interception under Section 68 can lead to imprisonment, fines, and liability for individuals or companies involved.

How does Section 68 affect intermediaries?

Intermediaries must comply with lawful interception orders and assist authorised officials, failing which they may face penalties.

Related Sections

Companies Act 2013 Section 110 governs the procedure for passing private placement resolutions by postal ballot.

Companies Act 2013 Section 177 mandates the constitution and duties of the Audit Committee in Indian companies.

CrPC Section 370 defines the offence of human trafficking and the procedures for investigation and trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Companies Act 2013 Section 87 governs the power of the Tribunal to order rectification of the register of members.

CrPC Section 180 empowers police to disperse unlawful assemblies to maintain public order and safety.

CrPC Section 177 mandates police officers to report cognizable offences to magistrates, ensuring proper legal action begins promptly.

IPC Section 407 defines criminal breach of trust by a public servant, detailing offences and penalties.

CPC Section 83 details the procedure for executing decrees against property under the control of the judgment-debtor.

CrPC Section 57 explains the procedure when a person is arrested without a warrant and must be produced before a magistrate promptly.

Companies Act 2013 Section 34 governs the registration of charges created by companies, ensuring transparency and creditor protection.

Companies Act 2013 Section 42 governs private placement of securities and related compliance requirements.

IPC Section 337 addresses causing hurt by rash or negligent acts, defining liability for injuries without intent.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 82 covers the admissibility of confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise, protecting against involuntary statements.

Companies Act 2013 Section 180 outlines the powers of the Board of Directors requiring shareholder approval for key decisions.

IPC Section 8 defines the term 'Counterfeit' and explains its scope in Indian law regarding imitation of valuable items.

CPC Section 87A empowers courts to order discovery and inspection of documents before suit filing to aid civil dispute resolution.

IPC Section 58 addresses the offence of concealing a birth to prevent discovery of the child's identity or parentage.

CrPC Section 134 details the procedure for trial of summons cases by Magistrates in India.

IPC Section 53 outlines the punishment for offences, detailing imprisonment terms, fines, or both as prescribed by law.

Contract Act 1872 Section 64 covers the consequences when a contract becomes void due to the impossibility of performance.

IPC Section 415 defines cheating as deceiving someone to induce wrongful gain or loss, covering fraud and dishonesty.

Evidence Act Section 72 defines the admissibility of expert opinion when the court requires specialized knowledge to understand facts.

IT Act Section 64 empowers the Controller to suspend or revoke digital signature certificates to maintain trust in electronic authentication.

CrPC Section 201 deals with punishment for causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen offenders.

IPC Section 366 defines kidnapping, abducting, or inducing a woman to compel marriage or illicit intercourse.

IPC Section 31 defines the extent of a person's liability for acts done in good faith for another's benefit.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 33 details the procedure for filing complaints before Consumer Commissions for dispute resolution.

bottom of page