Legal Measures Against Digital Identity Theft: Challenges, Enforcement, and the Future of Identity Protection in India
This article is written by Mohammed Farhaan CMA, pursuing B.A.LL.B (Hons.), from Amity University Bangalore.
“Digital Identity Theft”, the wrongful use or misuse of another person’s digital credentials (Online Certificates and login info), personal Data (Information about your name, address, photo, browsing history, etc.), and online persona (your profile, posts, avatars, and how people see you digitally). Digital identity theft has emerged as one of the most pervasive and economically significant cybercrimes in current and present-day India. It examines the legislative style designed to fight digital identity theft in India with a focus on the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which was amended in 2008), the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act), and other regulatory instruments. By analyzing the statutory provisions, landmark judgments, judicial decisions, and qualified or reasonable international frameworks. This also identifies significant space in India’s current legal response, which include the absence of an individual identity theft offence under developed victim remediation mechanisms, inadequate cross-border enforcement capacity, and fragmented institutional jurisdiction. The paper ends by recommending legislative and institutional changes that are appropriate for the Indian socio-legal environment, especially the extent of the digital infrastructure, Best on Aadhar, and the first growing Digital financial services ecosystem. This research uses a doctrinal research methodology combined with empirical data for national crime records, the Bureau, and CERT-In annual reports.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this research article, submitted by students and/or other contributors in their personal capacity, are solely those of the author(s) and do not, in any manner whatsoever, reflect or represent the views, opinions, advice, or official position of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP (“PACTEDGE”). PACTEDGE makes no representations or warranties, whether express or implied, as to the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or currency of any facts, data, analysis, or legal propositions contained herein and shall not, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, be liable for any loss, injury, damage, or consequence arising directly or indirectly from any reliance placed upon this publication. The entire contents of this research article, including without limitation its text, structure, compilation, selection and arrangement of material, are and shall remain the exclusive intellectual property of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP, protected under applicable copyright and other intellectual property laws. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, adapted, published, communicated to the public, distributed, or otherwise made available in any form or by any means, whether electronic, digital, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, nor shared or reposted on any platform or medium, without the prior written consent of PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP; any unauthorised use shall constitute infringement and may attract civil and/or criminal consequences, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to PACTEDGE LEGAL LLP in law or equity.
Comments