Offences such as data theft, unauthorised deletion of information, malware circulation and online impersonation, punishable under Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, highlight the growing vulnerability of ordinary citizens in an increasingly digital society.
Violation of these sections results in penalties of up to three years imprisonment and fines ranging from ₹1–5 lakh.
With NCRB data pointing to over 1.5 million cybercrime cases reported annually, law-enforcement systems are often stretched thin. In this landscape, justice is shaped not only by the existence of legal safeguards but by public awareness of them. Complaints grounded in clear legal provisions, supported by documentation and followed through institutional channels; tend to receive more effective attention. This underscores the importance of digital literacy and community-level awareness in securing accountability.
ALSO READ: Cybercrime laws we must know (Ithum katongkhana theiran Cybercrime ain)
Data theft, data deletion, malware circulation kala online li na makhaning mi katei sakharekhi ain na machuta kala section 43&66 Information Technology Act, 2000 na ithumwui khangazan chitheimiya reikasang okathui wui alungli.
Khanyong khamang hikatha kasa eina zingkum 3 phatop li zangpamra kala lan einala 1-5 lakhs mikara.
NCRB wui athisurda 1.5 million cyber crime cases zingkum kachida shokdaleiya chiwuivangeina ain eina mang mavakapei la shokpaiya. Hikatha kashok tharan, mashun samkaphanghi ain wui manga mang eina maningla kha ithum saikorana hikatha kayon khamang leiya da kathei hi darkar saya.
Police li vakahang tharan ain phaptalakha, kashok kazang kathongkha mathada record hailakha, ithumna saran sakha, mashun samphangpaimeira. Hina kachitheiva, paireklak eina makhuila ithumna onlineli kharing mirin kala lan kaphei saikora thukmeida yangra, theira kala tamkhuiran tamphalungra.
(This article is part of the series Understanding the Law, Accessing Justice (Ain phapkata eina mashun samkaphang). Since this series challenges the exclusivity of legal language, it will also include Tangkhul translations. As a Tangkhul writer, I believe if legal knowledge is meant for everyone, it must be available in the languages people think, feel, and navigate life in. Accessibility cannot be preached without being practiced.)