Introduction
Whoever,—
(A) with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people by—(i) denying or causing the denial of access to any person authorized to access computer resource; or(ii) attempting to penetrate or access a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access; or(iii) introducing or causing to introduce any computer contaminant, and by means of such conduct causes or is likely to cause death or injuries to persons or damage to or destruction of property or disrupts or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or disruption of supplies or services essential to the life of the community or adversely affect the critical information infrastructure specified under section 70,or
(B) knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorization or exceeding authorized access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons of the security of the State or foreign relations, or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.
Whoever commits or conspires to commit cyber terrorism shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Why Is Section 66F Considered So Important?
The importance of Section 66F lies in its role in national security. Cyber terrorism is not limited to hacking or theft of information. It includes acts where digital tools are used to destabilize governments, spread terror, or attack critical infrastructure. In a world driven by technology, a single cyber-attack can disrupt financial markets, energy grids, or communication systems.
Indian lawmakers drafted Section 66F to respond to the growing threat of digital terrorism. With terrorism expanding beyond physical attacks, cyberspace has become a battlefield. Section 66F ensures that the legal system has tools to punish offenders who misuse digital platforms against the state.
How Have Indian Courts Interpreted Section 66F?
Courts in India have consistently taken a strict approach to Section 66F. Judges have clarified that cyber terrorism does not require a physical attack. Any digital act that threatens sovereignty, security, or public order may qualify as cyber terrorism. This interpretation makes the provision broader than traditional terrorism laws.
Courts also stress two conditions: proof of intent and evidence of technological impact. The accused must intend to threaten national security. At the same time, the digital act must cause harm or have the potential to cause harm. For example, simply exchanging messages on a platform may not be enough. However, using those platforms to plan, execute, or encourage terrorist acts can attract Section 66F.
What Are the Latest Judicial Developments on Section 66F?
Recent years have seen new applications of Section 66F as cyber threats evolve. Between 2024 and 2025, Indian courts have expanded its scope, especially in light of artificial intelligence and new digital risks.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court issued a crucial order directing the development of a national security protocol for AI threats under Section 66F. The Court recognized that artificial intelligence could be used for cyber terrorism. It directed authorities to frame guidelines to prevent AI-driven attacks. This shows that courts are not only interpreting the law but also ensuring it keeps pace with new threats.
In the same month, Gujarat’s Anti-Terrorism Squad arrested a teenager for cyber offences under Section 66F. The accused allegedly engaged in activities that harmed state security using digital means. This case gained wide attention because it showed that even juveniles could face charges of cyber terrorism if their actions threaten national security.
Other cases have combined Section 66F with laws like the Indian Penal Code, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act. In Mehidi Masroor Biswas v. State of Karnataka, courts dealt with the accused running social media accounts supporting terror groups. Similarly, in Abdul Wahab Shermohammad Pathan v. State of Gujarat, the High Court considered cyber activities linked to terrorism. These judgments confirmed that Section 66F can work alongside other counter-terrorism laws.
How Do Courts Balance National Security and Fundamental Rights?
One major challenge in applying Section 66F lies in balancing security with individual freedoms. Courts have made it clear that the provision should not be misused to target ordinary citizens without evidence. For a conviction, the prosecution must show a clear link between the accused’s digital activity and threats to sovereignty or security.
This approach ensures that Section 66F is not applied casually. Freedom of speech and expression remain protected, unless online acts cross the boundary into cyber terrorism. By scrutinizing intent and impact, courts protect both national security and constitutional rights.
What Are the Key Judicial Trends in Cyber Terrorism Cases?
Judicial interpretation of Section 66F reveals several important trends.
First, courts treat cyber terrorism as a national security issue rather than a regular cybercrime. This elevates its seriousness. Second, intent is central. The prosecution must prove that the accused acted with a deliberate purpose to threaten the nation. Third, courts require technological evidence to support charges. Without proof of actual or potential harm, Section 66F cannot apply.
Another trend is the recognition of emerging threats. Courts now consider artificial intelligence, blockchain misuse, and dark web activities within the scope of cyber terrorism. This adaptability shows the judiciary’s awareness of technological realities.
Why Are Convictions Under Section 66F Still Rare?
Despite its broad wording, convictions under Section 66F remain rare. Most cases fail due to weak evidence. Law enforcement often struggles to prove intent. Digital footprints may show access or communication, but linking those activities to terrorism is difficult.
For instance, if a person accesses a restricted system without authorization, it may indicate hacking. However, unless prosecutors prove that the act aimed at threatening sovereignty or security, Section 66F may not apply. Courts demand strong proof before handing out life imprisonment.
Another reason for low conviction rates is the overlap with other laws. Many cases involve charges under UAPA or IPC, which sometimes overshadow Section 66F. The recent implementation of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which replaced certain IPC provisions, has added more complexity. Section 130 of the BNS now covers similar offences. Prosecutors face challenges in charge framing between the IT Act and BNS.
What Are the Landmark Cases on Section 66F?
Several judgments have shaped the understanding of Section 66F. In Mehidi Masroor Biswas v. State of Karnataka (2016), the accused faced charges for running Twitter accounts promoting extremist ideology. In K. Divya v. Inspector of Police, Othakadai (2017), the Madras High Court examined access to restricted systems. In Uttam Shukla v. State of U.P. (2018), the Allahabad High Court considered cyber activities linked to terrorism.
In Abdul Wahab Shermohammad Pathan v. State of Gujarat (2019), the Gujarat High Court applied Section 66F to online activities connected with terror operations. More recently, in Rejith Kumar v. State of Kerala (2023), the Kerala High Court dealt with charges under this section. Finally, in the Gujarat ATS juvenile case (2025), courts applied Section 66F to a minor accused of cyber terrorism.
These cases confirm that Indian courts are willing to apply Section 66F broadly. However, they also highlight the strict requirement of proving intent and impact.
What Do These Cases Mean for the Future?
The judicial approach to Section 66F signals that Indian courts are adapting quickly to new digital threats. With the rise of AI, deepfakes, and advanced hacking, cyber terrorism is no longer theoretical. Courts are ensuring that laws cover these risks.
At the same time, the judiciary insists on fairness. Section 66F cannot become a tool for harassment. By demanding evidence and protecting rights, courts maintain balance between security and liberty.
For any specific query call at +91 – 8569843472
Conclusion
Section 66F of the IT Act remains India’s strongest weapon against cyber terrorism. Courts interpret it broadly, covering any digital act that threatens sovereignty, security, or public order. Recent cases show that even juveniles and AI-driven threats fall under its scope.
Yet, convictions remain rare due to challenges in proving intent and impact. The judiciary’s insistence on evidence ensures that only genuine cases result in punishment. As technology evolves, courts continue to expand the meaning of cyber terrorism under Section 66F. This ensures that India’s legal system remains prepared to counter new forms of digital threats while protecting constitutional freedoms.
