MUSKAN SALAM
Imagine a young woman orders clothes from an Instagram page. The clothes never arrive. When she contacts the seller, she is asked to share a verification code. She refuses. What appears to be an ordinary online shopping experience suddenly becomes a potential cyber- fraud attempt. Her experience is hardly unusual. For India’s young digital population, the internet has become a marketplace, classroom, workplace and social space—but the ability to navigate it safely has not kept pace with its rapid expansion.
As we navigate the 21st century, technology has become a cornerstone of daily life. From communication and education to shopping and banking, digital tools offer immense convenience. However, this digital boom has also brought about complex challenges—the most pressing being cybercrime.
India, the second most populous nation, is facing an increasing number of cyber threats. What makes the situation more alarming is the speed of digital adoption coupled with a widespread lack of cyber awareness. Young people, in particular, are highly engaged with digital platforms but remain vulnerable. With the surge in smartphone usage, online learning, and social networking, safeguarding the digital experiences of the youth has never been more crucial.
Millions of Indian youngsters are online every day, using the internet for education, entertainment, and social interaction. While digital connectivity offers opportunities, it
also exposes them to multiple risks:
Cyberbullying: Persistent online harassment through social media or messaging platforms.
Phishing: Deceptive attempts to steal sensitive data like login credentials or banking information.
Pornography: Exposure to and distribution of adult, child, revenge, or deepfake pornography.
Online Defamation: Spreading false or malicious content that damages a person’s reputation.
A 2021 report by Child Rights and You (CRY) revealed that one in three Indian teenagers has encountered cyberbullying.
Young users are vulnerable because of:
1. Increased Access to Technology.
2. Limited Parental Oversight.
3. Financial Pressures.
4. Peer Influence.
These risks are not confined to statistics or distant reports; they can emerge in the most ordinary aspects of a young person’s digital life. A simple online purchase, a message on social media, or an apparently routine request for verification can quickly become a potential gateway to fraud.
The incident, as in the opening, appears insignificant compared with large-scale cyber frauds, but it reflects a much larger vulnerability.
Young people increasingly use social- media platforms not only for communication and entertainment but also as marketplaces. Yet many remain unfamiliar with common fraud techniques, such as requests for OTPs, verification codes or other sensitive information.
Such experiences highlight an important gap: cybersecurity is not merely about having laws on paper. Young people must also know how to recognise a scam, where to report it, and what assistance is actually available when something goes wrong. Digital literacy, therefore, must include cyber-safety and awareness as an essential life skill.
The difficulty in combating cybercrime, however, does not end with the existence of laws. One of the greatest challenges lies in enforcing them. In conventional crimes, investigators often begin with a physical scene, witnesses, documents or other tangible evidence. Cybercrime is fundamentally different. The offender may be thousands of kilometres away, may conceal their identity behind false accounts or compromised devices, and may leave behind digital traces that are difficult to locate, preserve and interpret.
The collection of evidence itself presents another challenge. Digital evidence can be deleted, altered or moved across jurisdictions within seconds. Establishing who was actually behind a particular device, account or digital transaction may therefore require specialised technical investigation. This creates an unusual situation in which the law may clearly prohibit an act, yet proving who committed it and establishing the evidentiary chain can be considerably more difficult.
There is also a significant gap in technical expertise. Cybercriminals often employ sophisticated methods of hacking, encryption, spoofing and anonymisation, while the effectiveness of an investigation depends on the ability of law-enforcement personnel to understand and trace such techniques. Police officers cannot be expected to independently possess every specialised technological skill required to investigate increasingly complex cyber offences. This makes cooperation with trained forensic experts, cybersecurity professionals and specialised cybercrime units essential.
The answer, therefore, is not merely to enact more laws. What is required is an equally sophisticated investigative infrastructure—better-trained personnel, specialised cybercrime units, modern forensic capabilities, timely preservation of electronic evidence and effective cooperation between investigators and technology experts. The real test of the cybercrime framework will ultimately be whether the law can move at the same speed as the technology being used to defeat it.
The growing threat of cybercrime also raises a fundamental constitutional question: how much of our private lives can remain private in an increasingly digital society? In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court unanimously recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment gave particular significance to informational privacy—the ability of individuals to exercise control over information concerning themselves.
For young people, this principle has become increasingly important. Social-media profiles, photographs, private conversations, location data, passwords, financial information and even seemingly insignificant personal details can become valuable targets for cybercriminals. Once such information is misused, the consequences may extend from identity theft and financial fraud to cyberstalking, blackmail and reputational harm.
Puttaswamy therefore gives cybersecurity a dimension beyond preventing economic loss. Protecting people in cyberspace is also about protecting their dignity, autonomy and personal sphere. At the same time, the State’s efforts to combat cybercrime must itself respect privacy and cannot become an excuse for unchecked surveillance. The challenge is to create a digital environment in which security and privacy reinforce rather than undermine each other.
What needs to change?
For Individuals:
Share personal data online cautiously.
Use strong, regularly updated passwords.
Avoid suspicious emails and links.
Stay informed about cyber laws and reporting mechanisms, such as the National Cyber
Crime Reporting Portal.
Parents should monitor and educate their children about internet safety.
Schools and colleges should run awareness programs on cybersecurity.
For the Government:
Frequently revise laws to address emerging threats.
Establish specialised cyber courts to expedite justice.
Enhance global cooperation in data protection.
Launch educational initiatives focusing on cybersecurity for youth and small businesses. Just as a child is first taught to stand before being expected to walk, and taught the ABCs before being asked to read and write, digital literacy too must begin with the basics.
Young people cannot be expected to navigate an increasingly complex digital world safely if they are never taught how to recognise a phishing attempt, protect their personal information, identify online fraud, or respond when they become victims of cybercrime.
Cybersecurity awareness must therefore become a fundamental part of education, rather than a lesson introduced only after something goes wrong. At the same time, awareness alone cannot be the answer. A person entering the digital world without the necessary knowledge and protection is much like a warrior sent into battle without the tools needed to defend himself. Our laws must therefore move beyond merely defining and penalising cyber offences and focus equally on effective enforcement.
Investigative agencies need better training, stronger cyber-forensic capabilities, specialised personnel, timely preservation of digital evidence and technological infrastructure capable of keeping pace with increasingly sophisticated offenders. The legal system must be equipped to operate at a level comparable to the
technology being used against it.
(The author is a student of Law, University of Kashmir)
Click Here For The Original Source.
