Beware of Phishing Scams: Paytm Claims Its Customers Suffer From Fraud

Must Read

Explained: The Scope of Article 21 During the Era of COVID-19

“One’s right to self, their body, their health, and their livelihoods is inherent to living a meaningful human life, Human...

Why Are the Big Techs of Silicon Valley Accused of Anti-Competitive Behaviours?

The big tech giants of the Silicon Valley are facing major challenges with relation to their monopolistic powers after...

KSK announces Sanjay Kumar as a Partner for Pharma & Life Sciences Practice

New Partner for KSK's Pharma & Life Sciences Practice King Stubb & Kasiva recently announced that Mr Sanjay Kumar has...

The Debate Between IPR and Competition Law Explained

There are various market processes or structures that govern market scenario. For simplicity, this paper focuses on two mechanisms:...

The Competition Law Regime and Re-Tooling Patent Pools In India

The adversity to acquire licenses of various patented technologies can thwart the commercialization as well as the development of...

Solving Healthcare Issues Using Blockchain Technology

In troubled times that follow a pandemic, almost all nations are forced to take stock of the gaps present...

Follow us

The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the Central Government, TRAI, and various telecoms on the matter of Paytm’s plea. The notice seeks the stand taken by the various parties on the allegations by Paytm.

Petition Filed

One97 Communication Ltd is the company which runs Paytm. It has filed a petition before the Delhi HC. The Petitioner has alleged its customers suffering from fraud. This allegation is due to phishing activities over various mobile networks. Consequently, the petitioner states that network companies are not adequately blocking phishing. As a result, this leads to the defrauding of its customers. 

The petitioner contends violation of privacy, under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Additionally, the Petitioner has alleged that the companies have violated their obligations. This is specifically with regard to the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preferences Regulations. 

Further, the Petitioner has claimed reputational and financial loss. This is as a result of phishing activities. Hence, the petition makes a claim of ₹100 Crore. The Bench of the Delhi HC comprised of Justice D.N. Patel and Prateek Jalan. On hearing of the petition, the bench has issued a notice to mobile network companies. In addition to this, it has sent notices to TRAI and the Central Government. 

What is Phishing?

India Law Offices defines “phishing” as an attempt to receive sensitive information. This is done by posing as a trustworthy entity. This deceitful practice includes sending emails as part of reputable companies. These emails lead to fake websites of such companies. Thus, the intention of phishing activities is to coax individuals to provide their personal details. Passwords, credit card details and other such sensitive information are considered to be personal information. 

There has been an increase in phishing cases in India. The causes of this increase are as follows:

  1. Lack of awareness amongst the public: There is a lack of awareness about current phishing schemes among the public. Users are unaware that their personal information is being targeted.
  2. Lack of awareness about policy: Users are unaware of the policies and procedures that deal with fraud.
  3. Technical sophistication: There is the use of sophisticated technology for their activities. As a result, it is harder to recognize the use of false means to extract information.

Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000)

The IT Act, 2000 provides legal recognition to transactions done through electronic means. The following provisions cover the act of phishing:

Section 43 

Section 43 provides for ‘Penalty and compensation for damage to a computer system’. Sub-section (i) of the provision deals with phishing. This provision talks about damaging or altering any information in a computer source. It states that if any party diminishes the value of any information, or affects it, they will be liable. As a result, such parties will be liable to pay damages by way of compensation to the parties affected.

Section 66 

Section 66 provides for ‘Computer-related offences’. It serves as an extension of Section 43. It states that any party who dishonestly participates in the acts mentioned under Section 43, is liable. The penalties provided are imprisonment for up to three years or a fine up to ₹5 lac or both. 

Section 66 C

The provision provides for ‘Identity Theft’. It penalizes any party that uses any unique identification of another party. The penalty laid down under the provision is imprisonment for a term up to three years or a fine of up to ₹1 lac. 

Section 66 D

Section 66 D provides for ‘Punishment for cheating by personation using computer resource’. It states that any party who cheats by personation will be held liable under the Act. The penalty for such parties is imprisonment for up to three years or a fine of ₹1 lac.

Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preferences Regulations, 2018

Rule 3

Rule 3 falls under ‘Commercial Communication through Access Provider Network’. It states that access providers should ensure registration of any commercial communications. Additionally, it provides for continued unsolicited communication. In the case of unsolicited communication persisting, telecom resources get disconnected. The petitioner claims that telecom companies have a duty to stop phishing activities. However, due to inaction from these companies, this was not possible. Thus, many customers of the petitioner were defrauded. 

Conclusion

Phishing has become a growing threat to the world. This is due to the development and advancement of technology. In light of recent events, it is clear that even large corporations are not safe from phishing. While the parties are yet to reply to the notice, it may be assumed that there will be an increase in the number of cases. Hence, the judiciary has the responsibility to lay down precedent and prevent phishing.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -