The document discusses the jurisdiction of states and various principles of jurisdiction under international law. It addresses the two types of jurisdiction - prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction. Prescriptive jurisdiction refers to a state's ability to make its own laws, while enforcement jurisdiction refers to a state's ability to enforce those laws. There are several principles that determine a state's jurisdiction, including territoriality, nationality, universality, and protective principles. The document also discusses challenges around jurisdiction in cyberspace given its borderless nature. It analyzes sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction over cybercrimes. Finally, it examines factors like party agreements, the Civil Procedure Code, and foreign judgments that influence

1. DR RAJESH G PATIL
Associate Professor
Dr P.D. College of Law
Amravati

2.  The jurisdiction is the authority of the courts to hear
the case and resolve the dispute
 States administrative executive and legislative
authority is also part of its jurisdictional sovereignty
 An sovereign state possess jurisdiction over all
persons and things within its territorial
 It includes the power to make law and to enforce it

3. The issue of the jurisdiction of State has to be
looked into from two perspectives
1. PRESCRIPTIVE JURISDICTION
2. ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION

4. 1. States ability to define its own laws in respect of
any matter it chooses
2. The states Prescriptive jurisdiction is unlimited
3. State may legislate for any matter irrespective of
where it occurs or the nationality of the person
involved
4. State legislative enactment primarily reflects this

5. 1. States ability to enforce these laws depends on the
prescriptive jurisdiction
2. However the sovereign equality of state means one state
may not exercise its enforcement jurisdiction over
persons in another state
3. Though may be in reach of its prescriptive jurisdiction
4. Its enforcement jurisdiction within its territory is
however absolute over all matters and persons

6. 1. International Law is the body of law that governs the
relation between the sovereign states
2. It is the body of the rules which are legally binding on
the states in their intercourse with each other
3. There is general prohibition in international law
against extra-territorial application of domestic laws
4. However the state may assert extra-territorial
jurisdiction under certain exceptions

7. These sources are
1. Territorial Principle
2. Nationality Principle
3. Protective Principle
4. Passive Personality Principle
5. Universality Principle

8.  A states territory for jurisdictional purposes extends to its
land airspace ships contiguous zone etc
 The objective territorial principle where the state exercise
jurisdiction over all activities completed within its territory
though commenced outside
 The subjective territorial principle where the state exercise
jurisdiction over all activities commencing in its territory
though final event happened elsewhere

9. 1. It is for the state to determine by its own laws who are
its nationals
2. Under the grab of nationality principle the state may
exercise jurisdiction over its own nationals irrespective
of territory
3. The state may even assume extraterritoriality principle

10.  A state relies on this principle when its national
security or the matter of public interest is in issue
 The state has right to protect itself from the act of
international conspiracies and terrorism

11.  It extends the nationality principle to apply to any
crime
 Committed against a national of the state wherever
that national may be
 It in a way provides that the citizen of one country
when visits the another country
 Takes with him the protection of law of his own
country

12.  A state has jurisdiction to define and prescribe
punishment
 For certain offences recognized by community of
nations as of universal concern
 The state can assert its universal principle
irrespective of who committed it and where it
occur

13.  Cyberspace can be defined as the virtual space created by
interconnected computers and computer networks on the
internet.
 It is conceptual electronic space unbounded by distance or
other physical limitations .Cyber space has no physical
boundaries
 With the click of the mouse anyone can access any website
from anywhere in the world
 Hence it becomes essential to enact such provisions that
goes beyond state Limits

14.  The State has absolute territorial jurisdiction to make and
enforce laws within its territory
 Where as extra territorial enforcement jurisdiction of the
state is limited
 The cyber offences and contraventions are committed in
cyber space which has no national boundaries
 Thus the extra-territorial jurisdiction in cyber space
becomes a complicated subject

15. Two important legislative provisions can be
referred in this respect
 Section 1 and 75 of the Information
Technology Act
 Section 4 of Indian Penal Code

19.  The section 75 of IT Act takes the broader view of
cyber crimes
 It is not concerned with territoriality and nationality
of criminals
 The Act has adopted principle of Universal
Jurisdiction to enact the provisions
 Section 75 of the Act r/w 4(3) of IPC takes cognizance
although committed outside India by any person

20.  India is not a signatory to cyber crime convention
 It would be extremely difficult for Indian Courts to enforce
jurisdiction on criminals belonging to different nations
 The extradition treaties which India has signed does not
cover cyber crime as extradition offence
 In spite having extraterritorial jurisdiction it will be
difficult to punish cyber criminals operating from out and
exercising personal jurisdiction on it

21.  It is the competence of a court to determine a case against
a particular category of persons
 It requires a determination of whether or not the person is
subject to the court in which the case is filed
 The question of personal jurisdiction will evolve mainly in
the civil cases
 The court will have to see whether it has competence to
summon and decree the defendant

22. It is important that the issue of personal jurisdiction
should be looked into from all possible sources:
1. Forum of choice,
2. Jurisdictional principles in Civil Procedure Code, 1908
3. Judgment of a foreign court
These sources do not constitute mutually exclusive
categories. In fact they are dependent upon each other.

23.  If one or more courts have the jurisdiction to try any suit, it is open
for the parties to choose any one of the two competent courts to
decide their disputes.
 In case parties under their own agreement expressly agree that
their dispute shall be tried by only one of them
 Then the parties can only file the suit in that court alone to which
they have so agreed
 Thus the parties can choose one of the court whether domestic or
foreign

24.  In Modi Entertainment Network v. W.S.G. Cricket Pvt. Ltd.
it was held that …
“it is a well-settled principle that by agreement the parties
cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists, on a court to
which CPC applies, but this principle does not apply when
the parties agree to submit to the exclusive or non-
exclusive jurisdiction of a foreign court”

25. The jurisdiction under CPC can be broadly classified
on following grounds
1. In the case of immovable property where it is
situated
2. In other cases such as wrongs done to movables or
persons , breach of contract…
a. Where the defendant resides or carries on business
b. Where cause of action arose

27.  The first case to ponder over the Internet jurisdiction was Casio India Co.
V Ashita Tele Systems Pvt. Ltd
 The court passed an injunction against the Defendant from using the
website www.casioindia.com
 Of the fact that the website of Defendant is accessible in Delhi, which is
sufficient to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
 The High Court of Delhi held that the mere ability to access the website
gave the court territorial jurisdiction to decide on the matter at hand.

28.  The High Court of Delhi cleared the position of determining
Internet jurisdiction in World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. vs.
M/s. Reshma Collection &Ors
 where it held that mere accessibility of website in a forum state
which ‘solicits’ its business, through which Defendent’s goods and
services are sold, is enough to raise cause of action and in
determining the personal jurisdiction in Delhi.
 The same was reiterated in Choice Hotels International Inc. v. M.
Sanjay Kumar and Ors by the single judge bench in the High Court
of Delhi.

29.  Thus it can be seen that the courts of India will have to take
recourse to the traditional principles in matters of personal
jurisdiction
 If the parties have mutually agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of
a particular then such court can exercise the jurisdiction
 In the absence of agreement to that effect the jurisdiction
principles of CPC may be adopted mainly focusing on the clause of
cause of action to exercise the personal jurisdiction
 The matters if already decided by the foreign court the principles
of effect of foreign judgment can be looked into to test its binding

30.  Indian Courts have very well merged the fundamental laws
of jurisdiction, i.e. section 19 and 20 of CPC, in determining the
Internet jurisdiction.
 In many cases it held that was mere presence of a website is
sufficient to invoke jurisdiction even though the website has been
used only to solicit businesses at a particular place,
 Without having any specific guidelines or laws will definitely
make these theories of determining jurisdiction vulnerable.
 It is advisable to have legal framework while exercising personal
jurisdiction mainly in matters of online contracts

31. THANKYOU