JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES IN

CYBERSPACE

SUBMITED BY- SHAILESH KUMAR

ENROLMENT NO.- 150101120
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 INTRODUCTION
 EVOLUTION OF TESTS

 POSITION IN USA

 Minimum Contacts Test

 Purposeful Availment Test

 The Zippo ‘Sliding Scale’ Test

 The Effects Test and ‘Intentional targeting’

 INDIAN POSITION
 CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
 The cyberspace unlike our real world is created of virtual elements which
tend to exist not at one place but several, not for a person but for many.
India being a developing nation has now emerged from the agrarian oriented
society to the industrial and technologically driven society.
 Jurisdiction is the power given to a court to decide on matters and provide a
judgment that stands against all odds true and valid.
 The Internet has no set geographical or fixed boundary which leads to a
havoc in deciding which law applies and which court has an adjudicative
jurisdiction over the dispute. This confusion allows one to be sued by
anyone in any other country for defying his legal right or defying any law of
that land without even realizing the harm done.
 Indian courts adopt a personal jurisdiction to solve disputes
related to the cyber world. Indian courts follow the principle of
‘lex foris’ that means Law of the Forum .
EVOLUTION OF TESTS

 This part will cover the development of the law

first in the USA, through the ‘minimum contacts’
test, the ‘purposeful availment’ test, the Zippo
‘sliding scale’ test and the ‘effects’ tests.
1. MINIMUM CONTACTS TEST
 In the U.S., states exercise jurisdiction over non-
residents under their respective long-arm statutes, the
exercise of which must meet constitutional due process.
 To exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a U.S.
court must undertake a two-step inquiry. First, the court
must apply the relevant state long-arm statute to see if it
permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction. Next, the court
must apply the precepts of the Due Process Clause of the
U.S. Constitution. A state law that allows the state to
exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant,
provided that the prospective defendant has sufficient
minimum contacts with the forum state.
 Burger King Corp v. Rudzewicz.
2. PURPOSEFUL AVAILMENT TEST

 The US Supreme Court’s focus on purposeful

conduct of the defendant emerged in Hanson v.
Denckla.
 . It was held that ‘purposeful availment’ would
not result from ‘random’ or ‘fortuitous’ contacts
by the defendant in the forum state. It requires
the plaintiff to show that such contracts resulted
from the “actions by the defendant himself that
created a substantial connection with the forum
state.”
3. THE ZIPPO ‘SLIDING SCALE’ TEST

 An extension of the purposeful availment test

was attempted in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot
Com, Inc.
 The Zippo court then noted that: A three pronged
test has emerged for determining whether the
exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a
non-resident defendant is appropriate: (1) the
defendant must have sufficient ‘minimum
contacts’ with the forum state, (2) the claim
asserted against the defendant must arise out of
those contacts, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction
must be reasonable.
4. THE EFFECTS TEST AND ‘INTENTIONAL
TARGETING’

 The ‘effects’ test was first evolved in Calder v.

Jones.
 The courts have thus moved from a ‘subjective
territoriality’ test to an ‘objective territoriality’ or
‘effects’ test in which the forum court will
exercise jurisdiction.
 Yahoo! Case: Where the effects test propounded
in Calder has been applied with mixed results.
INDIAN POSITION

 Indian courts follow the principle of ‘lex foris’

that means Law of the Forum .This signifies that
the Indian courts do not follow the rule of
procedure of any foreign law. They accept the
well -established private international law and
the law of the forum in which the legal
proceedings have been initiated is applicable
for the purpose of all the procedures.
 Casio India Co. Limited v. Ashita Tele
Systems Pvt. Limited.
 Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v. Gutnick
 Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A.
Murali Krishna Reddy
 CONCLUSION
 It is there that the important question will arise: in the absence of statutory and
international guidelines on cyber jurisdiction, how far would resorting to
private international law norms, as prevalent in different legal systems, be
justified and/or feasible?
 Cyber space is an imaginary system with equal pros and cons. Cyber space can
help one achieve and equally deceive him. India has not faced many cases
concerning this issue, but the time is near where internationally and
domestically countries would have to cooperate and decide to form a uniform
rule of jurisdiction which is strong enough to prosecute and catch hold of cyber
criminals.
 For the Jurisdiction of courts in the cyber space to be clear one internationally
recognized body should be created which has enough power to decide on the
jurisdiction of cyber space disputes and also has the power to penalize cyber
criminals.