Digital Disparities and Constitutional Mandates: Supreme Court’s Stand on Inclusion
Introduction
On April 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment that cast a sharp light on one of the most overlooked yet pressing issues in modern governance—digital inequity. In a country that has a staggering 900 million Internet users, the ruling highlights a disheartening reality, a paradox that brings the “digital divide” to centre stage. While India may be the world’s second-largest online market, a significant segment of its population remains digitally disenfranchised. The judgment, delivered in response to two interconnected petitions, underscored that access to the internet is no longer a luxury but a lifeline integral to exercising fundamental rights. The court pointed out in clear terms that the government must build a digital ecosystem that is inclusive and accessible to all and attributed the right to digital access as an intrinsic part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 as enshrined under the Indian Constitution.
Understanding the Context: What Prompted the Petitions?
The judgment springs out of two writ petitions, which sought instructions or guidelines for people with blindness or limited vision and acid attack survivors, respectively, to conduct digital Know Your Customer (KYC)/e-KYC/video KYC mandated by RBI’s KYC Master Directions, 2016, which were reserved for judgment on January 28. The court delivered the judgment on April 30, 2025, emphasising the fact that true inclusion in this digital era is confounded in an inclusive digital infrastructure, and it must provide reasonable accommodation to those who face impediments due to any disability or disfigurement.
In consonance with its view, it laid down various guidelines that ensure that all persons with disabilities or acid attack survivors are treated even when digital processes are involved in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “RPwD Act”)
Another major observation made by the Honourable SC judges is that the mode of facilitation of government services is through digital platforms, i.e., e-governance, and access to all these welfare schemes is the right of every citizen, irrespective of the fact that they suffer from any disability. The failure of the provisioning of e-governance of these facilities to these individuals is a gross failure of the objectives of these schemes.
Key Observations and Directives
The court directed the government to release fresh guidelines that establish alternative methods to conduct digital KYC/e-KYC for all persons who suffer any impairment, low vision, or disfigurement with greater sensitivity, particularly for acid-attack survivors. The court made its intention very clear that the right to digital access is intrinsic to the right to life and liberty. All the tasks that are included within the ambit of digital KYC, such as pen-on-paper signatures, screen signatures, and the brief window for OTP entry, create an inaccessible and exclusionary framework, violating not just the dignity but the legal rights granted protection under the RPwD Act, 2016. The ruling directs a fundamental reimagining of digital governance through the lens of inclusion, equality, and dignity.
Conclusion
The court is not mincing its words when it declares digital accessibility as a constitutional imperative; it has made it clear that bridging the digital divide is no longer optional but a legal duty. The decision marks the new beginning and a propeller of digital transformation, and a delightful amalgamation of digital access and the rights of people. The effect of this judgment will not be restricted to one class of people. Still, it will cater to all those individuals who face these obstacles on a daily basis due to the exclusionary nature of digital platforms.
References
Related Blogs
Disclaimer:
This report is based on extensive research conducted by CyberPeace Research using publicly available information, and advanced analytical techniques. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions presented are based on the data available at the time of study and aim to provide insights into global ransomware trends.
The statistics mentioned in this report are specific to the scope of this research and may vary based on the scope and resources of other third-party studies. Additionally, all data referenced is based on claims made by threat actors and does not imply confirmation of the breach by CyberPeace. CyberPeace includes this detail solely to provide factual transparency and does not condone any unlawful activities. This information is shared only for research purposes and to spread awareness. CyberPeace encourages individuals and organizations to adopt proactive cybersecurity measures to protect against potential threats.
CyberPeace Research does not claim to have identified or attributed specific cyber incidents to any individual, organization, or nation-state beyond the scope of publicly observable activities and available information. All analyses and references are intended for informational and awareness purposes only, without any intention to defame, accuse, or harm any entity.
While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, CyberPeace Research is not liable for any errors, omissions, subsequent interpretations and any unlawful activities of the findings by third parties. The report is intended to inform and support cybersecurity efforts globally and should be used as a guide to foster proactive measures against cyber threats.
Executive Summary:
The 2024 ransomware landscape reveals alarming global trends, with 166 Threat Actor Groups leveraging 658 servers/underground resources and mirrors to execute 5,233 claims across 153 countries. Monthly fluctuations in activity indicate strategic, cyclical targeting, with peak periods aligned with vulnerabilities in specific sectors and regions. The United States was the most targeted nation, followed by Canada, the UK, Germany, and other developed countries, with the northwestern hemisphere experiencing the highest concentration of attacks. Business Services and Healthcare bore the brunt of these operations due to their high-value data, alongside targeted industries such as Pharmaceuticals, Mechanical, Metal, Electronics, and Government-related professional firms. Retail, Financial, Technology, and Energy sectors were also significantly impacted.
This research was conducted by CyberPeace Research using a systematic modus operandi, which included advanced OSINT (Open-Source Intelligence) techniques, continuous monitoring of Ransomware Group activities, and data collection from 658 servers and mirrors globally. The team utilized data scraping, pattern analysis, and incident mapping to track trends and identify hotspots of ransomware activity. By integrating real-time data and geographic claims, the research provided a comprehensive view of sectoral and regional impacts, forming the basis for actionable insights.
The findings emphasize the urgent need for proactive Cybersecurity strategies, robust defenses, and global collaboration to counteract the evolving and persistent threats posed by ransomware.
Overview:
This report provides insights into ransomware activities monitored throughout 2024. Data was collected by observing 166 Threat Actor Groups using ransomware technologies across 658 servers/underground resources and mirrors, resulting in 5,233 claims worldwide. The analysis offers a detailed examination of global trends, targeted sectors, and geographical impact.
Top 10 Threat Actor Groups:
The ransomware group ‘ransomhub’ has emerged as the leading threat actor, responsible for 527 incidents worldwide. Following closely are ‘lockbit3’ with 522 incidents and ‘play’ with 351. Other Groups are ‘akira’, ‘hunters’, ‘medusa’, ‘blackbasta’, ‘qilin’, ‘bianlian’, ‘incransom’. These groups usually employ advanced tactics to target critical sectors, highlighting the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures to mitigate their impact and protect organizations from such threats.
Monthly Ransomware Incidents:
In January 2024, the value began at 284, marking the lowest point on the chart. The trend rose steadily in the subsequent months, reaching its first peak at 557 in May 2024. However, after this peak, the value dropped sharply to 339 in June. A gradual recovery follows, with the value increasing to 446 by August. September sees another decline to 389, but a sharp rise occurs afterward, culminating in the year’s highest point of 645 in November. The year concludes with a slight decline, ending at 498 in December 2024 (till 28th of December).
Top 10 Targeted Countries:
- The United States consistently topped the list as the primary target probably due to its advanced economic and technological infrastructure.
- Other heavily targeted nations include Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, France, Brazil, Spain, and India.
- A total of 153 countries reported ransomware attacks, reflecting the global scale of these cyber threats
Top Affected Sectors:
- Business Services and Healthcare faced the brunt of ransomware threat due to the sensitive nature of their operations.
- Specific industries under threats:
- Pharmaceutical, Mechanical, Metal, and Electronics industries.
- Professional firms within the Government sector.
- Other sectors:
- Retail, Financial, Technology, and Energy sectors were also significant targets.
Geographical Impact:
The continuous and precise OSINT(Open Source Intelligence) work on the platform, performed as a follow-up action to data scraping, allows a complete view of the geography of cyber attacks based on their claims. The northwestern region of the world appears to be the most severely affected by Threat Actor groups. The figure below clearly illustrates the effects of this geographic representation on the map.
Ransomware Threat Trends in India:
In 2024, the research identified 98 ransomware incidents impacting various sectors in India, marking a 55% increase compared to the 63 incidents reported in 2023. This surge highlights a concerning trend, as ransomware groups continue to target India's critical sectors due to its growing digital infrastructure and economic prominence.
Top Threat Actors Group Targeted India:
Among the following threat actors ‘killsec’ is the most frequent threat. ‘lockbit3’ follows as the second most prominent threat, with significant but lower activity than killsec. Other groups, such as ‘ransomhub’, ‘darkvault’, and ‘clop’, show moderate activity levels. Entities like ‘bianlian’, ‘apt73/bashe’, and ‘raworld’ have low frequencies, indicating limited activity. Groups such as ‘aps’ and ‘akira’ have the lowest representation, indicating minimal activity. The chart highlights a clear disparity in activity levels among these threats, emphasizing the need for targeted cybersecurity strategies.
Top Impacted Sectors in India:
The pie chart illustrates the distribution of incidents across various sectors, highlighting that the industrial sector is the most frequently targeted, accounting for 75% of the total incidents. This is followed by the healthcare sector, which represents 12% of the incidents, making it the second most affected. The finance sector accounts for 10% of the incidents, reflecting a moderate level of targeting. In contrast, the government sector experiences the least impact, with only 3% of the incidents, indicating minimal targeting compared to the other sectors. This distribution underscores the critical need for enhanced cybersecurity measures, particularly in the industrial sector, while also addressing vulnerabilities in healthcare, finance, and government domains.
Month Wise Incident Trends in India:
The chart indicates a fluctuating trend with notable peaks in May and October, suggesting potential periods of heightened activity or incidents during these months. The data starts at 5 in January and drops to its lowest point, 2, in February. It then gradually increases to 6 in March and April, followed by a sharp rise to 14 in May. After peaking in May, the metric significantly declines to 4 in June but starts to rise again, reaching 7 in July and 8 in August. September sees a slight dip to 5 before the metric spikes dramatically to its highest value, 24, in October. Following this peak, the count decreases to 10 in November and then drops further to 7 in December.
CyberPeace Advisory:
- Implement Data Backup and Recovery Plans: Backups are your safety net. Regularly saving copies of your important data ensures you can bounce back quickly if ransomware strikes. Make sure these backups are stored securely—either offline or in a trusted cloud service—to avoid losing valuable information or facing extended downtime.
- Enhance Employee Awareness and Training: People often unintentionally open the door to ransomware. By training your team to spot phishing emails, social engineering tricks, and other scams, you empower them to be your first line of defense against attacks.
- Adopt Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA): Think of MFA as locking your door and adding a deadbolt. Even if attackers get hold of your password, they’ll still need that second layer of verification to break in. It’s an easy and powerful way to block unauthorized access.
- Utilize Advanced Threat Detection Tools: Smart tools can make a world of difference. AI-powered systems and behavior-based monitoring can catch ransomware activity early, giving you a chance to stop it in its tracks before it causes real damage.
- Conduct Regular Vulnerability Assessments: You can’t fix what you don’t know is broken. Regularly checking for vulnerabilities in your systems helps you identify weak spots. By addressing these issues proactively, you can stay one step ahead of attackers.
Conclusion:
The 2024 ransomware landscape reveals the critical need for proactive cybersecurity strategies. High-value sectors and technologically advanced regions remain the primary targets, emphasizing the importance of robust defenses. As we move into 2025, it is crucial to anticipate the evolution of ransomware tactics and adopt forward-looking measures to address emerging threats.
Global collaboration, continuous innovation in cybersecurity technologies, and adaptive strategies will be imperative to counteract the persistent and evolving threats posed by ransomware activities. Organizations and governments must prioritize preparedness and resilience, ensuring that lessons learned in 2024 are applied to strengthen defenses and minimize vulnerabilities in the year ahead.
.webp)
The 2020s mark the emergence of deepfakes in general media discourse. The rise in deepfake technology is defined by a very simple yet concerning fact: it is now possible to create perfect imitations of anyone using AI tools that can create audio in any person's voice and generate realistic images and videos of almost anyone doing pretty much anything. The proliferation of deepfake content in the media poses great challenges to the functioning of democracies. especially as such materials can deprive the public of the accurate information it needs to make informed decisions in elections. Deepfakes are created using AI, which combines different technologies to produce synthetic content.
Understanding Deepfakes
Deepfakes are synthetically generated content created using artificial intelligence (AI). This technology works on an advanced algorithm that creates hyper-realistic videos by using a person’s face, voice or likeness utilising techniques such as machine learning. The utilisation and progression of deepfake technology holds vast potential, both benign and malicious.
An example is when the NGO Malaria No More which had used deepfake technology in 2019 to sync David Beckham’s lip movements with different voices in nine languages, amplified its anti-malaria message.
Deepfakes have a dark side too. They have been used to spread false information, manipulate public opinion, and damage reputations. They can harm mental health and have significant social impacts. The ease of creating deepfakes makes it difficult to verify media authenticity, eroding trust in journalism and creating confusion about what is true and what is not. Their potential to cause harm has made it necessary to consider legal and regulatory approaches.
India’s Legal Landscape Surrounding Deepfakes
India presently lacks a specific law dealing with deepfakes, but the existing legal provisions offer some safeguards against mischief caused.
- Deepfakes created with the intent of spreading misinformation or damaging someone’s reputation can be prosecuted under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023. It deals with the consequences of such acts under Section 356, governing defamation law.
- The Information Technology Act of 2000, the primary law that regulates Indian cyberspace. Any unauthorised disclosure of personal information which is used to create deepfakes for harassment or voyeurism is a violation of the act.
- The unauthorised use of a person's likeness in a deepfake can become a violation of their intellectual property rights and lead to copyright infringement.
- India’s privacy law, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, regulates and limits the misuse of personal data. It has the potential to address deepfakes by ensuring that individuals’ likenesses are not used without their consent in digital contexts.
India, at present, needs legislation that can specifically address the challenges deepfakes pose. The proposed legislation, aptly titled, ‘the Digital India Act’ aims to tackle various digital issues, including the misuse of deepfake technology and the spread of misinformation. Additionally, states like Maharashtra have proposed laws targeting deepfakes used for defamation or fraud, highlighting growing concerns about their impact on the digital landscape.
Policy Approaches to Regulation of Deepfakes
- Criminalising and penalising the making, creation and distribution of harmful deepfakes as illegal will act as a deterrent.
- There should be a process that mandates the disclosures for synthetic media. This would be to inform viewers that the content has been created using AI.
- Encouraging tech companies to implement stricter policies on deepfake content moderation can enhance accountability and reduce harmful misinformation.
- The public’s understanding of deepfakes should be promoted. Especially, via awareness campaigns that will empower citizens to critically evaluate digital content and make informed decisions.
Deepfake, Global Overview
There has been an increase in the momentum to regulate deepfakes globally. In October 2023, US President Biden signed an executive order on AI risks instructing the US Commerce Department to form labelling standards for AI-generated content. California and Texas have passed laws against the dangerous distribution of deepfake images that affect electoral contexts and Virginia has targeted a law on the non-consensual distribution of deepfake pornography.
China promulgated regulations requiring explicit marking of doctored content. The European Union has tightened its Code of Practice on Disinformation by requiring social media to flag deepfakes, otherwise they risk facing hefty fines and proposed transparency mandates under the EU AI Act. These measures highlight a global recognition of the risks that deepfakes pose and the need for a robust regulatory framework.
Conclusion
With deepfakes being a significant source of risk to trust and democratic processes, a multi-pronged approach to regulation is in order. From enshrining measures against deepfake technology in specific laws and penalising the same, mandating transparency and enabling public awareness, the legislators have a challenge ahead of them. National and international efforts have highlighted the urgent need for a comprehensive framework to enable measures to curb the misuse and also promote responsible innovation. Cooperation during these trying times will be important to shield truth and integrity in the digital age.
References
- https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2245&context=jss
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/regulating-deepfakes-generative-ai-in-india-explained/article67591640.ece
- https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena
- https://www.responsible.ai/a-look-at-global-deepfake-regulation-approaches/
- https://thesecretariat.in/article/wake-up-call-for-law-making-on-deepfakes-and-misinformation
.webp)
Introduction
Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.
The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects.
Understanding Geofence Warrants
Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.
Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants
While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.
From Surveillance to Safeguards
Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.
Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.
Conclusion
Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.
References:
- https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms
