In today’s hyperconnected world, crime doesn’t respect borders and neither can justice. As someone working at the intersection of technology and criminal law, I’ve seen how the digital revolution has fundamentally changed not just how we do business, but how criminals operate. A sophisticated fraud operation targeting Indian citizens might be coordinated through encrypted apps, with funds laundered via cryptocurrency exchanges across multiple countries, and all the critical evidence sitting on servers halfway across the globe. This isn’t fiction it’s the daily reality for Indian law enforcement.
The challenge is stark: while criminals exploit technology’s borderless nature with remarkable agility, our legal systems remain largely tied to territorial boundaries. The evidence we need server logs, emails, cloud documents often sits beyond our reach, housed in data centres from California to Singapore. India has responded admirably with the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, modernizing our evidence laws to address electronic evidence and contemporary investigative methods. Yet even with this updated framework, actually obtaining digital evidence from foreign jurisdictions remains frustratingly complex.
This is where Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) become crucial. Think of these as formal diplomatic channels for requesting legal assistance between countries. India has built a network of such agreements with over 40 nations, with the Ministry of Home Affairs coordinating criminal matters. In principle, the system makes sense. In practice? It’s painfully slow. The MLAT framework was designed for traditional organized crime drug cartels and smuggling rings, not ransomware attacks and cryptocurrency fraud. These mechanisms simply weren’t built for the speed and ephemeral nature of digital evidence.
The numbers tell a sobering story. Routine MLAT requests can take months. When seeking data from major tech companies, the average wait stretches to over three years. By then, trails have gone cold and criminals have moved on. The reasons are manifold: bureaucratic procedures across multiple jurisdictions, lack of standardization between legal systems, varying evidentiary thresholds, and systems overwhelmed by sheer volume.
Faced with these realities, Indian agencies have developed creative workarounds. The G-8 24/7 Network, coordinated through the CBI, provides a channel for urgent data preservation requests essentially an emergency hotline for keeping digital evidence from vanishing while formal requests process. INTERPOL’s informal networks help obtain preliminary leads. These are valuable tools, but they’re tactical fixes for a structural problem.
Recent international developments offer genuine hope. The US CLOUD Act creates a framework for direct requests to American service providers through bilateral Executive Agreements, promising significantly faster response times with robust privacy protections. Given that many crucial platforms are US-based, a CLOUD Act agreement could be transformative for India.
For legal practitioners today, success requires mastering both domestic frameworks and international mechanisms. We must understand the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam’s provisions, navigate MLAT channels strategically, stay ahead of evolving frameworks like potential CLOUD Act arrangements, and advocate for systemic reforms that reflect our digital reality.
We’re in a race against criminals who currently have a head start. Progress is happening our laws are evolving, cooperation mechanisms improving, and innovative frameworks emerging. But the challenge remains: ensuring our tools for justice move as swiftly as the crimes we’re pursuing. Because in cyberspace, justice delayed isn’t just justice denied it’s often justice made impossible.
The views expressed are for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. For specific guidance on cross-border digital evidence matters, consult qualified legal counsel.
