BACK TO IT ACT
IT Act 2000

Section 65

Tampering with Computer Source Documents

THE STATUTE

Original Text

Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroys or alters or intentionally or knowingly causes another to conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.

Simplified

Section 65 protects the integrity of computer source code in situations where law mandates its preservation. 'Computer source code' means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of computer resource in any form. The key phrase is 'required to be kept or maintained by law' — the offence is not general source-code alteration but specifically tampering with source code that a statute, regulation, or court order compels the person to retain. Examples include: software used in banking systems where RBI regulations mandate retention of trading algorithms; source code of electronic voting machines; and software underlying financial market infrastructure. The provision has been used in cases where disgruntled employees delete or alter proprietary software before leaving a company, where that software is subject to regulatory retention requirements. Crucially, the offence requires mens rea — 'knowingly or intentionally' — so accidental code changes do not attract liability. The accused must have known that the source code was legally required to be maintained and deliberately tampered with it. Section 65 is a non-cognizable offence, meaning police cannot arrest without a magistrate's warrant. Complaints must be filed before a JMFC. This makes it distinct from the cognizable offences under Section 66 and beyond.

Common Queries

Computer source code means the listing of programmes, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of a computer resource in any form — essentially the human-readable instructions that define how software operates.
No. Section 65 requires 'knowingly or intentionally' concealing, destroying, or altering source code. Accidental changes do not attract liability — the prosecution must prove deliberate tampering.
Various sector regulations require software source code retention — RBI regulations for banking software, SEBI regulations for algorithmic trading systems, and court orders in specific disputes. Section 65 applies only where such a legal obligation to retain exists.

Legal Evolution

Section 65 was part of the original IT Act 2000 and has remained largely unchanged through the 2008 Amendment. It was one of the first cybercrime provisions notified in India and reflects the legislature's early concern about protecting software integrity in regulated industries. The provision's practical reach has expanded as more statutes (RBI, SEBI, Companies Act) have imposed electronic record retention requirements.

Key Amendments

No substantive changes introduced by the 2008 Amendment — Section 65 remains as originally enacted.

Scope has effectively widened over time as more laws impose digital record and source-code retention obligations.

Landmark Precedents

Syed Asifuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2005)

2006 Cri LJ 274 (AP HC)
RELEVANCE

Andhra Pradesh High Court held that altering the IMEI number of a mobile handset constituted tampering with 'computer source code' under Section 65 — a significant expansive interpretation of the provision.