Information Technology Act 2000 Section 66c: Identity Theft (2026)

Explainer · Cyber Law · IT Act

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is the identity theft offence. It punishes any person who, dishonestly or fraudulently, uses another person's electronic signature, password or other unique identification feature. The punishment is imprisonment up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees. In plain terms, stealing or misusing someone's login, OTP, digital signature or unique ID to pretend to be them is a crime. This explainer sets out what the section covers, its punishment, how it works with the cheating offence in Section 66D, and the key points. Last verified October 2026.

01The short answer

Section 66C makes identity theft a crime. If a person dishonestly or fraudulently uses someone else's password, electronic signature, OTP or other unique identity feature, that is an offence.

The punishment is jail for up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees. It is the section most often used when a fraudster uses stolen login details, a cloned SIM or a hijacked digital identity.

02What Section 66C says

Section 66C provides that whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly, makes use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person is guilty of the offence.

The phrase "unique identification feature" is wide. It covers things that identify a person online, such as:

• passwords and PINs;
• electronic or digital signatures;
• one-time passwords (OTPs) and login credentials;
• biometric or other unique identifiers used for authentication.

Section 66C was inserted by the 2008 amendment, which came into force on 27 October 2009, to deal directly with identity-based cyber fraud.

03Punishment and procedure

The punishment under Section 66C is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, together with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Because the maximum jail term is three years, the offence is bailable under the scheme of Section 77B of the IT Act. A police officer not below the rank of Inspector investigates offences under the Act under Section 78. Identity theft is rarely charged alone; it usually comes with the cheating offence under Section 66D and the cheating and forgery provisions of the criminal code.

04Section 66C and Section 66D

These two sections work as a pair and are easy to confuse.

In most fraud cases both apply: the fraudster first steals the identity feature (Section 66C) and then uses it to cheat the victim (Section 66D). They are often charged together with the underlying computer offence in Section 66.

05Key case law

Section 66C is commonly invoked in prosecutions for phishing, SIM-swap fraud, fake profiles, and the misuse of stolen bank and UPI credentials. Courts have treated the dishonest use of another person's login details or OTP to carry out transactions as squarely within identity theft, usually read with the cheating offence under Section 66D and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions on cheating and forgery.

Because it is a fact-driven offence, much of the law sits in trial court and High Court bail and quashing orders rather than in a single landmark judgment.

06A practical note

If your account, password, OTP or digital identity has been misused, Section 66C is usually one of the main charges, along with Section 66D. Report it quickly, because freezing a fraudulent transfer works best in the first hours. See how to report cyber crime and online fraud, and if money was taken, how to recover money lost to online fraud.

Protect yourself before it happens: never share OTPs, use strong and separate passwords, and turn on two-factor authentication. Keep screenshots and transaction records, because they are the evidence of the misuse.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

How identity theft charges are framed, and what proof of dishonest use courts expect, often turns on earlier rulings. Claw lets you search more than 30 crore judgments and orders, with Supreme Court decisions from 1950 and High Court decisions from 1990, in under 5 seconds, so you can see how Section 66C and Section 66D have been applied, including on bail and quashing. You can also track a live FIR, charge sheet or appeal by party or advocate name across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, and get the next hearing date without scanning cause lists by hand. Claw does not use the documents you upload to train its AI models.

Create a free Claw account to track an identity theft case or appeal and follow every hearing, and use case search across Indian courts to find how the offence has been treated in similar matters.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (Information Technology Act, 2000, bare text): indiacode.nic.in
• PRS Legislative Research (IT Act and amendments): prsindia.org
• Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY): meity.gov.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions