Section 65A explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 65A makes it an offence to circumvent an effective technological measure applied to protect rights under the Act, with the intention of infringing those rights. The punishment is imprisonment up to two years and liability to fine. Sub-section (2) lists acts that the offence does not prevent, and requires a person who helps another circumvent for a permitted purpose to keep a complete record. If you build or distribute protected digital content, a legal consultation can help you work out where the line sits.
Whoever circumvents an effective technological measure applied to protect any right under the Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and liability to fine. Sub-section (2) says the offence does not prevent circumvention for a purpose not expressly prohibited by the Act (with a record kept by anyone who helps), encryption research, lawful investigation, security testing with the owner's authorisation, identification or surveillance measures, and national security.
Where it comes from
Section 65A was inserted by Act 27 of 2012 (w.e.f. 21-6-2012), as the footnote states. The Act does not define "technological measure" or "effective" in the text consulted; this article does not supply a definition.
Sub-section (1): the offence
"Any person who circumvents an effective technological measure applied for the purpose of protecting any of the rights conferred by this Act, with the intention of infringing such rights, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years and shall also be liable to fine."
| Element | Text |
|---|---|
| Who | "Any person" |
| Act | Circumvents an effective technological measure |
| Measure's purpose | Applied for protecting any of the rights conferred by the Act |
| Mental element | "With the intention of infringing such rights" |
| Imprisonment | May extend to two years (no minimum) |
| Fine | "Shall also be liable to fine" (no amount stated) |
The intention requirement is central: circumvention without the intention of infringing is not within sub-section (1) on its words. The offence is about the act of circumvention; it does not say the infringement must follow.
Sub-section (2): what is not prevented
"Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent any person from,—"
| Clause | Act permitted |
|---|---|
| (a) | Doing anything referred to in sub-section (1) for a purpose not expressly prohibited by this Act, with a proviso on records (below) |
| (b) | Doing anything necessary to conduct encryption research using a lawfully obtained encrypted copy |
| (c) | Conducting any lawful investigation |
| (d) | Doing anything necessary for testing the security of a computer system or computer network with the authorisation of its owner |
| (e) | As printed: "operator;" |
| (f) | Doing anything necessary to circumvent technological measures intended for identification or surveillance of a user |
| (g) | Taking measures necessary in the interest of national security |
Drafting slip. Clause (e) is printed in the text consulted as only the word "operator;", which is not a complete provision (the surrounding clauses suggest a missing description). This article does not guess its content. Check the official text of the Act.
The proviso to clause (a): the record
"Any person facilitating circumvention by another person of a technological measure for such a purpose shall maintain a complete record of such other person including his name, address and all relevant particulars necessary to identify him and the purpose for which he has been facilitated."
The Copyright Rules, 2013 (rule 80) give more detail: the facilitator keeps a record of the requester's contact and professional details, the reasons and purpose, and a written undertaking from the requester that he is entitled to circumvent and will be solely responsible for any infringement of the protected work; the record may be maintained online or otherwise for a minimum period of three years; and it is disclosed only on a court order or to a police officer not below the rank of sub-inspector investigating a complaint under section 65A. Check the current Rules for later amendments.
Example 1. Neel Kapoor removes the access control on a streaming file so that he can sell unlicensed copies. That is circumvention of an effective measure with the intention of infringing, within sub-section (1).
Example 2. Dr. Sana Iyer, a security researcher, uses a lawfully obtained encrypted copy of a program to study weaknesses. Clause (b) says sub-section (1) does not prevent doing what is necessary for encryption research.
Example 3. A repair shop helps a customer to circumvent a measure for a purpose the Act does not expressly prohibit. Under the proviso to clause (a), the shop must keep a complete record of the customer and the purpose.
Section 65A against section 65B
| Section 65A | Section 65B | |
|---|---|---|
| Protects | Technological measures that guard rights | Rights management information |
| Prohibited act | Circumventing with intention of infringing | Removing or altering information; distributing copies knowing it was removed or altered |
| Penalty | Up to two years and liability to fine | Up to two years and liability to fine |
| Exceptions | Sub-section (2) | None listed; civil remedies proviso |
See section 65B. Section 39A also applies section 65A to performers' rights and broadcast reproduction right, as explained in sections 39 and 39A.
What the section does not say
- It does not state any minimum sentence or amount of fine.
- It does not define the measures covered.
- It does not say whether a measure that blocks a use permitted by section 52 may be circumvented; only clause (a) ("a purpose not expressly prohibited") speaks to purpose. For section 52, see exceptions to infringement.
Need help with digital protection and compliance?
If you distribute protected content or provide tools that touch technological measures, we can review your practice against section 65A and the record-keeping duty. Reach our legal consultation team.
Key takeaways
- Circumventing an effective technological measure with the intention of infringing rights is an offence.
- Up to two years' imprisonment and liability to fine.
- Seven exceptions are listed, including encryption research, lawful investigation, security testing and national security (clause (e) is incomplete as printed).
- Anyone facilitating permitted circumvention must keep a complete record of the requester and purpose.
- Rule 80 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 prescribes the record in more detail.
Read next
- Section 65B: protection of rights management information
- Sections 65–66: possession of plates and disposal of infringing copies
- Copyright in computer programs and databases
- Copyright for digital content creators: YouTube, blog, social media
Disclaimer: Based on the Copyright Act, 1957 as amended up to 2012, read with the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Acts of 2023 and 2026, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and procedure are set by the Copyright Rules, 2013 as amended from time to time. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.