theredwoodjournal@gmail.com

CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION IN CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS: A FORENSIC SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON DIGITAL EVIDENCE, POLICY, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM

Leave a Comment / JOURNAL / /

THE REDWOOD JOURNAL Website: www.the redwood journal.com  VOLUME:-1 ISSUE NO:- 1 , MAY 15, 2026 ISSN (ONLINE):-  Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com  Authored By :- Dr. Sudanva G Kulkarni  Co Authored By:- Dr. Muralidhar Belagali   CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION IN CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS: A FORENSIC SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON DIGITAL EVIDENCE, POLICY, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM     ABSTRACT The rapid expansion of Computing, Intelligence, and Digital Technologies (CIDT) has significantly influenced the nature, scope, and investigation of crime in contemporary society. Cloud computing, advanced computer systems, and cyber security have transformed criminal behavior, law enforcement strategies, and forensic practices. While digital technologies facilitate efficiency and intelligence-driven systems, they also provide new opportunities for cybercrime, digital fraud, data breaches, and transnational criminal activities. This paper examines CIDT from a criminology and forensic sciences perspective, focusing on the role of cloud computing, computer technologies, and cyber security in crime commission, prevention, investigation, and digital evidence management. Adopting a conceptual and analytical approach based on secondary data, the study highlights emerging cyber threats, forensic challenges, and the need for robust cyber security frameworks to support effective criminal justice responses in the digital age. Keywords: CIDT, Cybercrime, Cloud Computing, Digital Forensics, Cyber Security, Criminology Assistant Professor, Department of Criminology and Forensic Science, Nehru Arts and Science College, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu. nascsudanvagkulkani@nehrucolleges.com  Teaching cum Research Officer at School of Internal Security and Smart Policing Rashtriya Raksha University (RRU) Lavad Campus, Gujrat. tcro8.sissp@rru.ac.in    Introduction: The digital revolution has reshaped crime patterns and criminal justice systems worldwide. Computing, Intelligence, and Digital Technologies (CIDT) now play a central role in both facilitating and combating crime. Traditional crimes have evolved into technology-enabled offenses, while entirely new forms of cybercrime such as hacking, identity theft, ransomware attacks, and online financial fraud have emerged. From a criminological perspective, digital environments have altered offender behavior, victimization patterns, and enforcement challenges. Forensic sciences have also undergone a paradigm shift, with digital forensics becoming a crucial component of criminal investigations. Cloud computing and computer systems generate vast volumes of digital evidence, necessitating specialized forensic tools and cyber security mechanisms. This paper aims to analyze CIDT through the lens of criminology and forensic sciences, emphasizing how cloud computing, computers, and cyber security influence crime, investigation, and justice delivery. Review of Literature Several scholars have examined the intersection of computing technologies, cyber security, and criminology, emphasizing the growing complexity of cybercrime and digital evidence. Wall (2007) conceptualized cybercrime as a transformation of traditional crime into digitally mediated offenses, highlighting how anonymity and transnational reach challenge conventional policing. Rogers (2016) introduced cyber criminology as a specialized field focusing on offender behavior, motivation, and digital modus operandi. From a forensic sciences perspective, Casey (2011) emphasized the critical role of digital evidence in modern investigations and underscored challenges related to data integrity, encryption, and admissibility. Studies on cloud forensics have noted difficulties in evidence acquisition due to distributed storage, jurisdictional issues, and dependence on cloud service providers (Ruan et al., 2013). Researchers have also stressed the importance of cyber security frameworks in reducing cybercrime opportunities and supporting forensic readiness. Indian literature on cybercrime highlights the increasing incidence of online fraud, identity theft, and cyber-enabled organized crime. Scholars have pointed out gaps in technical expertise, infrastructure, and legal awareness within law enforcement agencies, stressing the need for capacity building in cyber forensics. Overall, existing literature establishes that while CIDT enhances digital efficiency, it simultaneously necessitates stronger cyber security and forensic mechanisms within the criminal justice system. Research Methodology  Scope of the Study  The scope of the study is limited to conceptual analysis of cloud computing and cyber security with reference to cybercrime investigation and digital forensics, particularly in the Indian criminal justice context. Objectives of the Study  To examine the role of cloud computing and cyber security in the generation, preservation, and analysis of digital evidence from a forensic sciences perspective. To analyze the challenges faced by forensic investigators and the criminal justice system in investigating cybercrime within cloud-based and digitally networked environments. The present study adopts a descriptive and analytical research methodology based on secondary data. The research is conceptual in nature and aims to analyze cloud computing and cyber security from a forensic sciences and criminological perspective. Source of Data Data for the study were collected from secondary sources including academic journals, books, government reports, legal statutes, judicial decisions, and publications from cyber security and forensic institutions. Method of Analysis The collected data were systematically reviewed and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Legal provisions, case laws, and forensic practices were examined to understand challenges related to digital evidence, cybercrime investigation, and cloud environments. Limitations of the Study  The study is limited by its reliance on secondary data and does not involve empirical fieldwork or primary data collection. Rapid technological changes may also affect the applicability of findings over time. CIDT and Contemporary Criminology CIDT has redefined criminological concepts related to opportunity, rational choice, and routine activity theories. Digital platforms provide anonymity, global reach, and low-risk environments for offenders, thereby increasing cybercrime opportunities. Crimes committed in cyberspace often transcend geographical boundaries, complicating jurisdiction, policing, and prosecution. From a criminological standpoint, CIDT contributes to: The emergence of cybercriminal networks and organized cybercrime Increased victimization through online fraud, cyberstalking, and data theft Challenges in crime detection, attribution, and offender profiling Understanding CIDT is therefore essential for developing effective cybercrime prevention and control strategies. Cloud Computing and Cyber Crime Cloud computing has become a critical infrastructure for data storage, communication, and digital services. While it enhances operational efficiency, it also introduces new criminogenic risks. Cloud Computing as a Criminogenic Space Criminals exploit cloud platforms to store illegal data, launch cyber-attacks, launder digital assets, and conceal identities. The shared and remote nature of cloud environments creates challenges for law enforcement agencies in evidence acquisition and jurisdictional control. Forensic Challenges in Cloud Environments  From a forensic science perspective, cloud computing complicates digital evidence collection due to data dispersion, multi-tenancy, and dependency on service providers. Issues related to data integrity, chain of custody, and admissibility of cloud-based evidence

CYBERCRIME INVESTIGATION IN CLOUD ENVIRONMENTS: A FORENSIC SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON DIGITAL EVIDENCE, POLICY, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM Read More »

JOURNAL, ,

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR RIVER POLLUTION IN INDIA: FROM GANGA TO YAMUNA

Leave a Comment / JOURNAL / /

THE REDWOOD JOURNAL Website: www.the redwood journal.com  VOLUME:-1 ISSUE NO:- 1 , MAY 12, 2026 ISSN (ONLINE):-  Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com  Authored By :- Dr. Riya Banerjee   CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR RIVER POLLUTION IN INDIA: FROM GANGA TO YAMUNA Manuscript_RiyaBanerjee_RiverPollution (2) – Riya. Banerjee.docx   Abstract River pollution in India, especially in the Ganga and Yamuna, continues to pose a serious environmental and public health challenge despite decades of regulation. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 criminalise unlawful discharge of pollutants and impose liability on industrial and municipal bodies. Judicial oversight through public interest litigation and the National Green Tribunal has strengthened environmental governance and directed corrective action. However, criminal enforcement remains weak due to procedural delays, evidentiary difficulties, fragmented corporate liability, and institutional limitations of Pollution Control Boards. This chapter analyses the doctrinal basis of criminal liability for river pollution, examines systemic gaps that allow offenders to avoid punishment, and considers comparative approaches to environmental crime. It contends that effective deterrence requires clearer offences, stronger accountability, specialised prosecution, and closer coordination between criminal, civil, and regulatory frameworks. Keywords: River pollution, Ganga, Yamuna, criminal liability, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974   Page No- 1 1. Introduction India’s major river systems occupy a central place in the country’s ecological stability, economic development, and constitutional imagination. The Ganga and the Yamuna are not merely watercourses; they sustain agriculture, provide drinking water to densely populated regions, support fisheries, and hold deep cultural and religious significance. Yet both rivers continue to experience high levels of contamination arising from industrial discharge, untreated municipal sewage, agricultural runoff, and solid waste dumping. Official assessments have repeatedly indicated that untreated sewage constitutes a dominant share of river pollution load in major urban stretches, particularly along the Yamuna in Delhi and downstream segments of the Ganga basin. Industrial effluents, especially from sectors such as tanneries, textiles, pulp and paper, chemicals, and sugar mills, contribute additional toxic burden. Despite decades of regulatory intervention and judicial supervision, measurable improvements remain uneven and fragile. India’s statutory response to water pollution began with the enactment of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974. The statute established Central and State Pollution Control Boards and introduced a consent mechanism regulating discharge of effluents into water bodies. It criminalised violations, prescribing imprisonment and fines for non-compliance. The Environment (Protection) Act 1986 subsequently strengthened central regulatory authority and enabled the prescription of standards for discharge and environmental quality. The creation of the National Green Tribunal under the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 introduced a specialised forum for environmental adjudication and compensation. Constitutional jurisprudence has further expanded environmental protection. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution of India to include the right to a wholesome environment. Through public interest litigation, the Court has issued directions relating to industrial relocation, effluent treatment, and river cleaning measures, particularly in cases concerning the Ganga and Yamuna. These developments demonstrate a robust normative commitment to environmental protection. However, the persistence of severe river pollution raises a deeper question: why has criminal liability not functioned as an effective deterrent? While statutory provisions provide for imprisonment and fines, actual convictions remain limited and enforcement often centres on compliance directives rather than penal consequences. Municipal bodies responsible for large-scale sewage discharge are rarely subjected to sustained criminal prosecution. Corporate actors frequently resolve violations through administrative directions or financial penalties rather than custodial sanctions.   Page No- 2 This chapter proceeds on the premise that environmental governance cannot rely exclusively on regulatory compliance mechanisms. Where pollution endangers public health, ecological systems, and constitutional rights, criminal law carries expressive and deterrent value. It signals societal condemnation and affirms the seriousness of environmental harm. The gap between statutory promise and enforcement reality therefore demands doctrinal and institutional scrutiny. The discussion that follows analyses the structure of criminal liability under the Water Act and the Environment (Protection) Act, the doctrinal complexities of corporate and municipal accountability, procedural and evidentiary hurdles, and the role of judicial intervention. It concludes by evaluating reform pathways capable of transforming environmental criminal law from symbolic enforcement into meaningful accountability. 2. Statutory Framework of Criminal Liability India’s criminal law response to river pollution is primarily rooted in two central statutes: the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act 1986. Together, they establish regulatory standards, enforcement mechanisms, and penal consequences for non-compliance. A doctrinal understanding of criminal liability under these statutes is essential to evaluate why enforcement outcomes remain limited. 2.1 The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 The Water Act was enacted to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain or restore the wholesomeness of water. It created the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), entrusting them with monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement functions. A central regulatory mechanism under the Act is the requirement of prior consent. Sections 25 and 26 mandate that no person shall establish or operate any industry, operation, or process likely to discharge sewage or trade effluent into a stream, well, sewer, or on land without the previous consent of the State Board. Operation without consent, or violation of consent conditions, constitutes an offence. Section 24 prohibits knowingly causing or permitting any poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter to enter into any stream or well. This provision forms the substantive foundation for criminal prosecution relating to discharge into rivers such as the Ganga and Yamuna. The penal framework is set out in sections 41 to 45A. Contravention of section 24 or sections 25 and 26 is punishable with imprisonment and fine. For continuing offences, additional daily fines may be imposed. Enhanced punishment is prescribed for repeat violations. The statute therefore clearly contemplates custodial sentences and not merely monetary penalties.   Page No- 3 However, prosecution under the Water Act is subject to procedural conditions. Section 49 restricts cognisance of offences to complaints made by the Board or an authorised officer, or by a

CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR RIVER POLLUTION IN INDIA: FROM GANGA TO YAMUNA Read More »

JOURNAL

FROM TERRITORY TO AUTHORITY: RETHINKING STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISDICTION

Leave a Comment / JOURNAL / /

THE REDWOOD JOURNAL Website: www.the redwood journal.com  VOLUME:-1 ISSUE NO:- 1 , MAY 10, 2026 ISSN (ONLINE):-  Email: thelawwaywithelawyers@gmail.com  Authored By :- SOWNDARIYA S   FROM TERRITORY TO AUTHORITY: RETHINKING STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISDICTION     ABSTRACT Borders have never fully contained power, and in today’s interconnected world, they do so even less. States increasingly exercise authority beyond their territorial limits through cross-border surveillance, extraterritorial military operations, and economic sanctions, yet international human rights law continues to struggle with holding them accountable. This paper interrogates whether a state’s human rights obligations end at its territorial borders. Drawing on the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, it traces the evolution of jurisdiction from a strictly territorial concept to one based on “effective control” and “authority and control over individuals.” The paper examines three contested domains, military operations abroad, cyber and surveillance practices, and economic coercion, to assess the extent of this doctrinal expansion. It argues that a narrow, geography-based understanding of jurisdiction creates a protection gap, leaving individuals vulnerable where state action and control  is most impactful. In response, the paper proposes a functional model of jurisdiction that anchors human rights responsibility in the exercise of power rather than territorial presence, thereby aligning legal accountability with contemporary realities of state action. Keywords: Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; Human Rights Law; State Responsibility; Effective Control; ICCPR; Functional Jurisdiction   Page No:- 1 INTRODUCTION When a state deploys surveillance technology to monitor a journalist in a foreign country, conducts a targeted killing in territory where it has no formal presence, or imposes economic sanctions that foreseeably deny a civilian population access to medicine — who bears legal responsibility? The instinctive answer points to the territorial state. But the state that causes harm is increasingly not the state on whose soil that harm is felt. This disjunction between the location of power and the location of consequence sits at the heart of one of the most contested problems in contemporary international human rights law. International human rights treaties were drafted with a predominantly territorial logic. Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) obliges each state party to respect and ensure rights “to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) extends obligations to everyone “within their jurisdiction.” These formulations assumed a world in which a state’s effective sphere of action coincided, more or less, with its geographic borders. That assumption no longer holds. States today project power through digital surveillance, unmanned aerial vehicles, financial coercion, and proxy operations that traverse borders with increasing ease and decreasing visibility. This paper adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology based on treaty interpretation, judicial decisions, and scholarly commentary in international human rights law. This paper argues that a geography-bound interpretation of jurisdiction is no longer adequate to the task of human rights protection. Part II surveys the legal framework governing extraterritorial jurisdiction. Part III analyses the jurisprudential arc across three major international bodies. Part IV examines three hard cases where current doctrine is most severely tested. Part V proposes a functional model of jurisdiction. Part VI concludes.  THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: JURISDICTION AS THRESHOLD Textual Foundations  The concept of jurisdiction in international human rights law functions as a threshold question: before any substantive human rights obligation can be engaged, a state must be found to exercise jurisdiction over the individual asserting a rights violation. This gatekeeper role carries significant consequences. A state that falls outside the jurisdictional threshold faces no obligation, regardless of the gravity of the harm it has caused. The foundational provision is Article 2(1) of the ICCPR, which binds state parties to respect and ensure rights “to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction.” The drafting history suggests that “jurisdiction” was not intended as a synonym for “territory” — the disjunctive structure implies that territorial presence is one basis for jurisdiction, not the only one. The ECHR, in Article 1, omits any territorial qualifier altogether. The American Convention on Human Rights (Article 1(1)) and the African Charter (Article 1) similarly use jurisdictional rather than purely territorial language. The text, properly read, does not foreclose extraterritorial application. What has varied is the willingness of adjudicative bodies to fill that space. Two Models of Jurisdiction Scholarship and jurisprudence have identified two broad models. The spatial model holds that jurisdiction attaches when a state exercises effective control over a territory — typically through military occupation or comparable presence. The personal model holds that jurisdiction attaches when a state exercises effective control or authority over a specific individual, regardless of where that individual is located. These models are not mutually exclusive, and courts have often blended them. Understanding the tension between them is essential to evaluating the trajectory of the case law. III. THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ARC The European Court of Human Rights The ECtHR’s initial position, articulated in Banković v. Belgium, appeared to restrict jurisdiction to a regional “legal space” (espace juridique) constituted by Convention states. The case arose from the NATO bombing of the Radio Television Serbia building in Belgrade in 1999. The court declined jurisdiction, reasoning that nationals of a non-Convention state injured in a non-Convention territory were not within the respondent states’ jurisdiction. The decision attracted sharp criticism for its geographic rigidity and was substantially qualified in subsequent decisions.   Page No:- 2 In Loizidou v. Turkey, the court held that Turkey’s military control over northern Cyprus brought that territory within Turkey’s Convention jurisdiction. In Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom, the court moved decisively toward the personal model: the United Kingdom, exercising public powers in southern Iraq following the invasion, was found to exercise jurisdiction over Iraqi civilians killed by British forces. The court expressly acknowledged that jurisdiction could exist in the absence of territorial control, provided there was control over the individual. Al-Skeini represents a significant doctrinal shift — reconceiving jurisdiction as context-sensitive, tied to the actual

FROM TERRITORY TO AUTHORITY: RETHINKING STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN HUMAN RIGHTS JURISDICTION Read More »

JOURNAL