Context: The Union Home Ministry does not maintain a centralised list of volunteers enrolled under the cybercrime volunteer programme since the police is a “State subject” under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. 
Key Highlights

• The Union Ministry of Home Affairs has clarified that police being a “State subject” under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, does not authorise to maintain a centralised list of cybercrime.
• The cybercrime grievance portal of MHA aims to raise a group of “cybercrime volunteers” to flag “unlawful content” on the Internet.
• The ‘police’ and ‘public order’ are State subjects and States are primarily responsible for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of crimes through their law enforcement agencies (LEAs).
• But cybersecurity lawyers and activists say the norms still leave a wide range of issues to be dealt with.
• India establishes a Seven (7) pronged scheme to fight cyber crime with the  inauguration of Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) and launching  of the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal – Cyber

Enables a culture of surveillance 

• The Ministry, through its cybercrime grievance portal, cybercrime.gov.in, aims to raise a group of “cybercrime volunteers” to flag “unlawful content” on the Internet. 
• The programme enables a culture of surveillance and could create potential social distrust by encouraging civilians to report the online activities of other citizens. 

Cybercrime Volunteer Framework 

• The Cybercrime Volunteer Framework has been rolled out as a part of cyber hygiene promotion to bring together citizens to contribute to the fight against cybercrime in the country and assist State/UT LEAs in their endeavour to curb cybercrimes. 
• The volunteers are registered, and their services utilised, by the respective State/UT LEAs as per their requirement. 
• The programme was expected to include 500 volunteers, 200 “cyber awareness promoters” and 50 “cyber experts”.
• It is supposed to act as a facilitative tool between ordinary citizens and the government for the prevention of cybercrime.

National Cybercrime Ecosystem Management Unit 

• The National Cybercrime Ecosystem Management Unit, of which the Cybercrime Volunteers Programme is a constituent, is part of the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) scheme launched by the Union Home Minister in January 2020. 

Cyber Crime Volunteers and associated concerns 

• Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) has envisaged the Cyber Crime Volunteers Program to bring together citizens with a passion to serve the nation on a single platform and contribute in the fight against cybercrime in the country. 
• The programme targets to rope in around 500 persons to flag unlawful content on the Internet. 
• Good Samaritans are welcomed to register as Cyber Crime Volunteers in the role of unlawful content flaggers for facilitating law enforcement agencies in identifying, reporting and removal of illegal/unlawful online content. 
• Volunteers have been advised to study Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with freedom of expression. 
• Further, the volunteer shall “maintain strict confidentiality of tasks assigned/carried out by him/her”. 
• The State Nodal Officer of States/UTs also reserves the right to take legal action against the Volunteer, in case of violation of terms and conditions of the Program. 

Concerns Raised 

Chances of Misuse: There is no information available on how the Ministry will ensure that the program is not misused by certain elements to extract misguided personal or political vendettas. 

• There is no process in place for the withdrawal of complaints once submitted. 

Cyber-Vigilantism: The programme will essentially result in a similar situation to the one which East Germany was in the 1950s. 

• The state asking citizens to report their fellow citizens would lead to cyber-vigilantism and would lead to peers turning against their peers to snitch on them. 

No Clear Definition: The Ministry has failed to clearly define unlawful content and content which would relate to “anti-national” activities. 

• This could allow the volunteers to exercise far more discretion than is necessary and report on citizens who are well within their rights to post content that is critical of the State. 
• Such a program seems to be in direct violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2013) which highlights the need to ensure that overbroad restrictions on online speech are not used as a tool by the State to criminalise free speech on the internet.