Co-author
Dr Banusri Velpandian
Senior Law Specialist
Salil Kumar Tripathy1
Legal Consultant
Introduction: A New Era of Threats
National security has evolved in recent times due to significant transformations in the concepts of state sovereignty, power dynamics, and economic development. New threats extend beyond traditional notions of national security, which were primarily focused on territorial integrity and military aggression.
Today, national security encompasses a broader range of issues, including cybersecurity, economic security, food security, energy security, and environmental security. In response to these challenges, several European nations including Germany, France, Poland, Italy, and the UK, are increasing their defense spending.2 This investment aims to enhance comprehensive and collaborative projects that bolster military readiness to counter both visible and less imminent but equally dangerous threats that could jeopardize national security.
There must be a diverse array of mitigation strategies adopted to address modern-day risks, which can include cyber and digital threats, information and psychological threats, economic threats, and biological threats. This article will address the present and probable future of India’s legal framework in the given domain along with selected global best practices.
The Invisible Frontline: Defending Against Digital Warfare
Cyber threats have become increasingly prominent with the rise of technology. Cyber criminals can operate from remote locations while targeting critical infrastructure that holds sensitive information. These attacks can pose significant concerns, especially when they have agendas aimed at disrupting peace and causing societal upheaval.
Cyber-crimes can also involve extortion for financial gain through ransomware attacks3. These malicious programs are designed to completely block access to a system and encrypt sensitive data, which can be detrimental to state operations and the functioning of various agencies.
India ranks as one of the leading countries affected by ransomware, currently holding the 9th position globally. A notable incident involved Fullerton India Credit Ltd., a non-banking financial company, which was attacked by LockBit 3.0, resulting in the breach of 600GB of sensitive data.4
The situation becomes even more serious when these cyber-attacks are used as a weapon by enemy countries. They can disrupt critical systems and damage essential infrastructure, resulting in significant material losses and potentially causing loss of life for the nation as a whole. Hence, this can be referred as cyberwarfare5.
Cyber warfare can serve as a tool for espionage, enabling the unethical monitoring and theft of data from other countries. This often involves phishing attacks to infiltrate systems and gain access to sensitive information.6
If cybersecurity measures and safeguards are inadequate, breaches of classified information can jeopardize government schemes and initiatives, potentially harming the country by manipulating vital data. Such sabotage can disrupt essential services like electricity supply, as cybercriminals may target power grids, disabling critical systems and interfering with infrastructure and communication services.
With the rise of AI systems, cyber attackers now manipulate public opinion on a large scale. The risk is particularly pronounced in defense, as AI is increasingly used in autonomous drones and missiles where attacks executed without human intervention can lead to extensive damage to infrastructure and disrupt machinery in undetectable ways without thorough investigation7.
Advanced nations formulate strategies that emphasize the importance of safeguarding emerging technologies, addressing not only cyber security issues but also regulating them while promoting democracy and freedom. Accordingly, in India, where risk mitigation is centralized, there ought to be specialized mechanisms for cyber security and prioritizing national interests. The ongoing institutional exercises may enhance cyber preparedness and evaluating appropriate responses in the event of a cyber incident but substantial high-end infra requirements are to be met to meet the ends of effective countering of all threats with robust strategies. Furthermore, the mix of strategies should also include stakeholder engagement, to proactively identify and neutralize any cyber threats that could damage national infrastructure and critical networks.
The comparative legal frameworks in the domain are placed below for ready reference;
| Country | Legal Framework | Key Provisions | Relevance to Cyber Warfare |
| India | Information Technology Act 2000 (Amended 2008) | Sec 66F: Cyber terrorism (life imprisonment); Sec 70: Protected systems; Sec 69: Interception powers | Cyber terrorism, critical infrastructure |
| National Cyber Security Strategy 2020 | 21 focus areas including CII protection, supply chain security, advanced tech integration | National cyber strategy coordination | |
| United States | Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) 2015 | 6 USC S.1502-1505: Threat info sharing, monitoring authorization, liability protections | Public-private threat intelligence sharing |
| Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) 2014 | 44 USC S.3551: Federal cybersecurity programs, incident reporting, DHS oversight | Federal agency cybersecurity compliance | |
| Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 1986 | 18 USC S.1030: Unauthorized access, damage to protected computers (up to 20 years) | Computer crime prosecution | |
| National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – Annual | Annual cyber provisions: AI security centers, spyware protection, supply chain security | Military cyber operations, defense | |
| United Kingdom | Computer Misuse Act 1990 (Amended 2015) | Sec 3ZA: Serious damage offenses (life imprisonment); Sec 1-3: Unauthorized access/modification | Computer misuse, infrastructure attacks |
| Investigatory Powers Act 2016 | Parts 1-9: Interception warrants, equipment interference, bulk data collection | Intelligence surveillance powers | |
| National Cyber Security Strategy 2022 | 3 pillars: Strengthen ecosystem, deter actors, develop capabilities; National Cyber Force | National cyber force, offensive ops | |
| Australia | Cybercrime Act 2001 | Div 477: Serious computer offenses (life imprisonment); Div 478: Other computer offenses | Commonwealth computer crimes |
| Security of Critical Infrastructure Act (SOCI) 2018 | Parts 2-6A: 11 critical sectors, risk management, government intervention powers | Critical infrastructure protection | |
| Cyber Security Act 2024 | Ransomware reporting, IoT security standards, National Cyber Security Coordinator | Ransomware response, IoT security | |
| Privacy Act 1988 – Data Breach Notification | Mandatory breach notification for eligible data breaches | Data breach incident response |
To maintain national security and mitigate threats, India has developed significant defense systems, enhanced supply chain security and infrastructure, and invested in research and development to improve data management systems and is establishing robust defense mechanisms.
To bolster resilience against advanced cyber threats, India can adopt best practices from countries like the U.S., U.K., and Australia for establishing formal public-private threat intelligence sharing, sector-specific regulatory approach for Critical Information Infrastructure (CII), mandatory incident reporting for ransomware and IoT security standards.
The Weaponizaxtion of Words: Countering Disinformation and Radicalization
The other major threat to the nation and its internal security is the informational psychology threat. This involves manipulating psychological aspects and the dissemination of information to create sociopolitical phenomena that can lead to mass destruction.8
Targeted attacks on specific leaders and executives are carried out through online harassment and information disorder, including misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information9. These tactics aim to create a narrative as powerful as a weapon, spreading hate and causing instability within the nation. To prevent such situations that threaten national interests, authorities must proactively track online threats, manage public exposure, and ensure that responses to suspicious activities are digitally monitored.
Another critical issue is the radicalization that occurs through online and social media platforms. This complex process systematically influences individuals and groups to adopt extremist ideologies that validate violence rather than reject it, brainwashing the minds of young and vulnerable individuals, further promoting acts of terrorism for specific political or ideological purposes.10 The online presence of such groups, whether through popular social media platforms or the less visible dark web, requires a significant counteraction or throttling by the Government and its established risk mitigation mechanisms.
Comparative cyber legal frameworks across the global few are tabulated hereinunder for ready reference;
| Country | Legal Framework | Key Sections/Provisions | Scope | Relevance to Psychological Warfare |
| India | Information Technology Act, 2000 (Amended 2008) | Sec 66D (Cheating by impersonation); Sec 69A (Blocking access to information); Sec 79 (Intermediary liability) | Digital impersonation, content blocking, platform accountability | Addresses fake identities for misinformation, enables blocking of propaganda content |
| IT (Intermediary Guide-lines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 | Rule 3(1)(b) (Prohibited content); Due diligence obligations; Grievance redressal | Social media content moderation, fake news removal, platform compliance | Mandates removal of misleading content including deepfakes, misinformation campaigns | |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS, 2023) | Sec 353 (Public mischief through false statements); Sec 111 (Organised cybercrime) | False information causing public fear, organised disinformation campaigns | Criminalises spreading false information to create fear and public disorder | |
| BNS, 2023 | Sec 196 (Promoting enmity); Sec 299 (Outraging religious feelings); Sec 353 (Public mischief) | Hate speech, communal incitement, public disorder through false rumors | Addresses communal propaganda, hate speech campaigns targeting social cohesion | |
| Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Amended 2019) | Sec 15 (Terrorist acts); Sec 18 (Punishment for conspiracy); Individual designation provisions | Anti-terrorism, individual terrorist designation, counter-radicalization | Covers online radicalization, terrorist recruitment | |
| United States | Communications Decency Act Section 230 (1996) | 47 USC Section 230(c)(1) (Platform immunity); §230(c)(2) (Good Samaritan provision) | Platform liability protection, content moderation authority | Enables platforms to moderate disinformation while protecting from liability for user content |
| First Amendment to US Constitution | Free speech protections; Government speech regulation limits | Constitutional protection of speech including political speech | Protects political speech but limits government ability to directly combat disinformation | |
| Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) 1938 | 22 USC §§611-621 (Registration requirements for foreign agents) | Foreign influence operations, propaganda disclosure requirements | Requires disclosure of foreign-funded information operations and campaigns | |
| Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) 2015 | 6 USC §§1501-1510 (Information sharing framework) | Threat intelligence sharing including disinformation campaigns | Facilitates sharing intelligence about foreign disinformation and influence operations | |
| United Kingdom | Online Safety Act 2023 | Sec 179 (False communications offense); Duty of care provisions; Ofcom regulatory powers | Online harms, false communications, platform accountability | Criminalises intentionally false communications causing harm, regulates disinformation |
| Terrorism Act 2006 | Sec 1-2 (Encouragement of terrorism); Sec 3 (Dissemination of terrorist publications) | Online terrorism content, glorification of terrorism, radicalization materials | Addresses online radicalization content and terrorist propaganda dissemination | |
| National Security Act 2023 | Sec 13-15 (Foreign interference offense); State threat activity provisions | Foreign influence operations, state-sponsored disinformation campaigns | Directly targets foreign psychological operations and influence campaigns | |
| Australia | Online Safety Act 2021 | Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme; Cyber-bullying Scheme; Online Content Scheme | Online harassment, cyberbullying, harmful content removal | Removes content used for psychological harassment and systematic online abuse campaigns |
| Criminal Code Act 1995 – Telecommunications Offences | Sec 474.17 (Menacing/harassing communications); Sec 474.29A (Suicide-related material) | Online threats, harassment, harmful communications | Criminalises systematic online harassment and psychological manipulation campaigns | |
| Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Act 2019 | Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material provisions; Platform reporting obligations | Terrorist content sharing, violent extremist material, platform accountability | Prevents sharing of content designed to terrorise and radicalise populations | |
| Security Legislation Amendment Act 2014 | Foreign fighters provisions; Advocating terrorism offenses | Online terrorist advocacy, foreign fighter recruitment, extremist content | Addresses online recruitment and psychological manipulation by terrorist organizations |
India’s current legal framework offers promising strategies to counter psychological warfare, misinformation, and digital manipulation. Key components include the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which enforce platform accountability and mandate the removal of misleading content, including deepfakes. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, strengthens mechanisms against misinformation and hate speech by criminalizing the spread of false information that incites fear (Sec 353) and disorder (Secs 196, 299).
To further enhance this framework, certain best practices such as: transparency measures similar to the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for disclosing foreign-funded campaigns. Additionally, legislation like the UK’s National Security Act 2023, which targets state-sponsored disinformation, could be beneficial. Establishing a formal threat intelligence-sharing framework akin to the U.S. Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (CISA) 2015 may also be considered. A national Cyber Strategy, that integrates government, the private sector, law enforcement agencies, and academia, with international partners for a comprehensive and unified approach to cyber defense is the key.
Beyond the Virus: Biosecurity in an Age of Genetic Manipulation
Hybrid threats, like biological threats, misuse advancements in biotechnology, posing a significant threat to national security due to the dual-use nature of these biological elements as potential weapons.11 The risk of releasing pathogenic organisms and exploitative data related to genes, as well as targeted attacks aimed at destabilizing a country, can be executed through these biological means. Such risks can lead to mass destruction and adversely affect public health, particularly among vulnerable populations like senior citizens, children, and marginalized groups, ultimately causing significant economic instability. Therefore, it is essential to establish robust safeguards against these biological threats.
Biotechnology has created numerous possibilities in medicine and agriculture, offering opportunities for the application of these novel and life-saving technologies. However, it has also raised ongoing concerns about the manipulation of genetic material, which presents profound risks to the safety, security, and health of the populace.12 While innovations in biotechnology may significantly advance, it is equally essential to regulate the technology carefully. Meaningful benefits can only be realized when the risk of misuse and manipulation is minimized. For biotechnology to grow exponentially, it is crucial to protect against the risks of accidental release and manipulation, as these can create an ecosystem detrimental to the health of not only humans but also biodiversity, which may result in unintended side effects. Therefore, the growth and development of the industry must align with protective measures.
Biotechnology threats can be further categorized. One such category is gene drive technology, which can transform the reproductive capabilities of certain species to increase inheritance bias. This technology can also be weaponized through insects or pesticides to spread diseases, thereby risking human lives from viruses like dengue, Zika, and other fatal diseases.
Another category is gene synthesis, which utilizes biotechnological tools for systematic engineering, resulting in the creation of synthetic life systems that can construct minimal or artificial genomes. This gene synthesis poses a threat to biological security, as modifications and fragmentations of DNA can enhance the transfer of infectious agents through viruses in host genes, potentially leading to the creation of a new, highly lethal and infectious virus. Such a virus could infect a broad range of hosts and exhibit resistance to antibiotics, making it an effective weapon. Thus, gene synthesis can leverage artificial intelligence to develop harmful gene sequences, creating highly pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Furthermore, this has implications for biological terrorism, indicative of what we call biowarfare. 13
Concerned legal frameworks of certain jurisdictions have been presented below;
| Country/Body | Legal Framework | Key Sections/Provisions | Scope | Relevance to Biological Warfare |
| India | Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005 (Amended 2022) | Sec 8(3) (Prohibition of biological weapons); Sec 8(4) (Transfer prohibition); Sec 12 (Financing prohibition); Individual & corporate penalties | Comprehensive WMD prohibition including biological weapons, toxins, dual-use materials, financing of WMD activities | Primary legislation prohibiting development, production, stockpiling of biological weapons; Covers dual-use biotechnology materials |
| Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Biosafety Regulations | Rules 1989: RCGM Guidelines 2017: Risk Group classification (RG1-4), BSL-3/4 certification requirements | Biosafety regulations for recombinant DNA research, hazardous microorganisms, genetic engineering oversight | Regulates dual-use research, pathogen containment, prevents accidental release or misuse of dangerous organisms | |
| Biological Weapons Convention Implementation (National Framework) | Article IV implementation measures; Export controls on dual-use biological equipment and materials | Implementation of BWC obligations, export controls, international cooperation on biological security | Ensures compliance with international BWC obligations, prevents proliferation of biological weapons technology | |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 | Sec 113 (Terrorist act); Provisions for terrorism-related biological threats | Criminal law provisions applicable to biological terrorism and organised biological crimes | Addresses criminal use of biological agents for terrorism or organised crime purposes | |
| The Disaster Management Act, 2005 | National Disaster Management Guidelines | Prevention and preparedness shall focus on the assessment of biothreats, medical and public health consequences, medical countermeasures and long-term strategies for mitigation. | Nationwide quick response to biothreats | |
| United States | Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, 1989 (As Amended) | 18 USC S.175 (Prohibited activities); 18 USC S.175a (Requests for military assistance); 18 USC S.175b (Possession by restricted persons) | Federal prohibition of biological weapons development, production, stockpiling. Military assistance provisions | Primary federal criminal law criminalizing all aspects of biological weapons development and use |
| Federal Select Agent Program Regulations | 42 CFR Part 73; 9 CFR Part 121; 7 CFR Part 331; FBI BRAG security risk assessments | Regulation of dangerous pathogens and toxins (Select Agents), laboratory security, personnel screening | Controls access to agents most likely to be weaponized; Prevents terrorist acquisition of dangerous pathogens | |
| Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act, 2002 | Sec 212 (Registration of facilities); Sec 221 (Regulation of certain biological agents and toxins) | Enhanced controls on biological agents, facility registration requirements, bioterrorism preparedness | Strengthens oversight of dual-use research, enhances biodefense capabilities against biological weapons | |
| USA PATRIOT Act, 2001 – Biological Weapons Provisions | Sec 817 (Expansion of biological weapons statute); Enhanced penalties for bioterrorism | Expanded definition of biological weapons, enhanced penalties, restricted person prohibitions | Strengthens anti-bioterrorism laws, prevents access by potentially dangerous individuals | |
| United Kingdom | Biological Weapons Act, 1974 | Sec 1 (Prohibition of biological agents); Sec 1A (Transfer prohibitions); Implementation of BWC Article I | Implementation of Biological Weapons Convention, prohibition of development and use of biological weapons | Primary BWC obligations, criminalizing all biological weapons activities |
| Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001 – Schedule 5 | Schedule 5 (Dangerous pathogens and toxins list); Security requirements for dual-use agents | Security controls for dangerous pathogens and toxins with dual-use potential, facility security requirements | Prevents terrorist access to dangerous biological agents, ensures secure handling of dual-use materials | |
| Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (COSHH), 2002 | Schedule 3 (Biological agents); Hazard Group classifications (HG1-4); Containment level requirements | Workplace health and safety regulations for biological agents, containment requirements, risk assessment | Ensures safe handling of dangerous pathogens, prevents accidental releases that could be exploited | |
| UK Biological Security Strategy, 2023 | Understand-Prevent-Detect-Respond framework; Microbial Forensics Consortium; a £1bn investment programme | National biological security strategy, early warning systems, responsible innovation in biotechnology | Comprehensive strategy for biological threat detection, attribution, and response including engineered pathogens | |
| Australia | Gene Technology Act, 2000 | Sec 192A (GMO dealings); Licensing requirements for genetic modification; Risk assessment frameworks | Regulation of genetically modified organisms, dual-use genetic research, synthetic biology applications | Regulates genetic modifications that could be misused for biological weapons development |
| Criminal Code Act, 1995 – Weapons Provisions | Division 72 (weapons); Sec 72.1-72.8 (Development, production, use prohibitions) | Criminal prohibition of weapons development, production, stockpiling, use, and transfer | Primary criminal law implementing BWC obligations, comprehensive prohibition of biological weapons activities | |
| Biosecurity Act, 2015 | Part 2 (Managing biosecurity risks); Emergency response powers; Prohibited goods provisions | Comprehensive biosecurity framework, emergency response to biological threats, border controls | Provides framework for responding to biological attacks, prevents importation of dangerous biological material | |
| Defence Trade Controls Act, 2012 | Dual Use and Military Technology List; Export controls on biological equipment and materials | Export controls on dual-use biological technologies, equipment, and materials with weapons potential | Prevents proliferation of dual-use biological technologies that could be used for weapons development | |
| UN | International Health Regulations (2005) | Revisions on global health security | Regulation of health beyond nations | Governs epidemic alert and response, global public health response to natural occurrence, accidental release or deliberate use of biological and chemical agents or radio-nuclear material that affect health etc. |
India’s legal framework provides a strong founda – tion for managing biological threats and imposes strict penalties. Additionally, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, establishes mandatory risk classifications and containment requirements essential for regulating dual-use research. To enhance biosecurity, India has specialized practices that enforces stringent security and personnel protocols for high-risk pathogens. Further – more, integrating a strategic policy to foster coordinated responses and investment in microbial forensics has also been enabled through the National Disaster Management Guidelines.
The ‘White War:’ Economic Warfare in a Globalized World
Last but not least, an emerging national security concern is the economic threat, often referred to as ‘White War.’ This term describes strategies deliberately employed by enemy nations to undermine the economic foundation of a target country, triggering an economic crisis. This form of conflict aims to diminish the enemy’s capacity for warfare by restricting their resources and access to essential items, such as food products and markets, while also destabilizing their financial assets.14
Presented below are certain legal frameworks evincing to address such new economic challenges;
| Country | Legal Framework | Key Sections/Provisions | Scope | Relevance to Economic Warfare |
| India | United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 | Section 2 (Implementation of UN resolutions) | Implementation of UN Security Council sanctions and embargoes domestically | Asset freezes, trade embargoes, financial restrictions, travel bans |
| Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Delivery Systems Act, 2005 (Amended 2022) | Section 9(3)-(4) (WMD prohibitions), Section 12 (Financing prohibition) | WMD proliferation prevention, dual-use materials control, financing prohibition | Export licensing denial, asset freezing, proliferation network disruption | |
| Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 – SCOMET | Section 5 (Foreign Trade Policy), SCOMET List | Export controls on strategic/dual-use goods, technology transfer restrictions | Technology export denials, dual-use goods embargoes, licensing requirements | |
| Customs Tariff Act, 1975 | Section 9 (Countervailing duty), Section 9A (Anti-dumping), Section 8B (Safeguard duty) | Trade remedies against unfair imports, emergency protection measures | Anti-dumping duties, countervailing duties, safeguard measures, price controls | |
| Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 | Section 3 (Money laundering offense), Section 5, 8 (Attachment/Adjudication), Section 12 (Reporting) | Anti-money laundering, proceeds of crime, sanctions evasion enforcement | Asset attachment, financial intelligence, sanctions evasion prevention | |
| United States | International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) | 50 USC S.1701-1708 (exp. S.1702 Emergency powers, S.1705 Penalties) | Presidential authority for economic sanctions, asset blocking, trade restrictions | Comprehensive economic sanctions, sector-wide restrictions, asset blocking |
| Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) Sanctions Regulations | 31 CFR Parts 500- 31 CFR Part 561 (Procedures/Penalties) | Comprehensive sanctions administration, SDN listings, licensing procedures | Targeted sanctions, sectoral sanctions, correspondent banking restrictions | |
| Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) 2018; Export Administration Regulations (EAR) | 50 USC S. 4812, S. 4819; 15 CFR Parts 730-774 | Export controls on emerging/foundational technologies, dual-use items | Technology export controls, deemed export restrictions, end-use controls | |
| Arms Export Control Act (AECA); International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) | 22 USC S. 2778; 22 CFR Parts 120-130 | Defense articles and services export controls, arms trade regulation | Arms embargoes, defense technology restrictions, brokering controls | |
| Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) – Defense Production Act S.721 | 50 USC S. 4565 (CFIUS review authority) | Foreign investment screening for national security risks | Investment blocking, divestiture orders, mitigation agreements | |
| Trade Remedies and National Security Tariffs (Section 301, 232, 201) | 19 USC A. 2411 (Section 301), 19 USC A 1862 (Section 232), 19 USC A. 2251 (Section 201) | Trade retaliation, national security tariffs, safeguard measures | Retaliatory tariffs, import restrictions, trade war measures | |
| Economic Espionage Act; Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) | 18 USC A. 1831-1832 (Economic espionage); 18 USC A.1836 (Civil remedies) | Protection against economic espionage and trade secret theft | IP theft prosecution, trade secret seizure, economic damage remedies | |
| United Kingdom | Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act (SAMLA) 2018 | Section 1 (Sanctions regulations), Section 11 (Enforcement), Section 44 (Information powers) | Post-Brexit autonomous sanctions, asset freezes, trade/financial measures | Targeted sanctions, asset freezes, trade restrictions, financial measures |
| Export Control Act 2002; Export Control Order 2008 | Section 1-2 (Export licensing); Export Control Order 2008 Schedules | Strategic goods export controls, dual-use and military items | Strategic export licensing, technology transfer controls, embargo enforcement | |
| National Security and Investment Act 2021 | Section 1 (Call-in powers), Section 13 (Mandatory sectors), Section 26 (Final orders) | Foreign investment screening and national security remedies | Investment blocking, unwinding orders, conditional approvals | |
| Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 | Regulations 3-5 (Trade secrets protection and enforcement) | Trade secrets protection against misappropriation | IP protection, trade secret enforcement, competitive advantage preservation | |
| National Security Act 2023 | Section 13-16 (Foreign interference offences) | Foreign interference criminalization including economic coercion | Economic coercion criminalization, hostile interference prevention | |
| Australia | Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011 | Section 10 (Sanctions regulations), Section 15-16 (Criminal offences) | Autonomous sanctions independent of UN, targeted financial measures | Targeted financial sanctions, trade restrictions, asset freezing |
| Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (Amended 2020) | National security test provisions; Call-in and last resort powers | Foreign investment screening, national security review process | Foreign takeover blocking, conditional approvals, national champion protection | |
| Customs (Prohibited Exports/ Imports) Regulations; Customs Act 1901 | Prohibited export/import controls and permit requirements | Strategic goods embargoes, controlled imports/exports | Import/export bans, strategic goods controls, permit denials | |
| Criminal Code (Espionage & Foreign Interference) 1995 | Part 5.2 (Espionage), Part 5.6 (Foreign interference) | Economic espionage criminalization, foreign interference prevention | Economic espionage prosecution, foreign interference prevention |
India’s legal framework for economic security and warfare is comprehensive yet decentralized. A key strength is the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) that bolsters financial security and combats money laundering.
To further enhance resilience against modern economic threats, India should adopt best practices from the US, UK, and Australia. This includes establishing a national security- focused foreign investment screening mechanism similar to CFIUS and the UK’s National Security and Investment Act, which allows for the review and blocking of foreign investments threatening national security. Additionally, criminalizing state-sponsored economic coercion, as seen in the UK’s National Security Act 2023 and the Australian Criminal Code, can provide more protection against espionage.
Conclusion & Way Forward for India: Adopting a Unified and Proactive Strategy
India must adopt a collective and unified approach to building a robust regulatory ecosystem. to promote innovation and to develop the crutial skills for enhancing national security.
India is at a crucial juncture, with the opportunity to establish a strong regulatory compliance system aligned with the National Cyber Security Strategy 2020-2030. This initiative aims to enhance our cybersecurity infrastructure and promote collaboration between public and private sectors. By improving threat data sharing and recognizing specialized cyber capabilities, we can bolster our deterrence and response strategies. This proactive approach will address current challenges and ensure a resilient digital future, safeguarding the nation’s interests.
India has rightly started but has to strengthen the comprehensive framework that brings together government, private sectors, law enforcement agencies, and academia. This partnership can enhance infrastructure and develop proactive defense mechanisms against cyberattacks that disseminate disinformation. Widespread sharing of guidelines, safety and response protocols will enhance national security.
Further, specific regulations for high-risk pathogens, codifying a comprehensive National Biosecurity Strategy, enhancing enforcement mechanisms for dual-use export controls and such measures will strengthen our ability to manage biological incidents effectively and position India as a leader in global biosecurity domain.
Future legislative initiatives should unify and strengthen economic security laws to effectively address non-traditional threats. A comprehensive foreign investment screening law will enhance our ability to protect our economy, while bolstering defenses against economic espionage and foreign interference is crucial for fostering growth.
By embracing these reforms using a comprehensive approach, India can cultivate a legislative environment that not only addresses internal disruptions but also fortifies its defenses against external threats and manipulations and can foster stability and integrity in the years to come.
| Number | Author(s) | Title and Publication Details | Topics Covered |
| 1 | Dr. (Ms.) Banusri Velpandian, Senior Specialist, Law & Salil Tripathy, Legal Consultant | Computer science vol. 10 e1772. 15 Jan. 2024 | Cyber warfare, Law |
| 2 | Imperva | Imperva, What Is Cyber Warfare: Types, Examples & Mitigation, Imperva, 2025 | Cyber Warfare |
| 3 | Clapp, Sebastian | EU Member States’ Defence Budgets. European Parliament Think Tank, 7 May 2025. | Defense Budgets, Military/Economic Warfare |
| 4 | European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) | Threat Landscape for Ransomware Attacks, 29 July 2022. | Cybersecurity, Ransomware |
| 5 | Hasina Malik & Sheeba Afridi | The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Modern Warfare and International Security, ResearchGate, December 2024 | AI, Modern Warfare, International Security |
| 6 | European Union Agency for Cybersecurity, ENISA | Threat Landscape 2023, Chapter 10: July 2022-June 2023 (Oct. 2023). | Cybersecurity, Threat Landscape |
| 7 | Manuj Aggarwal | Ransomware Attack: An Evolving Targeted Threat (presented at the 14th International Conference on Computing, Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT), IEEE 2023), at Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, available at ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10308249. | Ransomware, Cybersecurity |
| 8 | Media Defence | Module 8: “False News,” Misinformation and Propaganda – Misinformation, Disinformation and Mal-Information, Modules on Litigating Freedom of Expression and Digital Rights in South and Southeast Asia (2022). | Disinformation, Misinformation, Propaganda, Freedom of Expression (Psychological Warfare) |
| 9 | Iftikhar, Saman | “Cyberterrorism as a global threat: a review on repercussions and countermeasures.” PeerJ. | Cyberterrorism |
| 10 | Binder, Jens F. and Jonathan Kenyon | “Terrorism and the internet: How dangerous is online radicalization.” Frontiers in psychology vol. 13 997390. 13 Oct. 2022 | Terrorism, Online Radicalization (Psychological Warfare) |
| 11 | Artika, I Made, and Chairin Nisa Ma’roof | “Laboratory biosafety for handling emerging viruses.” Asian Pacific journal of tropical biomedicine vol. 7,5 (2017): 483-491 | Laboratory Biosafety, Emerging Viruses (Biological Warfare) |
| 12 | Caichi Liao, Shadow Xiao, Xia Wang | Bench-to-bed-side: Translational development landscape of biotechnology in healthcare, Health Sciences Review, Volume 7, 100097, 2023. | Biotechnology, Healthcare, Dual-use Technology (Biological Warfare) |
| 13 | Maria Teresa Della Mura | From Biowarfare to Bioterrorism: The Future of Biological Threats in the AI Era, Tech4Future, Feb 25, 2025 | Biowarfare, Bioterrorism, AI |
| 14 | Fred Buchstein | Economic Warfare, EBSCO Research Starters (History) (2022) | Economic Warfare |
