INTRODUCTION In today’s hyper-connected world, digital technologies shape every aspect of our personal, economic, and political lives. From communication and banking to healthcare and critical infrastructure, nearly every sector relies on secure and stable digital systems. Yet, with these advancements come growing threats of cyberattacks, data breaches, misinformation, surveillance, and digital warfare. These threats do not respect national borders, and their impact can be devastating and far-reaching. As a result, cybersecurity has emerged as a top global priority, demanding robust and effective legal responses. It has become one of the most critical areas of concern for governments, businesses, and individuals across the world. As technology advances, so do the risks and threats to digital systems. Cyberattacks can target governments, critical infrastructure, hospitals, banks, and even personal devices.  GLOBAL APPROACHES TO POLICY REGULATION  Global legislative measures and compliance requirements in cybersecurity differ significantly across regions, reflecting varying regulatory philosophies, enforcement mechanisms, and national priorities. In the United States, cybersecurity regulation adopts a decentralised, sector-specific approach. This model provides flexibility for industries but also results in regulatory fragmentation. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA, 1986) is a foundational law addressing unauthorised access to computer systems. While pivotal, it has drawn criticism for being overly broad and outdated in an era of evolving cyber threats. Additionally, enforcement often falls under agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has played a central role in regulating cybersecurity through case law, as seen in FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. (2015), where the court held companies accountable for failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity practices. In contrast, the European Union has developed a more centralised and uniform regulatory framework. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR, 2018) is one of the world’s most comprehensive data protection laws, setting strict standards for data processing, consent, and breach notification, along with significant penalties for non-compliance. Complementing GDPR, the Network and Information Systems Directive (NISD, 2018) establishes security and incident reporting requirements for operators of essential services and digital service providers. Key rulings like Schrems II (2020), which invalidated the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield over surveillance concerns, have further complicated transatlantic data transfers and highlighted the global impact of EU regulations. The Asia-Pacific region exhibits a diverse regulatory landscape shaped by differing national priorities. China’s Cybersecurity Law (2017) is marked by its emphasis on data localisation, governmental oversight, and control over cross-border data flows, reinforcing state cybersecurity sovereignty. In Japan, the Basic Act on Cybersecurity (2014, updated 2021) empowers the National Centre of Incident Readiness and Strategy for Cybersecurity (NISC) to lead national cybersecurity policy, fostering public-private cooperation. India follows a hybrid model: the Information Technology Act (2000) addresses cyber crimes like hacking and identity theft, while the newer Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023) strengthens privacy rights but allows exceptions for state interests. India also prioritises critical digital infrastructure, such as Aadhaar and UPI. Australia’s Security of Critical Infrastructure Act (SOCI, 2018; amended 2021) mandates incident reporting and imposes obligations on operators of essential infrastructure to maintain cyber resilience. In South Africa, a blend of criminal and data privacy laws has emerged through the Cybercrimes Act (2020) and the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA, 2013), aiming to combat digital offences while safeguarding personal data. Judicial decisions continue to shape global cybersecurity norms. India’s Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act, reinforcing free speech protections online. In the UK, R v. Andrew Skelton (2018) clarified corporate liability for internal data breaches. In China, Qihoo 360 v. Tencent (2013) exposed tensions between cybersecurity regulation and market competition. International Legal Instruments The Budapest Convention (2001) is the leading international treaty on cybercrime, promoting the criminalisation of offences like hacking and fostering cross-border cooperation (Council of Europe, 2001). However, key countries like India, China, and Russia have not signed it. India cites sovereignty concerns but supports many of its principles. The UN promotes responsible state behaviour through forums like the GGE and OEWG, though these often lack binding outcomes. Regional efforts such as the African Union’s Malabo Convention and frameworks from the Arab League and SCO remain limited by weak enforcement. Legal Challenges in Cyber Governance and the Way Forward One of the biggest legal challenges in cybersecurity is the lack of a global, binding treaty. This leads to conflicting national laws and confusion over jurisdiction when cybercrimes cross borders. Traditional mechanisms like Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) are often too slow for fast-moving digital threats. Another issue is that laws struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies. Areas like AI, cyber warfare, blockchain, and cloud regulation present new risks that most legal systems are not yet prepared for  To move forward, countries must harmonise key laws, improve cross-border cooperation, and build capacity through training and financial support. Public-private partnerships and awareness campaigns are also vital. Educational institutions should help train future legal and technical experts to ensure effective cybersecurity governance. ECONOMICS AND RESOURCES OF CYBERSECURITY In today’s digital world, cybersecurity is no longer just a technical issue. It has become an economic, political, and social challenge. As data, infrastructure, and services go online, protecting them involves not just money but also smart policy, strong partnerships, and proper regulations. Three main issues define the economics of cybersecurity: limited resources and outdated technology, the growing role of public-private partnerships, and different regulations across countries. Many organisations, especially small businesses and government departments, cannot afford the latest security tools. They often rely on old systems that cannot defend against modern cyber threats. For example, the 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack hit outdated Microsoft systems and caused damage in over 150 countries, affecting hospitals, businesses, and governments. There’s also a shortage of skilled cybersecurity professionals. As threats become more advanced, the number of trained experts is not enough. This creates a gap between the threats we face and our ability to deal with them. Wealthy companies can afford better security, while smaller ones remain vulnerable, increasing the overall risk. To handle these challenges, governments and private companies are

1.Introduction 1.1 Understanding Relative Income in Economic Decision Making Relative income, as opposed to absolute income, refers to an individual or household’s economic position in comparison to others within their society or social reference group. James Duesenberry formulated the Relative Income Hypothesis (1949), which emphasized that individuals derive utility not only from their income but also from how that income compares to the income of others. In the school- and education-related context, this means that the decision regarding school type (public vs. private), tutoring, and other learning resources is dependent not only on the economic circumstances of the household but also on social norms and competitive pressures. Relative income shapes educational expenditures in both up and downward directions. Frank (2007) argues that families are often pushed to spend on visible status goods by perceived social comparisons, with education being one of the most important ones.  In a study by the Pew Research Center (2020), 62% of parents from urban areas in India reported “keeping up with peers” as a major consideration while spending on private tuitions and elite educational systems.This shows the non-linearity of educational investments: families will make a priority not due to their expectations of educational attainment, but because their sense of relative deprivation.   1.2 Link between Income and Educational Choices Statistical evidence from across the world and from Indian studies points toward strong concurrence between the income level of the household and the access to education. A significant proportion of high-income families can afford private schooling, extra tutoring, digital resources, and extracurriculars, all of which combine to enhance educational attainment. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5, 2019-21), the net attendance ratio for secondary education in India in the richest quintile is 71 percent, while in the poorest quintile, it is only 41 percent. According to UNESCO (2022), drop-out rates before completion of primary education are four times higher for children from bottom 20% income households than for those from the top 20%. Moreover, the Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2023 further indicates that the higher-income households consistently perform better than their peers in foundational numeracy and literacy, suggesting that income determines not only access but quality and outcomes too.   1.3 Income Tax Policies as a Determinant of Educational Investment Income tax policy is one of the most important tools through which wealth can be redistributed in an economy. The way such tax policies are structured at a given time can either alleviate or exacerbate economic inequality. For instance, progressive taxation whereby wealthier earners pay higher taxes in proportion to their income is almost invariably associated with greater redistribution and greater public services, education among them. Regressive taxation, or systems with very few tax brackets and fewer redistributive mechanisms, on the contrary, tend to increase inequality and limit the potential for public investment. Countries with more progressive taxes and more public education expenditure, such as Finland, Sweden, and Norway, are also among the best-performing and highly unequal societies in the world, according to the OECD (2023). The tax-to-GDP ratio of India, which hovers around 11.4% (2022-23), is far below that of the OECD average of 34%. Public expenditure on education is still much lower than the world average at 2.9%, notwithstanding the Kothari recommendation of at least 3% of GDP. Such low fiscal space means relatively poorer access to investment in quality schooling particularly in resource-poor rural and peri-urban areas. Further, amendments in income tax laws, such as increased deductions for education loans under Section 80E or the introduction of the new tax regime in 2020, have introduced differential effects on households and have sometimes acted as incentives while at other times tended to act as deterrence on private educational investment. 2.Objectives The link between tax policies and education has increasingly gained currency among economists, policy-makers, and social scientists. This study seeks to assess how changes in the system of taxation, especially income taxation, affect household decisions about children’s education. The objectives are designed to look into direct economic effects and indirect socio-psychological effects concerning income inequality triggered by taxation. To analyze the impact of income tax reforms on household income and child education outcomes. Income tax legislation directly affects households’ disposable income. Governments utilize progressive tax structures, tax rebates, deductions for education, and conditional cash transfers to increase or decrease private investment in education. Regressive tax structures, on the other hand, put a heavier burden on poorer households, making them less able to invest in education. The focus of the goal is to look into how historical changes in income taxation policies have resulted in measurable differences in educational enrollment ratios, quality of education, and dropout rates across different segments of income.    To analyze the role of income disparity in shaping aspiration for and access to quality schooling beyond absolute income, relative income- how well off a household is vis-a-vis all others within its reference group- can also influence attitudes regarding education. Children from poorer families might have lowered expectation and low motivation or feel stressed by trenchant socio-economic contrasts within school settings. Conversely, families feeling such pressure to “keep up” might invest heavily into education at the expense of basic necessities. This goal examines how such disparities, often exacerbated by uneven tax burdens and limited redistribution, shape aspirations and ultimately cascade down into education pathways.   Theoretical Framework 2.1 Human Capital Theory First conceived by Theodore Schultz in the year 1961 and later amplified by Gary Becker in the year 1964, the Human Capital Theory describes education as a form of investment, just like physical capital, which gives back dividends in the form of increased productivity, better employment alternatives, and much more enhanced overall economic growth; according to the theory, households and individuals behave rationally in cozying up or letting go from investing their resources into education according to analysis of costs (tuition materials, opportunity cost of time) vis—vis expected returns-future income, job security, among others. According to this framework, household income becomes a significant determinant of the ability