Naavi.org

When ITA 2000 became a law in 2000, it prescribed a method of authentication in the form of Digital Signatures (Now expanded as Electronic signatures) as the only means of authentication of an electronic document. This provision meant that an un-digitally signed electronic document could not be considered as “Signed” document for contractual purposes. Hence there was a need for alternative methods of recording an online “Click Wrap Consent”.

The introduction of Aadhar based e-sign has made it simpler to obtain legally acceptable e-signed consent online but it still has a cost and the issue of use/disclosure of Aadhaar as for signing.

Naavi has suggested use of CEAC Drop Box as a kind of alternative to obtaining third party confirmation.

This problem has now got into prominence since “Consent” under DPDPA needs to be properly authenticated.

In the meantime there is the issue of “Stamp Duty” for digital contracts. During 1999-2000 when ITA 2000 was enacted, India was one of the early countries to adopt the mandatory digital signature system. At that time many countries including India did not specify that stamp duty was payable on electronic documents and some countries specifically mentioned that since there was no viable system for payment of stamp duty for electronic documents, it was exempted. India did not specify the reason but the Indian stamp act at that time could be interpreted as excluding electronic documents from the list of documents requiring payment of stamp duty.

The keeping of immovable property transfer documents from Schedule I of ITA 2000 was also linked to this problem.

During that time Naavi had introduced the “Digital Value Imprinted Instrument System” (DVIIS) as a system which combined the “Adhesive Stamp System” then prevailing with the “Digital Value Creation” in the back end server to enable a “Hybrid DVIIS coupon” that could be affixed on an instrument of contract along with payment of stamp duty online. This was in an era where there was no UPI system. It was an innovative system was even presented to the Stock holding Corporation before they came up with the e-stamping of non judicial stamp papers but was rejected in favour of an alternative foreign system.

Over the years, E Governance has moved forward and many State Governments passed laws to mandate payment of stamp duty even on electronic documents.

in September 2022, even the ITA 2000 was amended to remove the immovable property documents from the list of excluded documents for recognition under ITA 2000.

Many options are now available for online payment of stamp duty to the treasury and obtaining an acknowledgement such as a QR Code/Bar Code Receipt which can be affixed on an electronic document.

Hence currently the electronic documents are considered not excluded for stamp duty.

Kindly consider the previous views expressed in this website as suitably amended due to change of law.

We now however need to ensure that the nature of an instrument needs to be properly identified to distinguish “MOU” from an “Agreement”. We also need clarity on wehther MOUs also need minimal stamp duty or not.

MOU s are considered a documentation of intention and if organizations use MOUs to record their dealings with associates there may be a claim of stamp duty at some level.

While organizations may be fine with considering that the MOUs are not legally enforceable, the possibility of “Penalty” for not stamping the document even when not enforced in a Court could make it a “Compliance Issue”.

In a Privacy Contract where the notice asks for certain permissions which amount to monetization of personal data, there is an underlying financial value. Hence the “Consent” provided in the form of an “Acceptance” can be considered as an “Electronic Document that requires payment of Stamp Duty”.

If the data principal raises this issue with the Adjudicator and claims compensation, there could be a demand of the Stamp duty authorities that 10 times the normal stamp duty on agreements need to be paid and also linked to the value of the underlying data on which a dispute has arisen. Otherwise the document becomes infructuous both for lack of digital signature and lack of stamp duty payment.

It is necessary for MeitY to consider this ambiguity and ensure that there is a clarity on

a) Recognition of Click Wrap Contract which requires amendment of ITA 2000

b) Exemption of Stamp Duty which require amendment of several State Acts on Stamp Duty.

Since “Personal Data” can be “Nominated” DPDPA 2023 has already recognized the “Property Nature” of personal data and the established “Monetization” practices indicate a clear financial value for Personal data assets.

Hence if this ambiguity has to be removed, an amendment to ITA 2000 may be required.

Needs a debate..

Naavi

The virtual townhall meeting to introduce the concept of Association of Independent Data Auditors was held on 27th April 2026.

Here is a link to the recording of the proceedings.

An AI summary of the above event is available here.

Text Summary

Audio podcast

(P.S. Naavi has been posting video summaries created by AI. These could e considered as synthetic content . However the content is provided by Naavi as a prompt and the AI only summarizes. However in the summarization, AI does take some liberty. In case there is any error, kindly point out. We will try to correct it. Hope there will be no misleading information in these AI videos. If you spot any, please let me know. Such content will be removed.)