| . | The notification of Rules under the ITA-2000 on October 17, has brought legal validity to the ITA-2000. Compared to the bizarre set of Rules notified in draft form on August 15, the present set of Rules is a huge relief. However, not all the changes that were proposed earlier by Cyber Law observers have been accommodated in the amended rules. Let’s briefly touch on some of the unfinished tasks that need s attention now. The ITA-2000 was expected to achieve three basic objectives, viz.
The second objective has also been covered to a great extent. Crimes such as Hacking, Virus Introduction, Credit Card Frauds etc have been recognized and punishments suggested. Publishing of Obscene materials on the Internet is also marked for stringent punishment. However the Act fails to balance out the suggested punishments for different types of crimes. For example, a criminal who enters a false Credit Card number and commits a virtual forgery is only required to compensate the affected person for the actual loss when proceeded against. On the other hand a person convicted of “Publishing an Obscene material” can be jailed for 5 years. Similarly, many of the administrative lapses of the Certifying agencies such as submission of returns, keeping proper accounts etc can be fined more than the fine that can be levied on a hacker. Such imbalances can only reduce the respect for the laws in the eyes of the community and can lead to corruption in the system. It is however in the area of providing a proper Justice dispensation system for Cyber Crimes that the Act falls severely short of expectations. In fact, lacuna in this regard may make the entire Act useless. It is a well known fact that courts in India are carrying a heavy backlog and cases often drag on for decades. For most part of the case it is the Plaintiff who suffers most by repeatedly visiting the courts while the defendant keeps on getting adjournments on one ground or the other and finally uses all technical reasons to frustrate the delivery of justice in time. If this system has to handle Cyber Law cases also, then no Netizen can expect any justice. It was therefore thought that the IT Bill had proposed the setting up of the office of the “Adjudicating Officer” (AO) with the powers of a civil court and the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (CRAT) as the next judicial authority to consider Cyber cases. Both the AO and the CRAT were supposed to work under simplified rules and bring quick end to Cyber cases. At the next level the appeals were to be taken by the High Courts. The interim Draft Rules of August 15 th had indicated that the AO would be appointed by the Government as and when necessary only. It was therefore not a permanent post. If therefore a Netizen had a complaint to make against an alleged cyber crime, he had to either approach the nearest Police station, or the Court or make an application to the authorities for an appointment of an AO. Obviously, this was no remedy at all. The new rules are silent on this aspect and we can therefore presume that the rules in this regard are yet to be formed. Until such time the Netizen can only try to lodge his complaint with the neighborhood Police station only. It is therefore absolutely necessary to ensure 1. Appointment of several AO s (say one in each State Capital) 2. Enable Complaints to be filed with them by the Netizens directly through online or offline means. 3. Ensure that after establishing prima-facie evidence of a crime the AO orders an investigation through appropriate Police authorities and 4. Provide quick award as per the provisions of the Act Unless this aspect is addressed immediately, the Act is as food as “Still born”. At best it can only serve the Government agencies to pursue crimes against the Government. But Netizens will have no remedy under the Act. Naavi
More Comments to Follow. |
. |