|
After a long gestation, the IT Bill-99 finally was passed in the Loksabha on the 16th May through a voice vote. Even though 34 amendments proposed by the standing committee was accepted, these didn't make any significant change to the character of the Bill as it was earlier proposed. One important change that was accepted was the increase of penalties for some of the crimes such as publishing of Obscene material and Hacking. The other more significant change that has been accepted is the recognition that the Adjudicating officer should have some qualification relevant to IT besides Law. Whether this was also relevant for the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (CRAT) and what needs to be done in this regard is a matter of debate. The two clauses that were dropped were blatantly ridiculous and impractical and only demonstrated an over eagerness on the part of the framers to curb cyber crimes. One of this was relating to the records to be kept by Cyber cafes and the other was regarding registration of web sites with the controller. It is evident that even the earlier draft already contained a clause that required the network managers to keep records that would be required by law to fight crimes. Server log records as well as the identity of persons using a particular machine in a cyber cafe at a particular point of time, was well within the responsibilities of such a network manager as a normal precaution. Failure to do so could be interpreted as an assistance to commit a crime. The controversial clause was wholly unnecessary and its removal would in no way absolve a Cyber cafe owner from being an accessory to a Cyber crime through negligence. The other controversial clause regarding the registration of web sites with the controller was again a duplication of the domain name registry function and had no relevance. One of the other so called controversial clauses that was approved was the "Powers for a police officer to search and arrest without a warrant" in some cases. Those who objected to this as "Draconian" soon realized that such a law already exists and perhaps authorizes a Sub Inspector of Police to do the same thing which the IT Bill says can be done only by a Police officer of the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The objection therefore had no substance and fell on its own. One of the significant points that was missed in the Parliamentary debate which was unfortunately restricted to a little over a day was "How to provide the CRAT the technical assistance while hearing a case. It would have been interesting if we could have explored the Jury system during the Tribunal hearing. One of the positive aspects of the Bill is however that it aims at acting as a bridge between the Legal System based on the Paper system and the Digital world based on Electronic documents. Every crime that is presently recognized and punishable under any law at present, will therefore be automatically punishable even if electronic documents are involved in the crime. While penalties in such cases stated in the Act can be imposed through the simplified system suggested under the act, they can be later pursued through the high court for further examination both as to the adequacy of the punishment or for any other matter. It should also be recognized that the compensations indicated in the Act are limited only for each affected party and not in totality against the person committing the crime. This aspect coupled with the fact that the High Court could always go into the adequacy of the punishment makes it unnecessary to debate whether a hacker or a virus introducer should be penalized to the extent of Rs 10 lakhs or one Crore. Let us therefore leave behind issues that are not "Real Issues" and try to tackle what needs to be done for the implementation of the good intentions of the Bill. Na.Vijayashankar
|