The section states-

" The appellant may either appear in person or authorise one or  more legal practitioners or any of its officers to present his or its case before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal Limitation "

At the same time, under Sec 58 (1) the Cyber Regulations Appelate Tribunal (CRAT) is empowered to define its own procedures for conduct by stating-

"The Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and of any rules, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall have powers to regulate its own procedure including the place at which it shall have its sittings."

In view of these provisions, there was no need for the Act to specify in Sec 59 who can represent the appellant. This could have been left to the Tribunal to define. Sec 59 is restrictive in the sence that the right to representaion is limited to a "Legal Practitioner".

Since the Cyber law is a complicated stuff and a "Legal Practitioner" may not be competent enough to handle the requirements of the case without an active assistance of a technology expert, the enquiry process can be highly inefficient. 

It is not clear what is meant by "or any of its officers". Probably this refers to the case of a corporate entity being the appelant where he can depute one of its officers. If this is so, the Company will have the option to depute a competent person even if he is not a legal practitioner.

A similar freedom should be available to non corporate appealants also and they should be permitted to represent themselves through any person of their choice.

Additionally the procedure for conduct should include electronic hearing through secured mode of realtime communication over Internet. (Secured Chat mode with digital identity of parties)

According to Sec 46,

(1) For the purpose of adjudging under this Chapter whether any person has committed a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, regulation, direction or order made thereunder, the Central Government shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section(3), appoint any officer not below the rank of a Director to the Government of India or an equivalent officer of a State Government to be an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry in the manner  prescribed by the Central Government.
 (2) The adjudicating officer shall, after giving the person referred to in sub-section (1) a reasonable opportunity for making representation in the matter and if, on such inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention, he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of that section.

At the same time, the same section under sub section (5) confers a judicial status for the findings of the enquiry.
 It states-
(5) Every adjudicating officer shall have the powers of a civil court which are conferred on the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 58, and - 

(a) all proceedings before it shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings  within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code;
(b) shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of sections 345 and   346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

On the one hand, the provisions indicate that the adjudicating officer will conduct an enquiry, while on the other hand judicial powers are being conferred on the proceedings. It is not clear whether the complainant and the defendants would be entitled to "Representation" during such an enquiry and if so whether they would have the freedom to  engage the services of any specialist for the purpose (not limited to a Legal Practitioner). 

Considering that the Adjudicating officer would have powers to fine upto Rs 10 million and sentence a person to imprisonment upto 10 years for even such crimes as "publishing obscene material", an innocent Netizen is in  serious danger of being held to ransom and destroyed, if the enquiry process is not conducted properly. If nothing else, the adjudicating officer can harass the victims by passing disproportionate sentences and will therefore be prone to be corrupt.

It is therefore absolutely necessary to have some safeguards in the system. Firstly the litigants should be permitted to engage one or more persons to assist them during the process of enquiry whether they are Legal Practitioners or not.
Secondly there should be a provision for an independent watch dog committee to sit through  the enquiry which should file a Confidential  "Due Conduct Report" which may be opened only during an appellate proceeding.

I am aware that suggestions made above will be frowned upon by both the Legal Community as well as the bureucratic community (from whom the Adjudicating Officers would be appointed). I fully acknowledge that there are many amongst them who are  extremely competant to handle the responsibilities envisaged under the Act. I am however certain that the number of such competant persons are too small today to meet the needs of the society. Hence there is a need to build checks and balances in the system so that inefficiency and corruption would not jeopardise the welfare of the  Cyber society that is emerging.

I also donot expect the Policy makers to be bold enough or flexible enough to incorporate the suggested changes either as part of amendments or the forthcoming Rules.

I would however like to keep these suggestions on record because I am  certain that they will be vindicated some time in the future. When observers of that time  look back at the efforts made by today's professionals, in providing the right advise to the law makers, they will atleast know that the need for a "Control Mechanism" for ensuring a "Fair and competant conduct of enquires was brought to the notice of the Government" and was not implemented.