INTRODUCTION
In view of increasing use and misuse of technology in the 21st century, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal was created to combat cybercrime and punish individuals involved. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal was formally constituted by the Information Technology Act, 2000. The tribunal has been entrusted with an exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, it can exercise its appellate jurisdiction over a judgment or order made by the Controller of Certifying Authorities or the adjudicating official, both on the facts and in law. In simple words, it has the legal power to investigate the judgment or order’s rightness, legality, and propriety.
However, the effectiveness of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal has fallen short of expectations as compared to other tribunals. It is critical to improve technological capability in order to deal with any issue that may arise. Integrity, secrecy, and authenticity of communication channels and procedures are required to make it effective. Certain types of offences necessitate the use of special courts that can make decisions more quickly. Decisions are likely to be made faster if natural justice is used instead of C.P.C. This article deals with the Cyber Appellate Tribunal vis-à-vis its effectiveness. Read on!
CYBER APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Any person who is unsatisfied with an order issued by the Controller of Certifying Authorities or an adjudicatory officer may submit an appeal with the CAT under the Information Technology Act. The CAT is led by a chairperson appointed by the Central Government via notification under Section 49 of Chapter X of the IT Act 2000. It will have as many other members as the Central Government specifies from time to time.
Eligibility of the chairperson– If an individual is eligible to be a judge of the High Court, he/she is eligible to be the chairperson of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. However, before being appointed as the chairperson of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, an individual must retire from the previous designation.
Term of office-The Chairperson or Members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is appointed for a 5-year tenure under Section 51 (1). The tenure begins on the day he first steps into his office. This will continue for five years or till he turns 65 years old, whichever comes first.
Orders constituting Appellate Tribunal to be final and not to invalidate its proceedings- The decision of the Central Government designating any individual as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal cannot be contested in any way, per the Section 55. Moreover, no “act/proceeding” before a Cyber Appellate Tribunal can be criticized in any way solely because of a flaw in the Tribunal’s Constitution (Section 55), and no order of the Central Government selecting an individual as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal can be questioned in any way.
Civil Court not to have jurisdiction– If Section 61 of the IT Act of 2000 authorizes the adjudicating officer or the Cyber Appellate Tribunal to deal with particular issues, then no civil court can hear a suit or proceeding in that matter. Furthermore, no court can give an injunction against any conduct taken by an individual in the exercise of any power conferred by the Act.
Powers of Cyber Appellate Tribunal- Since the CPC does not bound the tribunal, it is allowed to control its own procedures. It is, nevertheless, regulated by natural justice principles as well as other sections of the Act. The tribunal has the same authority as a civil court.
HOW MUCH EFFECTIVE HAS IT BEEN?
Every state’s Department of Information Technology is obligated to construct a website that provides individuals with direct links to the different redressal processes established under the Information Technology Act of 2000, as well as raise knowledge about how these mechanisms work.
In reality, when an individual attempts to connect the websites of the states’ information technology departments, the websites are either reported to be inoperable or missing the necessary information for a layperson to grasp the scheme of redressal mechanisms. While these IT department websites remain down or have been demonstrated to be insufficient, the IT Act Notification No. 240, which mandates that the Department of Information Technology develop infrastructure, becomes a questionable reality. For example, the Maharashtra government’s website has been down for the greater part of the last two years. Not only Maharashtra, but also other Indian states such as Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Bihar, to name a few, lack fully-functioning, stable platforms for registering an online complaint with the Adjudicating Officer under the IT Act.
Even the Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ Consumer Protection Act allows for e-filing of grievances through their “Consumer Commission Online-Application Portal,” which can be found at the website is well-organized, containing e-filing guidelines and video lessons for the step-by-step e-filing method. Furthermore, anyone with exposure to the consumer protection forums’ verdicts may see how the system works, making the entire process extremely open.
The Supreme Court’s decision to go virtual in 2017 with the introduction of the e-filing system has to be given the due importance. With the establishment of the Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS), it is now feasible to file a case online and watch its progression. The new model, which can be reached via www.sci.gov.in and supports multiple functionalities like registering cases, verifying listing dates, case status, and online service of notice/summons, was created to act as a digital archive for lawsuit data.
Additionally, the high courts of every state have their own webpages that deliver internet services like e-filing, case status, and daily cause lists, among other things. Each of these characteristics of internet services contribute to the effectiveness of these grievance systems. The Gujarat High Court made history by becoming the first to broadcast live court hearings on YouTube. When we look at these projects, we see that the scenario with information technology sites is completely dilatory, and thus fails to produce the effectiveness that is needed.
Furthermore, adjudicating officers from the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Delhi are by far the most duly proactive in adjudicating the cases before them, as opposed to other Indian states who are suffering. The fact that there is a dearth of complaints brought before the adjudicating officials of these regions is the cause for their lag, which is due to the common population’s lack of awareness of the availability of any such system for obtaining justice under the IT Act, 2000.
It’s like a never-ending perpetual cycle. There is still no comparable endeavor by state governments to raise broad awareness of the legislative powers of an adjudicating officer under the IT Act. It’s also worth noting that the majority of the adjudicating officers’ decisions aren’t accessible to the public. Assume that anyone wishes to see copies of the judgments. In that situation, it is unreachable because there is no public domain set up for viewing prior Adjudicating Officers’ judgments under the IT Act.[1]
Therefore, when compared to other Courts/Tribunal, it can be clearly understood that Cyber Appellate Tribunal is far behind. When this fact is viewed in the light of ever-increasing number of cyber crimes, there is a strict need for this Tribunal to start working effectively and come up with a web framework to ease the availability of justice to the cyber crime victims.
WAY AHEAD
As there is no framework in place to monitor whether Indian state governments are making substantial initiatives to strengthen their technical facilities required to conform with the central government’s order, steps must be taken to ensure the same. In other words, the existing framework can be expected to function only if the government creates the appropriate infrastructure (through tech and personnel) outlining the step-by-step procedure of its operation, choices available for submitting online complaints, and making clear the process for handling complaints before the adjudicating officers.[2]
[1] Arundhati Roy, Detailed analysis of an adjudicating officer u/s 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, IPLEADER (Oct. 01, 2021), https://blog.ipleaders.in/detailed-analysis-adjudicating-officer-u-s-46-information-technology-act-2000/.
[2] Saumya Tripathi, An overview on cyber appellate tribunal in India, LAWSISTO (Sept 30, 2021), https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/Njc4MA==/AN-OVERVIEW-ON-CYBER-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-IN-INDIA.
YLCC would like to thank Mili Kanoujiya for her valuable insights in this article.
