INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT

Legal recognition of electronic records:

• Where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in

writing or in a typewritten or printed form,then,no withstanding anything

contained in such a law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been

satisfied if such information or matter is:

• Rendered or made available in an electronic form .

• Accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.

Authentication of electronic records

• Electronic record to authentication by any subscriber

• Digital signature

• Hash function

• Electronic signature

• Asymmetric crypto system

E-GOVERNANCE

Following are the elements of e-governance:

• Legal recognition of electronic records

• Legal recognition of electronic signatures

• Use of electronic records and signatures in government and agencies.

• Delivery of services by service provider

• Retention of electronic records

• Audit of documents in electronic form

• publication of rules,reguations in the electronic Gazette, the official Gazette of the government.

ATTRIBUTION OF ELECTRONIC

RECORDS

• An electronic record shall be attributed to originator if sent by:

• The originator himself

• The person who is authorized by the originator

• The person through an automatic system organized ad authorized by the

originator .

SECURE RECORDS AND ELECTRONIC

SIGNATURES

An electronic record or signature is secured if:

• The signature creation data, at the time of affixing signature, were under the

exclusive control of signatory and no other person.

• The signature creation data were stored and affixed in such exclusive manner as

prescribed.

REGULATION OF CERTIFYING

AUTHORITIES

The central government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint

the controller of certifying authorities and also deputies ,assistants, and other

officers according to the provision of the Act. They will have power to:

• Recognize foreign certifying authorities

• Issue license for electronic signature certificates

• Grant, reject, or suspend licenses

• Delegate power of controller

Duties of Subscribers (sec 40-42)

• When the digital signature certificate has been accepted by a subcriber,which

is to be listed in the digital signature certificate ,he shall generate the key pair

by applying the signature procedure.

• The subscriber shall be deemed to have accepted a digital signature certificate

if he publishes or authorizes the publication of a digital signature certificate,

then he obliged to hold the private key corresponding to public key that all

information in the key is true

Penalties, Compensation and Adjudication

(sec 43-47)

• (a)Penalties for damage of computer systems :1 crore

• (b)Failure to furnish information,return,etc:1.5lakh

• (c) The adjudication is administered by the duly appointed officers by the

central government

Cyber Appellate Tribunal

• Establishment of the cyber appellate tribunal (secs 48-64)

• The act empowers the central government to establish by official notification in the official gazette, the formation of one or more as the need demands to appoint appellate tribunals.

• The act provides the formation and functioning of these tribunals.

• The appeal from the appellate tribunal shall be filed in the high court within 60 days from the date of communication of order or decision by the cyber appellate tribunal

Offences Punishments

Tempering with computer sources and documents. Imprisonment: Up to 3 yrs. /Fine: 2 lakh or both.

Computer-related dishonesty, fraud, etc. Dishonesty: Sec. 24 of Penal Code l 860/ Fraud: same as

above.

Sending offensive messages through communication

services.

Imprisonment: Up to 3 yrs.

Receiving stolen computer resources or communication. Imprisonment: Up to 3 yrs, with fine of 1 Lakh.

Identify Theft. Imprisonment: Up to 3 yrs, with fine of 1 Lakh.

Cheating by personating by suing computer resources. Imprisonment: Up to 3 yrs, with fine of 1 Lakh.

Violation of privacy Imprisonment: Up to 3 yrs, with fine of 1 Lakh, with fine

of 2 lakh or both.

Promotion of terrorism Imprisonment for linfe

Offences and Punishments

Offences Punishments

Publishing transmitting obscene material. Imprisonment of 5 years and fine up to 10 lakh.

Publishing transmitting sexually explicit material Imprisonment for 7 years and fine up to 10 lakh

Publishing or transmitting of sexually explicit material

depicting children.

First conviction: Imprisonment up to 5 years and fine of

10 lakh

Subsequent conviction: Imprisonment for 7 years and fine

up to 10 lakh

Prevention and retention of information by intermediaries. Imprisonment: Up to 3 years and fine

Failure of comply any regulation Imprisonment up to 3 years and fine of one lakh or both

Hacking into critical and Govt. information infrastructure. Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine

Misrepresentation Imprisonment up to 2 years and fine of one lakh

Offences and Punishments

Hindustan Unilever Employees

vs

Respondent:

The Inspector Of Factories

8th June 2011

The petitioner union has come forward to file the present writ

petition seeking for a direction to the first respondent

Inspector of Factories to consider the complaint, dated

20.2.2009 sent by the union and to take action against the

second respondent for removing "Optional Lock System" in

the computerized attendance system maintained in the second

respondent factory and for a consequential direction to the

second respondent to keep all statutory records and registers

prescribed under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948

and Rules made thereunder.

Facts

• It was stated that for computerising the Time Attendance System (TAS), permission will have to be

required from the Inspector of Factories and pursuant to the said permission, the computerised

system was introduced from the year 2003-2004.

• In the software utilised by the second respondent, whenever the workmen registered their names, it

was programmed in such way that registration will be directly rejected.

• Utilising the said programme and with a view to victimise the workers, the registration was locked.

• Therefore, the petitioner union stated that such procedure was illegal and they should discontinue the

TAS computerised system and that the original card system should be introduced.

• In respect to these allegations, the first respondent had stated that in terms of Section 4 of the Information

Technology Act, 2000, the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Puducherry had given permission to the

second respondent to maintain the following registers in a soft copy by letter dated 23.9.2000.

i) Muster Roll - Form No.23

ii) Over Time Register Form No.10,

iii) Register of National and Festival Holidays - Form No.6

iv) Register of Compensatory Holidays - Form No.9

v) Register of adult workers - Form No.12

vi) Register of leave with wages - Form No.15

JUDGEMENT:

Petition Dismissed

Reason

• As contended by the respondents, the union have agreed for the introduction of TAS system of attendance by a

settlement. Therefore, it is too late for the petitioner to question the same.

• Even otherwise, under Rule 104, the Chief Inspector of Factories can grant exemption in respect of any of the

provisions contained under Rules 97 to 102 in respect of any factories subject to such conditions. These rules

relate to the right of workman to have leave with wages.

• Apart from this, Section 4 of the Information Technologies Act, 2000 grants legal recognition of electronic

records.

• Section 4 reads as follows:

• ‘Legal recognition of electronic records: Where any law provides that information or any other matter

shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in

such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is-

(a) rendered or made available in an electronic form; and

(b) accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference.’

• Incase of violation of any of the provisions of the Factories Act or Rules made thereunder, it was

always open to the workmen or through their representative to complain to the appropriate authority

and seek readressal.

• In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, it is unnecessary to entertain the writ petition.

Hence, the writ petition will stand dismissed.

Thank You