DIT/Ministry of Information Technology ignores public interest
call
It was pointed out through these columns (Refer:
http://www.bloggernews.net/126784) that Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CAT)
of India, which is an important judicial office connected with Cyber
Crimes and contraventions under Information Technology Act 2000/8 has
been deliberately allowed to remain without a head since 30th of June
2011.
People who know Indian judiciary may laugh at my pointing out this lapse
since there may be many judicial positions in the country which remain
vacant for various reasons and for much longer periods. However the
inaction in the appointment of the Chairperson of CAT is more glaring
than other cases. If a Court with a sanctioned strength of 10 judges
have 3 or 4 posts remaining vacant it would be a 30 to 40% reduction of
capacity. But the lack of appointment in CAT is a 100% reduction of
capacity.
We are aware that CAT is the sole appellate authority for adjudications
from all 28 States and 6 Union Territories. i.o.w. cases from 34
different courts in India are expected to land up in CAT for a decision
on appeal. CAT itself is a fast court and is expected to take decisions
within 6 months. The responsibility of CAT has now been sought to be
increased by making it the appellate authority under the Right to
Privacy bill which is supposed to be introduced in the Parliament in the
next session. To let this institution remain head less is therefore a
huge lapse in the administration.
More over, DIT has been brandishing the ITA 2000/8 as the framework of
e-business in India upon which the future of Outsourcing industry
depends. When it comes to discussion with the international vendors on
whether there is Data Protection laws in India, DIT does not hesitate to
say that ITA 2000/8 is the law and India is ready to do business with
the world.
But what is the use of a law if there are no judicial bodies in place to
uphold the law?
Now DIT is by not appointing a suitable replacement for the current
Chair person or giving him an extension until a suitable substitute is
found, has created a situation which is equivalent to not having cyber
laws in India at all. We are therefore in the pre-2000 date as for as
effective cyber laws are concerned. Perhaps NASSCOM should take note of
this situation and stop misrepresenting to the global community that
India has robust Cyber Laws.
In the present instance Justice Sri Rajesh Tandon the incumbent Chair
person had an unexpired contract period for his appointment but due to
the reaching of super annuation age, his term has been affected. This
fact was known the day Mr Rajesh Tandon was appointed.
Any management person would therefore ask if the DIT had not diarised
the need to take a decision well in time so that the continuity of the
institution could have been preserved. The fact that DIT failed to act
in time is a reflection of its inability to manage its affairs.
It is agreed that it is not easy to find a judicial person who is also
technically informed adequately to head the CAT responsibilities. Mr
Tandon was a retired High Court judge and during his term of appointment
took the interest to complete a certification in Cyber law. It is
therefore strange that the DIT did not consider using his services for
some more time at least when there was no other replacement in sight.
For the department which has to fight a daily battle in the 2G case, the
decision to appoint a Chairperson to CAT or let it remain head less may
be the last priority. But for the people of this country this is a high
priority. While they donot know if they get justice they want from the
CAT, it will atleast prevent justice being delayed to the advantage of
the wrongful beneficiary of a Cyber Crime.
DIT should understand that there are many pending cases both in the CAT
and Adjudicating offices where many citizens of India who are victims of
Cyber crimes are crying for justice. All of them are now are made to
suffer more because of the inaction of DIT.
Over the last few months, I have personally brought the need for a quick
decision in the matter to the attention of the honourable ministers Mr
Kapil Sibal and Mr Gurudas Kamat, (Minister of State) as well as Mr R.
Chandrashekar, Secretary .
I have also requested honourable Chief Justice of India and honourable
President of India to interevene and ensure that the institution of CAT
maintains a continuity.
However it appears that the file remains with the DIT and the department
is more busy replying to the affidavit of Prashant Bhushan than
disposing of such important pending files.
It is a tragedy that activists like the undersigned have to use the web
to bring these into the attention of the concerned persons since people
who matter have no time to respond to letters and most of them are not
available on e-mail. (Even Mr Kapil Sibal’s e-mail as given in the MIT
site does not work). Unfortunately we donot have the resources to plead
for help from the Supreme Court under a PIL.
However it is the duty of every citizen to keep reminding our executive
and ministers of their duties hoping that at least some day the voice
will be heard. Hopefully the opposition political parties and the main
line media will find some time to address this relatively minor and non
controversial decision which is pending simply because the department
has zero priority for such issues.
I once again call upon the honourable minister Sri Kapil Sibal to devote
five minutes of his time today the 11th july 2011 to pick up the file
relating to the appointment of the Chairman of CAT and dispose it off in
whatever manner he considers it fit. If the department has identified a
suitable person for the position, let him take over at the earliest. If
not, I urge the Minister to take a decision to give an extension to the
current incumbent until a suitable person is found in replacement say in
the next 6 months or one year.
Simultaneously the Chief Justice of India should initiate action to
ensure that a few of the Judges who may be eligible for this position
and be available over the next one year for CAT services may be trained
in the Information Technology Aspects so that they can be appointed both
to the position of the Chairperson in Delhi as well as as additional
members either in Delhi or in benches of CAT at different places in
India. The Chief Justice may also consider if it is practical to depute
a sitting Judge and by rotation sitting judges of different high courts
in India may be assigned the role of the Chair person of CAT so that the
expertise in handling Cyber Crime cases spreads across the judiciary.
This request is in the interest of the Netizens of India and for
re-establishment of a judicially protected Cyber Law environment in the
Country which has not been in existence since June 30, 2011.
[P.S: I may be annoying a few with this note. My apologies to them. ]
Naavi
July 11, 2011
Comments are Welcome at
naavi@vsnl.com
