(Press note issued by Mumbai High Court for not providing timely hearing of Adjudication case)
The Adjudication system in ITA 2000 was one of the commendable features of Cyber Law in India trying to provide a fast track settlement of cases under ITA 2000. Unfortunately, many IT Secretaries donot take up adjudication cases. Some take up the cases and come out with questionable decisions. The intention of the law to get a decision within 6 months often remains a dream.
The undersigned was fortunate to lead the first adjudication case in Chennai in 2008 which took 2 years but was held briskly. Mr PWC Davidar was the adjudicator at that time and he was highly professional in his approach. However in the case against PNB, the Bank’s advocate played all tricks of delaying and the case got held up to such an extent that the case is yet to be decided. In Mumbai, one of the earlier IT secretaries, Rajesh Aggarwal was a very active Adjudicator who decided many cases in his tenure.
It now appears that all adjudicators have lost interest in such cases and it is very difficult to suggest cyber crime victims to approach the Adjudication.
The Cyber Judicial system has irrevocably failed.
In such a scenario, we must appreciate the efforts of Advocate Dr Mahendra Limaye who has approached the Mumbai High Court (Nagpur Bench) and got a notice issued to the Maharashtra adjudicator for not providing timely hearing.
A press note issued by the High Court in this regard is reproduced below.
“In a writ petition No.5058/2021 filed by Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur against 1) Govt of India through Department of Electronics and Information technology and 2) Adjudicating Officer Maharashtra, which was heard today by Hon. High Court’s Division bench consisting of Hon. Justice Atul Chandurkar and Justice Mrs. M.S. Jawalkar, a notice was issued to both the parties.
The petitioner has prayed for directions to be issued to Information Technology Secretary Maharashtra who is designated as Adjudicating Officer for timely conduction of Civil matters as mandated under Information technology Act.
It was contended by Adv. Dr. Mahendra Limaye, the lawyer for petitioner that complaint filed by petitioner bank since April 2019 has not been heard till date and many such matters are pending before Adjudicating Officer since more than 4 years. As per provisions of The Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of the Adjudicating Officers and manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules,2003, Section 4 – Scope and Manner of Holding enquiries at subsection (k) states that, “As far as possible, every application shall be heard and decided in four months and the whole matter in six months” but the respondent no.2 has not initiated and concluded the complaint filed before him on 20 April 2019, i.e. almost 35 months have been passed but no meaningful enquiry/hearing is conducted by the A.O. This amounts to non-following the due procedure established by respondent no.1 and also gross injustice to the petitioner who is also repository of public money being a Cooperative Bank.
The cyber crimes are increasing every passing day and there needs effective Civil as well as Criminal remedial measures for the same to provide justice to the victims. The statutory provisions of effectively providing the justice between 4 to 6 months, as far as possible, from reporting of the complaint is getting defeated by such inefficient judicial system which needs to be directed for speedier disposal of the matters.
Hon Court has issued directions for issuance of notices to the respondents.
Advocate Dr. Mahendra Limaye represented petitioner Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. Nagpur.”
I hope this will prompt other Adjudicators also to speed up their cases now.
We congratulate Dr Limaye for drawing the attention of the Judiciary on the lethargy of the State Government and the IT Secretary of Maharashtra.
Naavi
