Naavi.org

This is in continuation of the previous article “Is a WhatsApp Notice valid in law?… A Case for Cyber Notice service“.

The copy of the order of Mr Khemka is now available and reproduced here. Some key observations in the order are discussed here.

First point of observation is that the order states that the mobile number of the respondent to whom the WhatsApp notice was ordered to be sent was provided by the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner did not have first hand knowledge of the mobile number. It was the advocate of the petitioner who stated that he had spoken to the respondent and informed him about the summons and he had refused to provide his address.

Based on this averment, the Financial Commissioner ordered that an “Image” of the summons be sent through WhatsApp by the respondent and the same shall be treated as proper mode of service. It was also ordered that the petitioner would  produce proof of electronic delivery through WhatsApp messenger by taking a print out and duly authenticate the print out by affixing his signature.

It appears that the Financial Commissioner ignored the fact that “Electronic Documents” need to be authenticated with digital signatures and print outs of electronic documents need to be authenticated with Section 65B certificate to be admissible as evidence.

The order  therefore appears to be not in conformity with the laws applicable to electronic documents under ITA 2000/8. The Financial Commissioner may assume certain powers to define the procedures for the proceedings in his Court. But whether it extends to ignoring provisions of ITA 2000/8 is a moot point.

The Financial Commissioner has  quoted a Supreme Court Order in the case M/s. SIL Import, USA v. M/s. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore, (AIR 1999 SC 1609) to substantiate his stand that technology advancement has to be adopted by Courts. We fully agree that certain flexibility to adopt technology through creative interpretation of legacy law is acceptable and desirable but such interpretations should be used to fill gaps in the law and not to openly flout other laws.

The decision arrived by the Financial Commissioner here does not appear to have been based on proper appreciation of ITA 2000/8 and can create a bad precedent which may spread misunderstanding of the WhatsApp system and its validity under Indian law.

The Supreme Court case used as a support for this decision  referred to the validity of  a “Fax”  message as a valid notice regarding dishonour of a cheque just before the time available for notice was to expire. The Supreme Court allowed the use of Fax as a valid mode of transmission of a notice. The circumstances of this case was not directly applicable to the current case before the Financial Commissioner.

The technology of Facsimile transmission is not a transmission of an “Electronic Document” and is not covered under ITA 2000/8. Fax message is to be treated as a transmission of an analog message over telephonic network covered under the Telegraph Act and hence ITA 2000/8 may not be applicable to it. Also this Supreme Court decision was a “Pre-ITA 2000” decision and requires to be reviewed even if in today’s context, a Facsimile messages may be sent as a digital transmission.

Hence relying on this decision by Mr Khemka as the Financial Commissioner for a transmission of an electronic document which falls well within ITA 2000/8 is debatable.

In our opinion, WhatsApp messaging or SMS can be considered as an electronic document and would be valid as equivalent to a paper document. But it would be considered as an “Unsigned” paper document if it is not digitally signed with the use of a digital signature certificate issued by a licensed certifying authority. If it has to be admitted as evidence, collateral information has to be added with suitable meta data and definitely a Section 65B certified document.

In the subject case, WhatsApp message was being used as a substitute for a Court summons and additionally, it was not even sent from the Court’s phone number or e-mail. The Court delegated the sending of the notice to the petitioner who had a vested interest in the notice. The Court also does not seem to have made any effort to check if the averment made by the petitioner that the respondent is indeed a owner of the said mobile number and he was using the WhatsApp account (which has its own distinct code) to which the message was ordered to be sent. Hence it is difficult to presume that the summons can be considered as not having been properly issued by the Court..

The order can therefore be considered as a decision that can be challenged and overturned.

Naavi

A Financial Commissioner (FC) Court in Haryana, considered as a quasi judicial body headed by the IAS officer Ashok Khemka has created what can be considered as a “Double Edged Precedent” by sending a “Summons” through WhtsAPP. (I suppose thsi Ashok Khemka is the same person who made news by his fight against Mr Robert Vadra).

As per details available here the order was passed since the petitioner in a partition case did not have the address of the respondent since he had shifted out to Kathmandu but as per the records of the Commission, the person had spoken over phone but not revealed his address.

Mr Khemka seems to have observed that “An E Mail address or a mobile phone number is also the address of a person in the present times” and ordered that the summons may be sent by a WhatsApp message and a “Printout” of the delivery report on WhatsApp shall be considered as a proof of delivery.

At first glance this is a progressive thought and Mr Khemka should be congratulated in thinking creatively.

But it must be observed that the Court  did not make an attempt to get the registered billing address of the SIM card from the mobile service provider which would have solved its immediate problem and also provided validity to the ownership of the device as belonging to the respondent.

Naavi has been pioneering the principle that “Cyber Notice” is more relevant than other forms of notice  and even set up the service under “Cyber-notice.com” to provide legally valid notices in Cyber Space.

Mr Khemka’s Order is welcome as it shows the preparedness of the judicial authorities to think positively about the use of technology for legal notices. However, it is necessary that the notices are served in a manner that it cannot be legally questioned unless the notice is only a matter of special privilege granted to the litigant and the Court would be prepared to hear the case ex-parte if he does not show up.

A notice otherwise has to meet the legal requirements of the land and a mere serving of the notice on the WhatsApp and taking the colour of the right tick on the message as a “Delivery Receipt” is fraught with dangerous undesirable consequences.

While on the one hand, some Courts are challenging “Talaq” over Whats App and some are questioning the legal validity of WhatsApp itself, for one other Court to give legitimacy to WhatsApp notice is a huge contradiction.

Under the principles established by Naavi at Cyber-Notice.com or ceac.in, electronic notices are served but with a trusted third party taking up the responsibility for creating documentary records which add weightage to the evidence created for delivery with a Section 65 B Certification.

In the Khemka’s order, there is an assumption that a person spoke from a mobile number who was by voice identified as so and so and that phone number was considered as his address. Then the notice itself was sent to an intermediary called WhatsApp which redirected the message to an App supposedly installed in the same mobile number and relied on the colour coding of the delivery information that is displayed on the mobile.

What if the voice recognition of the person is not made? What if the WhatsApp application is actually installed on a device other than what is indicated or accessed only from a web application?, What if the delivery system does not function reliably? are questions that needs to be answered if the notice is to be considered as acceptable.

If CEAC.IN or Cyber-Notice.com had handled this notice delivery, it would have created supplementary records and provided a Section 65B certification for the process. With the evidence so created, the delivery would have been considered much more acceptable in law than it will be by the Court registrar sending a WhatsApp message to a number believed to be controlled by the respondent.

Naavi

It is reported that former Supreme Court Judge, honourable Justice Shiva Kirti Singh will be the next chair person for the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

The appointment is for a period of 3 years and he takes over the position which was vacant since last June.

TDSAT has become relevant for Cyber Law and Cyber Crime watchers since it is now also the “Appelalte Tribunal” under Information Technology Act 2000/8 and will be hearing all the appeals against the orders of the Adjudicating Officers.

The report in Economic Times reporting the appointment highlights the high profile disputes before the TDSAT between Jio and Airtel etc. Obviously, the attention of TDSAT will be on such high profile and high stake complaints. Against such complaints, the appeals that are being transferred from CyAT to TDSAT will be too insignificant for  TDSAT to even glance at. There is every likelyhood of Cyber Crime victims getting a lower priority in resolution of their disputes.  It is precisely for this reason that Naavi.org has been uncomfortable with the designation of TDSAT as the Appellate Tribunal under ITA 2000/8.

We have also highlighted that the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CyAT, now called Appellate Tribunal or AT under ITA 2008) was headed by a Chair person at the level of High Court and below and it made sense that the appeal from CyAT went to a High Court. Now TDSAT is headed by a Chair person at the level of the Supreme Court and it makes it difficult how the appeals can be heard by the High Court which consists of Judges who are perhaps junior in stature.

The Judiciary is very conscious of their hierarchy and protocols and hence the move of the Finance Minister in merging CyAT with TDSAT is considered as leading to many practical issues which ultimately affects the Cyber Crime Victims adversely.

This is all the more reason for the Cyber Crime victims to seriously look at the proposition of Cyber Disputes Mediation and Arbitration (CDMAC) put forth by Naavi. (Refer www.cdmac.in)

Naavi

For those who know how the Judicial system functions, it is needless to say that it is always a pain to pursue justice through normal Courts. We are tired of the saying “God sees the truth but waits”. Many would say that I can tolerate injustice but not end less delay.

Further, Courts operate under the constraints of what the lawyers propose to them and not entirely on the basis of truth. More often we see Courts saying, based on the evidences before me, I come to this judgement. There are only a few honest and bold judges left in the system who can try to see the truth behind the powerful arguments put forth by the “Senior Advocates”. We know that these “Senior Advocates” collect crores of rupees as their fees based on their power to lie and also how much they can corrupt the system which we believe to be honest.

All litigants therefore should look to go the Courts only as a “Last Resort”.

In the case of business related disputes, normally both parties are normally reasonable and the dispute would be only because of a difference in interpretation of some terms. Hence both parties are not interested in wasting their time in Courts and hurting their further businesses.

Alternate Dispute Resolution therefore comes in as a relief to most. Only those persons who want to use Courts as an instrument of prolonging injustice prefer to litigate.

Hence there is no second thought that if an alternative dispute resolution process is available every litigant would like to avail of the same.

It was with this belief that Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code (Refer this article for details) provided that in any Civil Proceedings the Court  tries to persuade the litigants to try the ADR before the Case proceeds in the Court.  Such process could be through the process of a Court appointed mediator. However despite more than 10 years since the amendment came in force on 1st July 2002, not many litigants are using the facility.

The section states as follows:

(1) Where it appears to the court that there exist elements of a settlement which may be acceptable to the parties, the court shall formulate the terms of settlement and give them to the parties for their observations and after receiving the observation of the parties, the court may reformulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for

(a) arbitration;

(b) conciliation

(c) judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat; or

(d) mediation.

(2) Where a dispute had been referred-

(a) for arbitration or conciliation, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply as if the proceedings for arbitration or conciliation were referred for settlement under the provisions of that Act.

(b) to Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the same to the Lok Adalat in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and all other provisions of that Act shall apply in respect of the dispute so referred to the Lok Adalat;

(c) for judicial settlement, the court shall refer the same to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat and all the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 shall apply as if the dispute were referred to a Lok Adalat under the provisions of that Act;

(d) for mediation, the court shall effect a compromise between the parties and shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed.

Unfortunately the established legal community  may not be keen on the success of the ADR process  since any curtailment of litigation in Courts directly affects their revenue potential. The new generation of advocates however may not be averse to striking settlements and acting as mediators since this is the only method by which they can break into the system otherwise firmly occupied by the senior advocates.

However, until recently the Arbitration system had its own weaknesses because of which it only prolonged the litigation rather than eliminating it. Also in most cases, arbitration was always thought of only as a part of the pre-dispute agreement and parties never trusted to enter into an arbitration when it was not mandated in the agreement.

Now with the new amended Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2015 (ACA 2015) being in force, the ADR process has got a big boost in terms of ensuring that there is no delay in the arbitration process nor there is an automatic stay of the arbitration award when an appeal is filed.  Additionally, the new Act tries to promote digital communications and opened the means for ODR (Online Dispute Resolution).

With the advent of the new ACA 2015, all judicial precedents of the past have lost meaning and we need to look at every thing afresh. We are in the After Amendment Era where the before Amendment Era judicial pronouncements are all amenable to be questioned and over turned.

It is therefore essential for all Civil disputes to make use of the benefits of ADR and this move has to be initiated by the parties at the time of contracting. Those contracts in which an Arbitration clause was not a part should be reviewed now or even after a dispute has formally arisen to introduce an ADR process.

An ADR process need not always be the Arbitration. It may be a “Mediation” or “Conciliation” that is an attempt to achieve a negotiated settlement with the assistance of a professional mediator. Arbitration however is more binding.

Legally, there is no difference between Mediation and Conciliation though technically, a Conciliation may be a process in which the Mediator may try to achieve a settlement with the force of the respect that the disputants place on  his stature and knowledge.  Ultimately however, a mediation/conciliation ends up with a settlement agreement between the parties out of their own free will.

Arbitration on the other hand may be a forced award which one party may not like and therefore wish to challenge.

As regards Criminal proceedings, there are provisions of “Compounding” (Sec 320 of CrPc) where there could be a negotiation between the accused and the victim which may result in the proceedings being dropped. (See the details here).

(P.S: CDMAC will address compounding under ITA 2000/8 which will be discussed separately in a subsequent article)

In summary we need to recognize that the time for ADR has arrived and without simply complaining about the delays in the Courts, inefficiency or corruption of Judges etc, we need to explore settlement of all our disputes through Negotiation, Mediation/conciliation or Arbitration.

Courts are the last resort for seeking justice and the more we avoid them better it is.

Naavi

CDMAC is the proposed “Cyber Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Center”,  promoted by Naavi, a pioneer in Cyber Laws in India  and founder of www.naavi.org and its associate services. (Check www.adr.ind.in)

This Center proposes to offer Mediation and Arbitration Services mainly for disputes arising out of any contravention of Information Technology Act 2000 (ITA 2000) as amended from time to time.

ITA 2000 envisages that disputes arising out of any contravention of the Act leading to a claim of damages by any person against another is resolved through an “Adjudication” process under Section 46 of the Act. Under this provision, the IT secretary of each State or Union Territory have been designated as the Adjudicator with a jurisdiction extending to that particular State or Union Territory. The process of adjudication is an “Enquiry process” leading to an award which is enforceable like a revenue recovery. An appeal on the decision of the Adjudicator lies with the “Appellate Tribunal.

(P.S: Until 31st of March, the appellate authority was called Cyber Appellate Authority or CyAT with an office at Delhi. This has now been merged with Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Authority or TDSAT and is referred to as the “Appellate Tribunal”).

The parties to an adjudication are open to enter into compounding any time before, during or after the adjudication process. (Section 63) The Compounding is arrived between the parties and placed before the Adjudicator for ratification.

Ideally, the compounding is amenable to “Mediation”. However, if the parties agree to voluntarily subject themselves to arbitration and for placement of the arbitration decision before the adjudicator for ratification, the Adjudicator has no reason to object.

It will be necessary for the mediation agreement or the arbitration award to be within the limits of penalty set in the Act.

In the case of criminal prosecution where the Police file a charge sheet in the magistrate’s court, under Section 77A, compounding is permissible excepting for offences under certain sections. Again the compounding application has to be made to the competent Court which may agree.

Therefore in both the Civil and Criminal cases, the disputing parties may come to an agreement between themselves so that they can agree to avoid or cut short the litigation process which is painful for both. Such an agreement of compounding has to be conducted under supervision to avoid coercion, misrepresentation and other illegal methods of arriving at an agreement. It is therefore preferable if such a process is managed under the guidance and supervision of a “Mediation and Arbitration Center” following certain norms which are fair and legally correct.

In the past 17 years since ITA 2000 has been in operation, the Adjudication system and the Appellate System have both had a checkered history. While Adjudication did take off in 2008 in Chennai and later continued well in Mumbai, presently, it is in a limbo everywhere. CyAT on the other hand was unable to settle even one appeal brought before it properly after adjudication.

The present scheme under which the TDSAT would be the appellate authority will be increasing the cost and inconvenience of Cyber victim litigants. Hence there is a dire need for an Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism to be developed for Cyber Disputes so that the agreed settlement can be presented to the Adjudicator or a Criminal Court for quick settlement where possible.

In the last 17 years this thought has never been brought before the Government and this is the first time such a proposition is being made.

Obviously, the first reaction could be skeptical. But if one thinks a little deep into the benefits of this system as proposed here, Government, the Judiciary, the Police and the litigants will all consider it a good solution to squeeze out a number of disputes from being held up in Courts over a long period with no benefit to anybody.

I request experts including Mr T.K.Vishwanathan who is now heading a Committee for amending ITA 2000/8 to consider this proposal and facilitate its acceptance.

Since the proposition is well within the legal provisions as of today, Naavi declares a  launch of this Mediation and Arbitration service straightaway and will wait for disputing parties to realize the benefits and approach the Cyber Disputes Mediation and Arbitration Center as indicated here.

As of now the rules of mediation and arbitration of the center has not yet been announced and will be presented soon.

Comments are welcome.

Naavi