Jurisdiction aspects in IIPM issue

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Vijayashankar Na

According to the IIPM blocking report, the order to block 78 websites was based on a court order in Gwalior.

The actual order of DIT however does not mention any Court order. It simply says “It has been decided to immediately block the following URLs”

It is not clear why IIPM decided to contact a court in Gwalior instead of a Court in Delhi where IIPM has its main activity. In fact there must be some interesting reason what benefit IIPM foresaw in approaching a Gwalior Court. Perhaps it was aware that DIT had a special respect for this court.

The second aspect is that should an order of a Court in Gwalior  have be considered to have jurisdiction only for the region to which the Court’s has jurisdiction. By virtue of this order, the constitutional rights of millions of Indians in places outside the normal jurisdiction of the Gwalior court has been infringed without any body being given an opportunity to defend. This also means that the dispute resolution clauses of website disclosures and terms and agreement where the choice of a forum has been indicated is rendered meaningless.

If we recognize that the blocking order was issued by the DIT in regions to which the Gwalior Court order may not apply, it means that the action of DIT was illegal. Under Section 69A of ITA 2008 and the rules there under blocking of any website outside the provisions of law is equivalent to an offence under Section 66 of ITA 2008 and hence punishable with imprisonment for who so ever caused the same.

Visitors can provide their views on the issue.

Copy of the DIT order

See CIS view

Naavi

Posted in ITA 2008, Netizen's Forum, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

GOI blocks 78 URLs on IIPM issue

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Vijayashankar Na

In a matter of grave concern to the activists of freedom of expression, CERT IN has ordered blocking of 78 URLs allegedly inimical to the interests of IIPM. Surprisingly the blocked URLs include a notification from UGC stating that IIPM is not a “University” under the UGC act.

The report in Medianama also states “What is worrying is that the blocks include URLs of news portals like Outlook Magazine, Careers360, The Times of India, FirstPost, Rediff, The Indian Express, The Economic Times, MensXP, The Wall Street Journal, The Caravan Magazine, whose reports related to IIPM have been blocked. Apart from this, spoof news site Faking News has 8 URLs in the list (some repeated), while a URL from The Unreal Times has also been asked to be blocked. Also blocked are blog posts from 2005 and 2006 critical of IIPM, including those from Gaurav Sabnis and Rashmi Bansal. Apart from this, URL on consumer complaints portals Akosha and consumercourtforum.in related to IIPM has also been ordered to be blocked, as well as a compilation of links on Bitly by Mahesh Murthy. The Wall Street Journal and Caravan Magazine have their Arindam Chaudhuri specific tags in the list for blocking as well”

Does it mean that IIPM should be allowed to continue its misleading advertisements? What is the ground on which news about blocking has also been blocked? Is it not a matter of fact that the news papers were reporting? ..are issues which need debate.

Though CERT IN has taken shelter under a “Court Order”, it is surprising that CERT IN did not consider countering the Court with information that UGC was actually doing its statutory duty in publicising the notice and many other sites were only carrying the news relevant at that point of time.

The matter requires an immediate reconsideration.

I also reproduce here a post made in naavi.org in October 2005 about IIPM which indicates that the controversy with IIPM has been in existence since a long time.

IIPM Issues e-Legal Notice to Bloggers

In what could be a fight for “Freedom of Speech over the Internet” and  “Journalsitic rights”  Vs Commercial interests, IIPM has challenged Bloggers who wrote articles on the alleged false and fraudulent statements made by IIPM for marketing its programmes. This follows certain allegations that IIPM has made false claims in a Mumbai based web journal published a few articles on IIPM which the latter finds defamatory.

IIPM does not appear to have issued any rejoinders but has issued a legal notice threatening arrest of the blogger within one day and demanding withdrawal of his article and holding him responsible for links in other websites/blogs etc. At this point of time the action contemplated by IIPM on the magazine is not known.

An interesting academic aside to the controversy is the validity of the e-legal notice issued by IIPM to an e-mail address. If accepted, this could begin a new trend in the use of IT in litigation. Additionally if the case is pursued against a Blogger and not the original publisher of the article, the differential status of a “Blog” and “Website” may also come to be discussed.  Copy of iipm notice: Related info. : Bloggers Beware (article from naavi.org)

Judgement in Uttarakhand High Court dt 20.10.2010 regarding Buckingham business school degrees on defamation

Naavi

Posted in Cyber Law, Netizen's Forum, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dear RBI Governor, Can you do what you are suggesting others?

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Vijayashankar Na

I would like to draw the attention of RBI to the following paragraph in the discussion paper on Disincentivisation of Cheques issued by them.

“companies, schools and educational institutions, etc which receive payment and (should) provide an immediate documentary evidence to the payer in the form of printable receipts “

I would like RBI to first introduce a printable acknowledgement for any complaints filed with RBI through their website under the “Contact us” link. Presently we only get a note on the web “Mail sent”. This is insufficient. RBI should send an acknowledgement through email along with a copy of the message posted with the digital signature of a responsible officer of RBI.

Will the Governor and ED of RBI make suitable arrangements for such an acknowledgement say by tomorrow?

Naavi

 

Posted in RBI | Leave a comment

Dear Senior Citizens, You are unwelcome at Banks..implies RBI

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Vijayashankar Na

The RBI discussion paper on “Disincentivisation of issuance and use of cheques”  wants to impose penalties for using cheques in banking transactions as also for cash withdrawals and deposits. Instead it urges people to shift to Internet banking and ATMs.

As an ex-banker I am aware that many senior citizens take pride in visiting banks and doing their transactions in person. Some times they write a cheque and send it with somebody to draw money. Now as per the RBI’s intentions, senior citizens will not be welcome at the branches. If they withdraw or deposit cash, they may have to be prepared to pay charges. If they take a cheque book, issue a cheque or gve a cheque for collection, they need to pay charges for each such transaction.

If this means that the Senior Citizens need to change their banking habits, RBI has a convenient suggestion. Change over to Internet banking and use ATMs. If you want to pay your utility bills, use NEFT. Where you want to issue cheques, send it through Internet Banking.

Is this a practical suggestion for Senior Citizens?

I request associations of Senior Citizens to ponder over this suggestion of RBI and send their responses to RBI. Since the discussion paper is available only on the Internet and response can be sent only through e-mail, if you are not on the Internet bandwagon now, then you may not know that such a discussion paper actually exists. In fact those who are likely to be adversely affected by the RBI’s proposed changes may not even be reading this website and this message.

I therefore request all of you who are reading this message reach out to Non Netizens you know of and inform them of the impending danger to their financial life.

-Tell them that E-Banking in India is a risky affair where every year more than Rs 8000 crores are lost due to cyber frauds.
-Tell them that Banks in conspiracy with RBI are trying to introduce E Banking and simultaneously trying to shift cyber fraud liabilities to the customers because laws of banking in the cheque environment are too well established to be manipulated where as laws of E Banking is considered amenable for manipulation because there is still “lawlessness by administrative and judicial inaction” in the E Banking arena.
-Tell them to go their banks and demand a copy of the “Discussion Paper on Disincentivisation of issuance and usage of cheques” issued by RBI on 31st January 2013 and on which you can submit your views before 28th February 2013.
-Talk to your friends and take a collective action
-Take a class on Internet, Internet Banking, Cyber Crimes and Cyber Security to protect your hard earned savings in the Bank
-Tell them to address a letter to Governor, Reserve Bank of India, D.N.Road, Mumbai 400001 and inform

” We strongly oppose any move of RBI to disincentivise the issue and use of cheques and limit the number of cash transactions as proposed in the discussion paper issued on January 31, 2013. We want a commitment from RBI that there will be no tampering with the basic legal structure of banking in India to reduce the protection available to Bank customers in the form of frauds in the use of E Banking. We want immediate implementation of all recommendations made by the Damodaran Committee on Customer Service with immediate effect”

Naavi

Posted in Bank, Cyber Crime, Cyber Law, RBI | 2 Comments

Bandit Veerappan and his Wife’s claims of Copyright

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Vijayashankar Na

Recently a film has been released in Kannada called “Attahasa” which documents the story of Veerappan a notorious bandit who worked as a sandalwood and ivory smuggler in the forests in Karnataka,TN and Kerala. He was known for many notorious and brutal killings of Police officers and suspected informers. People in Karnataka will never forget the fact that he finally kidnapped Dr Rajkumar a matinee idol of Karnataka one of the most respected figures in karnataka.

Coincidentally four persons of the Veerappan Gang are now facing death sentence (Veerappan himself was killed in an encounter) and are now on the verge of execution with the rejection of their mercy petition by the President. In the light of the impending execution some supporters of the bandit are raising objections to the execution. In connection with this yesterday there was a heated debate in one of the Kannada TV channels where Mrs Muttulakshmi the wife of the bandit particiapted. She had a view that she had a “Copyright” on any film that is produced on Veerappan and the film producer had failed to get her permission to produce the film.

In this connection I have a serious doubt on how “Copyright” can be claimed by Veerappan’s wife for the story that involves Veerappan and his criminal deeds which are a representation of actual facts. It is not an artistic or literary creation of either Muttulakhsmi or even Veerappan himself. At best Muttulakshmi may have an objection that the depiction of Veerappan in the film is “Defamatory”.

I request other legal experts to comment on this academic issue.

Naavi

Posted in ITA 2008, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

RBI Move will encourage Private Cash Management Services

Posted on February 17, 2013 by Vijayashankar Na

The ill advised and illegal move of RBI to “Disincentivise usage of Cheques” through policy measures of penalizing cheque issuers and cheque beneficiaries is likely to have a serious negative impact on the economy with a significant increase of cash in private hands.

The apprehension that penalizing Cheque usage may lead to slippage of the economy into more cash usage has been recognized by the RBI but is being wished away as an issue that can be addressed with further penalization of cash transactions. The discussion paper suggests charging for Cash withdrawals and Cash deposits may be for transactions beyond a minimum number or value.

Penalizing an alternate that a consumer may use with further penalties is a “Negative Approach” to management and is likely to only trigger an “Emotional Disconnect” between the consumer and the service provider. We see this in the Income Tax arena where no IT payer is friendly with the IT collector. He sees the IT system as an unwelcome robber of legitimate revenue earned by him. This feeling has been reinforced over a period of time with every genuine tax management effort of a citizen being penalized with further provisions while the money collected is visibly used for the benefit of corrupt politicians in the Government. If Banks slip into this mode of penalizing every alternate measure adopted by the customer to avoid charges on cheques, then we will gradually see a build up of anti-bank sentiments. While RBI allows usurious charges to be made on say credit card borrowings both in terms of interest at the rate of over 36% p.a. and late payment fee of over 1000% p.a, pre-closure charges etc., if Banks start charging for switching over from cheque system to cash since they consider it more convenient, we will see bank customers trying to build some alternate methods of cash management to avoid the Banking system itself.  . RBI will then have to keep a separate division to check the violation of banking laws by citizens and start prosecuting such persons all over the country. Like IT department running a large enforcement wing, RBI will also need to have an enforcement wing for the purpose with the attendant costs.

In the meantime the private sector will be finding its own Cash Management syndicates where cash will be collected from the doorsteps of a business each evening and managed for the benefit of the customer. Members of a closed system may even find ways of inter account transfer and we will soon have a local money exchange service which may provide door delivery of cash withdrawals also. “Door to Door Cash Service” will therefore spring up initially in small communities and later as networks. Money will move out of the Bank system and remain in this alternate system. As the volume grows RBI needs to step in to plug this as a “loophole” and take up enforcement of its ill advised policies. If Desk to Desk couriers can survive the competition of the mammoth Postal service, it is not unthinkable for the Door to Door cash managers to carve out a profitable business model. Afterall the system is already in place in the Havala market defeating the Exchange contro regulations which is basically illegal. On the other hand the local cash exchange may be more legal until such time that laws are changed to make them illegal.

I hope RBI will realize its folly and withdraw the discussion paper and the suggestions contained there in at the earliest.

You can read the discussion paper and Naavi’s response here:

Naavi

Posted in Bank, RBI | Leave a comment