The ineffective dispute resolution mechanism of cyber laws in India

Although the framework of the dispute resolution mechanism of cyber law, as discussed previously, appears to see this be promising in principle, it has not shown to be effective in practice. There is very little coverage of a cyber dispute, and no statistics on the number of cases adjudicated by police or the tribunal are accessible. The possible lacunas feeding on the resolution mechanism have been presented below:

The AOs are vested with humongous powers. They have the authority to rule on any law, rule, regulation, or instruction made under the IT Act of 2000. At the same time, there are several AOs dealing with identical challenges. As a result, there are opposing viewpoints on the same subject. For example, in Rajendra Prasad Yadav v. ICICI Bank (2011), the AO concluded that because the bank constituted a corporate body, Section 43 of the IT Act did not apply to it. AOs in other states, on the other hand, have reached different conclusions. Section 43 has been used against corporations in a number of situations. This might make it difficult for an organization to comply with the IT Act, 2000 since it may need to take into account the opinions of various AOs in order to operate across India.

To get adjudication orders issued under the IT Act, 2000, one must seek through state government websites that are difficult to browse. This issue is also not reported in prominent legal databases. Adjudication orders should be stored in a central database so that officers and other stakeholders would be able to resort to these adjudication orders when dealing with IT Act, 2000 infractions. It will also allow companies to keep track of cyber-conflicts.
By virtue of an old MeitY Order from 2003, the secretaries of state departments of information technology were supposed to be AOs.

In addition to completing their responsibilities as AOs, they are responsible for the administration of their department and are actively involved in the co-working of the government of the state they are appointed in. The dual nature of their employment is incredibly taxing. Given the rising number of cyber-crimes in the country, it is necessary to restructure the system for appointing AOs.

The capacity of AOs has to be increased. The United Kingdom’s Crown Prosecution Service has formulated the ‘Cybercrime-prosecution guidance’ which lays down major types of cybercrime, such as hacking and social media-related offences, and therefore serves as a guideline for deciding on cybercrime cases. In India, similar guidance should be formulated and implemented to ensure better complaint management.

There is no guiding document on the cyber investigation or cyber forensics in the Indian regulatory environment. The “Examiner of Electronic Evidence” was formed by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008. This organization offers professional advice on electronic evidence. Various forensic science laboratories have been appointed as examiners by the MeitY.

These labs are well-versed in the field of cyber-investigation. The 2003 Holding of Enquiry Rules, on the other hand, have not been amended since the 2008 amending legislation. The regulations must be changed to allow AOs to require such examiners to look into the issues before them in a better and efficient way. To better equip the police and other investigative authorities to handle such instances, rules or principles on cybercrime investigation should be established.

The TDSAT is solely made up of a chairperson and two additional members, as provided by the TRAI Act, 1997. Because telecom and information technology are two distinct areas, deciding between them necessitates a different set of skills. To deliberate on matters relevant to the issue, the TDSAT must strengthen itself and include specialists with expertise in information technology. Cyber appeals should be decided by a different bench for effective solutions to cyber challenges.