The Information Technology Act, 2000 established the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. As the name suggests, the Tribunal exercises appellate jurisdiction only. It has the authority to hear appeals on both questions of fact and law against decisions or orders passed by the Controller of Certifying Authorities or the Adjudicating Officer. In other words, it has statutory power to examine the correctness, legality, and propriety of such decisions or orders.
Section 48 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provides for the establishment of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Under this provision, the Central Government may, by notification, establish one or more appellate tribunals.
Although the powers of the Tribunal are limited, its jurisdiction is clearly defined by statute. Ordinarily, the Tribunal holds its sittings in New Delhi. However, if the Chairperson is satisfied that circumstances make it necessary to hold sittings at any other place, the Chairperson may direct that the Tribunal sit at such appropriate location.
Section 49 of the IT Act, 2000 deals with the composition of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal shall consist of a Chairperson and such number of other Members as the Central Government may notify.
A person shall be qualified for appointment as Chairperson of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal if he or she is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court.
Judicial Members of the Tribunal shall be appointed from among persons who are or have been members of the Indian Legal Service and who have held the post of Additional Secretary for a period of not less than one year, or a Grade I post in that service for a period of not less than five years.
Members other than Judicial Members must possess special knowledge and professional experience in fields such as information technology, telecommunications, industry, management, or consumer affairs.
Section 51(1) provides that the Chairperson and Members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which they enter upon their office. However, the term shall cease earlier if the Chairperson or Member attains the age of 65 years.
Under Section 52A, the Chairperson, being the Head of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, exercises both executive and administrative powers, including general superintendence and direction over the conduct of the Tribunal’s affairs. These powers include presiding over meetings of the Tribunal and exercising such functions as may be prescribed.
The Chairperson also has the authority to transfer cases, either suo motu or in accordance with prescribed procedures, from one Bench to another for disposal.
Section 54 of the Act deals with the resignation and removal of the Chairperson and Members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. A Chairperson or Member may resign by giving written notice to the Central Government. Upon receipt of such notice, the Central Government may relieve the person immediately or allow them to continue in office until the earliest of the following:
The Chairperson or a Member may be removed on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity after an inquiry conducted by a Judge of the Supreme Court. Under Section 87(2)(s), the Central Government is empowered to frame rules governing the procedure for such inquiries.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 consolidates and amends laws relating to the procedure of civil courts. However, under Section 58 of the IT Act, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is not bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, it is guided by the principles of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice require that a person must be given an opportunity of being heard before any adverse decision, direction, or order is passed.
In Union of India v. T. R. Verma (AIR 1957 SC 882), the Supreme Court held that tribunals must follow the principles of natural justice, which require that parties be given an opportunity to adduce all relevant evidence, that evidence be taken in the presence of the parties, and that the right of cross-examination be afforded.
The Cyber Appellate Tribunal also has the power to regulate its own procedure, including determining the place of its sittings. In the absence of a prescribed procedure, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure may be followed.
The Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall have the power to:
Under Section 57 of the IT Act, 2000, any person aggrieved by an order of the Controller or an Adjudicating Officer has the right to appeal to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. The right of appeal is a statutory right, and it is within the discretion of the legislature to determine whether such a right should be unconditional or subject to conditions.
Under Section 62 of the IT Act, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. However, the Act provides for a further appeal to the High Court on questions of law. Such an appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of communication of the Tribunal’s decision or order.
The proviso to Section 63(1) provides that the maximum amount of penalty imposed for a compounded contravention shall not exceed the maximum penalty prescribed for that contravention under the Act.
If a penalty imposed or compensation awarded under the Act is not paid, it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In such cases, the relevant licence or Electronic Signature Certificate shall remain suspended until the penalty is paid.
The cyber world, though distinct from the physical world, has the capacity to facilitate crimes similar to those committed in the real world. The Cyber Appellate Tribunal has been established to address such cyber-related disputes and ensure accountability.
The effectiveness of the Tribunal can be enhanced through greater public and institutional awareness, deployment of adequate manpower, and improved technological capabilities. Ensuring integrity, confidentiality, and authentication of communication channels is essential. For certain categories of cyber offences, specialized courts are necessary to ensure speedy justice. By following principles of natural justice rather than rigid procedural laws, the Tribunal is better positioned to deliver faster and more effective decisions.