PIL in Delhi High Court on Govt departments using email accounts on foreign servers and minors using social networking sites

The Delhi High Court, in a PIL,  is examining, among other things, the aspect of breach, if any, of provisions of Information Technology Act and of rules framed thereunder by internet sites like facebook and google by allowing persons below 18 years to enter into an agreement with these sites. It was pointed out by these sites that if it comes in the knowledge of any person that a child below the age of 13 years has opened such an account,  he may make a complaint to the social networking site who then take appropriate action, after verification, for deletion of that account. In this regard, Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 have been notified under the IT Act. Rule 3 requires due diligence to be observed by the intermediary. The social  networking sites such as Facebook and Orkut fall within the definition of “Intermediary” as per Rule 2(i) of the said Rules read with Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules applies to them. It was informed that in accordance with Rule 3(1), both Facebook and Orkut have published the Rules and Regulations as also the privacy policy and user agreements for access and usage of their computer resource. Rule 3(2) contains certain other directions as to what should be the content of the Rules and Regulations, terms and conditions and the user agreements. Under Rule 3(4), the intermediary can take action for disabling any such information as mentioned in rule 3(2), both on a complaint in writing from affected persons as well as on obtaining knowledge by itself. By virtue of a subsequent clarificatory notification, it has been clarified that the intermediary shall respond to or acknowledge the complainant within thirty six hours and the same shall be redressed promptly but in any case within 30 days. 

The court vide its order dated 23rd August 2013 directed, after being pointed out Rule 3(11), that intermediaries, including the social networking sites such as Facebook and Orkut, should immediately publish the names of the respective Grievance Officers on their websites alongwith contact numbers as well as the mechanism by which any user or any victim who suffers as a result of access or usage of computer resource by any person in violation of rule 3, can notify their complaints against such access or usage. This order was complied with by these websites, as recorded by the court in its order dated 23rd September 2013 and 30th October 2013.

The court in the said PIL is also looking into the issue of Government departments and officers using email accounts of service providers having servers located outside India and whether this violates provision of Public Records Act, 1993. It was informed to the court by the Government of India that the Government is on the verge of finalizing an E-mail Policy and Govt would ensure that there is complete conformity between E-mail Policy and the said Act with regard to public records.

The PIL will now come up on 26th September 2014. It was filed by shri K.N.Govindacharya and its case no. is Writ Petition (civil) No.3672/2012.

Complaint under Section 138 NI Act for cheque dishonor can be filed only at place where the account from which the cheque is issued and dishonored is located

In a landmark decision which is going to have very wide ramifications in the cheque dishonor cases throughout India, a 3-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 1st August 2014 in the case titled as 'Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra' held that a complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of cheque can be filed only in the court at the place where the bank branch in which the accused has his account and from which account the cheque was issued and dishonored, is located. This is departure from the earlier judicial dispensation whereunder the complainant could file case at any of the several places like the place where the cheque was deposited by the complainant. The latest judgment on territorial jurisidiction of criminal court in a case under Section 138 has taken into account the harassment faced by the people who are impleaded as accused in complaint cases filed under Section 138 at places far away from the accused's place. The court also took note of the fact that Section 138 of the NI Act is being rampantly misused so far as territorial jurisdiction for trial of the complaint is concerned.

The Court further clarified that all pending complaint cases under Section 138 where the case is still at early stage and recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of the NI Act after appearance of accused has not yet started, will be returned by the concerned magistrate's courts for the complainant to file the same in proper court within 30 days from the date of return of complaint. 

This judgment is going to affect lakhs of cases and is likely to set a milestone in criminal jurisprudence as far as the law relating to cheque dishonor is concerned. 

Read the Full Judgment.