Showing posts with label Perry4Law Techno Legal Base. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perry4Law Techno Legal Base. Show all posts

Sunday, September 4, 2011

Social Media Laws In India

Social media includes social networking sites, blogs, forums, wikis, etc. Social media is growingly seen as a medium to connect with millions of professionals, friends and like minded individuals and organisations.

India is also witnessing a growing revolution of information and communication technology (ICT) and social media usage. However, till now we have no social media policy in India. Even we do not have dedicated social networking laws in India that can take care of the misuses of social platforms.

However, the framework and guidelines for use of social media for government organisations has been recently suggested by department of information technology. Theses guidelines provide an Indian social media framework for governmental departments and organisations that employees of these organisations must follow.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) strongly recommend that Indian government must enact strong and effective social media laws, e-governance laws and e-commerce laws in India. These three fields are going to assume centre stage in the near future and their regulation by Indian government would be required.

Till now India has enacted a single technology law in the form of information technology act 2000 (IT Act 2000). It has tried to cover all the three issues but not with great success. This is so because these three fields are very vast and require a different treatment and separate law. Perry4Law and PTLB strongly recommend enacting suitable laws in this regard.

E-Commerce Laws In India

Electronic commerce in India (E-commerce in India) has slowly and steadily entered the Indian market. Toady from tickets booking to purchasing of good and services, everything happens in an online environment.

Of course, where commercial transactions occur, disputes and differences are bound to occur. To prevent and resolve these disputes we need norms, regulations and laws that are acceptable to all the stakeholders.

The e-commerce law of India is primarily incorporated in the information technology act, 2000 (IT Act 2000) that takes cares of legal obligations of both sellers and buyers of good and services in cyberspace.

The IT Act 2000 prescribes rules and norms for online contract formulation. The traditional concepts of offer, acceptance etc, as applicable under the contractual laws, have also been covered by the IT Act 2000. The only difference is that they have been customised as per the requirements of cyberspace.

However, e-commerce transactions and contracts also attract certain additional legal liabilities that e-commerce players in India are not very much aware. For instance, very few e-commerce players in India are aware that they are “intermediaries” within the meaning of IT Act 2000.

Further, other laws, including intellectual property laws, make these e-commerce players labile for civil and criminal actions. For instance, these e-commerce players can be held liable for online infringement of copyright in India of the copyright owners.

Similarly, if any person posts an offending material at the e-commerce site or otherwise deal with the e-commerce site in an illegal manner, the e-commerce site owner may find himself in trouble.

Cyber law due diligence in India is one aspect that all e-commerce site owners must frequently engage in. The present laws of India are stringent in nature and subsequently claiming ignorance of such laws would not make much difference.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) strongly recommend that before opening an e-commerce site or business, the owner of the same must consult a good techno legal law firm that can advice him upon all the possible and applicable aspect of e-commerce laws in India.

Saturday, September 3, 2011

Social Networking Laws In India

Social networking in India has increased tremendously. This has also given rise to many legal issues as well. Most of these legal issues are related to online acts or omissions that are resulting in giving rise to civil and criminal liabilities.

Laws ranging from intellectual property rights (IPRs) to information technology laws are applicable to social networking acts or omissions in India. The growing demands for cyber due diligence in India has further necessitated for adopting of a sound social networking policy in India by various stakeholders.

Social networking media is an “intermediary” within the meaning of Indian information technology act 2000 (IT Act 2000). Thus social networking sites in India are liable for various acts or omissions that are punishable under the laws of India. For instance, social networking sites are liable for online IPRs violations, including online copyright violations in India.

Although we have no law on the lines of online copyright infringement liability limitation Act (OCILLA) of United States yet the “safe harbour” provisions protecting intermediaries are not available under certain conditions as per Indian laws. Social networking sites must be aware of these limitations while operating in India.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we have been spreading public awareness about social networking issues in general and cyber laws in particular. We hope that social networking sites would be cautious while operating in India.

Social Media Policy Of India

Social media is playing an important role these days. Educated citizens are freely and openly airing their views on social media platforms. Many times such views are critical in nature that point to the shortcomings of governmental polices and functioning.

Obviously, governments cannot afford to take such criticisms casually. This is the reason why many countries have social media policy at place. India has no social media policy for governmental departments and its employees. Still many governmental employees are using various social platforms to express their views.

For the first time, a social media framework and guidelines for Indian government organisations has been suggested. However, keeping in mind the past record of Indian government, this may be another proposal that would not be fulfilled.

However, Indian government cannot take the social media policy casually. Information and communication technology has changed the way we communicate and share information. Social media is disruptive and potentially revolutionary in nature because it can connect large numbers of people with relative ease. Thus, it becomes important for the governments to have a separate social media wing that can communicate with its citizens in a timely and friendly manner.

The aim of any future social media policy of India must be to put citizens firmly at the centre of government service delivery and information distribution. Social media technologies can support this aim because they are intrinsically about dialogue and engagement within and between individuals and communities.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) have already started initiatives that can rejuvenate citizen to government (C2G) participation in India. In fact, Perry4Law and PTLB have already started the exclusive C2G LPO and KPO services in India.

We hope that sooner we would have an Indian social media policy that can cater the requirements of Indian citizens in the best possible manner.

Friday, September 2, 2011

CCTNS Project Of India To Be Launched Shortly

Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) Project Of India (CCTNS Project of India) is a serious effort on the part of Home Ministry of India to modernise the law enforcement functions in India. Although the modernisation efforts are in the pipeline yet they have not still matured fully.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we believe that cyber police reforms in India are urgently required. However, there is a void that has to be filled by Home Ministry before India can have a capable techno legal police force. PTLB has been managing a techno legal ICT training centre for police force that intends to fill this void and make our police force techno legal in nature.

A trained cyber police force of India is also required to effectively manage ambitious projects like CCTNS project of India. Further, if we talk about the national intelligence grid (Natgrid) project of India as well, we would also require intelligence gathering skills development in India.

The Union Home Ministry will launch its ambitious CCTNS project, as a pilot project, from September 1 in Assam, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh. This is only a trial run where they will use the software in the States to connect all the police stations and enable the police to track criminals in real time.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the nodal agency for the CCTNS, will launch pilot phase in the three States. As the NCRB does not have requisite capability, other experts would help it in achieving this task. Other checks on safety and quality will also be carried out during the pilot phase.

Once implemented, the CCTNS will facilitate collection, storage, retrieval, analysis, transfer and sharing of data and information between police stations, their state headquarters, central police organisations and other security agencies. Information on any case, right from an offence being registered to its investigation and prosecution will be available on a secure network at the click of a button.

Further, this capability of CCTNS project would also be added to the Natgrid Project thereby making information held by 21 databases available to security agencies. This includes immigration records, airlines, mobile, bank and credit card transactions and travel details creating a maze of rich data that would enable 11 intelligence and investigation agencies to launch hot pursuit of a criminal.

The CCTNS also offers benefits for ordinary citizens. It is expected to simplify the process of registering and tracking petitions and First Information Report (FIR), giving access to general services such as requests for certificates, verifications and permission, registering grievances against police, tracking the progress of a case during trail and access to reports for stolen or recovered vehicles and property through a citizen interface.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Why E-Courts In India Failed?

Electronic courts in India (e-courts in India) have been discussed in India for long but till now we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court in India. From time to time it has been reported that e-courts have been established in India but none of these claims are true.

There is no doubt about the proposition that e-courts infrastructure in India needs urgent rejuvenation. The so called e-courts project of India has failed to materialise and Indian government must seriously think in this regard.

To start with, we must stress upon e-courts skills development in India. At Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we believe that without adequate techno legal e-courts skills, the e-courts project of India would never materialise.

Realising this crucial shortcoming, Perry4Law and PTLB have even established the exclusive techno legal e-courts research, education and training institution of India and the world. The e-courts centre of PTLB provides many techno legal e-courts related services that can help in the successful implementation of e-courts project of India and other jurisdictions.

Indian laws and judiciary can become more user friendly through use of e-courts. Speedier justice through e-courts way is the future of Indian judicial system that has been ignored for long. Time has come to give e-courts a serious consideration, preferably on a public private partnership model.

Friday, August 26, 2011

Cyber Police Reforms In India Are Needed

Police reforms in India are long overdue. Whether it is on the front of legal framework, prison conditions, police accountability and transparency or any other similar aspect, police reforms in India have been stagnant.

Some of these reforms pertain to infrastructure while others pertain to policy formulation and still others regarding brand and image making of police in India. While these reforms can be managed through political will yet one reform area that cannot be achieved through mere political will pertains to training of police force in technology related issues.

For instance, we do not have enough cyber crime investigation capabilities in India till now. Cyber crime investigation in India is still far from satisfactory and there are selective police officials who are aware of technological issues and technological laws like information technology act 2000 (IT Act 2000).

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we have been working in the direction of removing these obstacles for the law enforcement officials of India. PTLB has been managing a techno legal ICT training centre for police force that intends to fill this void and make our police force techno legal in nature.

Perry4Law and PTLB suggest that police force of India must be well versed in areas like cyber law, cyber security attacks, cyber forensics, digital evidencing and e-discovery, video conferencing evidence, e-courts, etc.

Presently, these issues are not considered by police force of India. To start with police force must be made aware of the cyber law of India and its applicable provisions. Further, police in India also needs to learn how to investigate a cyber crime. Simple issues of cyber forensics like internet protocol address tracking and data recovery must also be learned by police force of India.

Indian government in general and ministry of home affairs in particular must pay special attention to these issues as ambitious projects like national intelligence grid (Natgrid), crime and criminal tracking network and systems (CCTNS), etc cannot be run successfully through an untrained police and intelligence force.

Cyber skill and intelligence gathering skills need to be developed in India as soon as possible. Perry4Law and PTLB hope that our suggestions would be considered by Indian government for the larger interest of all concerned.

Friday, August 19, 2011

Privacy Laws, Lawyers And Law Firms In India

Cyber security laws, lawyers and law firms in India and abroad are scanty to find. This is because fields like cyber security need expertise that legal fraternity is currently not possessing. However, if we see the global cyber security legal practice trend, legal community has started exploring techno legal fields.

Just like cyber law and cyber security legal practices, privacy protection, data protection and data security lawyers and law firms are also limited in nature. As far as India is concerned, we have no dedicated privacy, data protection and data security law. This is a serious limitation that is resulting in poor privacy, data protection and data security legal practice in India.

On the other hand the cyber law of India, incorporated in the information technology act 2000, imposes many cyber laws due diligence obligations upon various stakeholders like banks, companies, internet intermediaries, website owners, etc. This is a serious issue whose seriousness has not been properly appreciated by stakeholders in India.

With the recent formulation of rules under the IT Act 2000 regarding privacy and data protection, the due diligence requirements regarding privacy protection and data protection in India have become very stringent.

It is in the own interest of various stakeholders operating in India to adopt techno legal privacy and data protection strategies so that they may not be violating the cyber law and other laws of India.

Needless to mention such techno legal policies and strategies must be formulated by techno legal law firms alone as it is a delicate issue that requires balancing of both technical and legal issues involved.

The outsourcing industry must pay a special attention to the techno legal requirements of privacy, data protection and data security issues. Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) strongly recommend formulating and adopting best practices by stakeholders in this regard.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Internet Access Is A Fundamental Human Right In Cyberspace

A few years back talking about human rights in cyberspace generated skeptic reactions. Things have not changed much even today but at least now we know that human rights can be extended to cyberspace.

At Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we have been supporting the efforts that can ensure recognition of human rights in cyberspace at both national and international level. At the national level, India is still not ready and willing to recognise human rights in cyberspace. At the international level, part of human rights in cyberspace has started gaining importance.

For instance, the United Nations (UN) has declared that right to access to Internet is a human right. Similarly, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has also supported this stand of UN through a recently released report.

The report has analysed the first ever of state regulations on Internet access within the 56-member OSCE. Finland and Estonia have already declared access to Internet as a human right and this is a good step in right direction. PTLB welcomes these reformative actions of Finland and Estonia.

Countries around the world are restricting human rights in cyberspace by citing national security, sovereignty, law and order and many such grounds. While none can doubt that national security is an important function of a sovereign state yet there must be a harmony between national security and human rights.

Giving a blind and absolute primacy to national security even if clearly means violating basic human rights is not a wise approach for a welfare state like India. We hope Indian government would consider empowering Indian netizens by recognising and strengthening their human rights in cyberspace.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Indian Cyber Security And International Cooperation

It has been long felt that we need to strengthen the cyber security of India. As more and more cyber crimes are committed against India and severe cyber attacks launched against India this requirement has become even more demanding.

India needs to intensify its focus on cyber security issues at both national and international level and must promote more international cooperation regarding cyber security.

India must also develop and adopt existing best practices in cyber security area. Similarly, India must develop a more efficient cyber incident response mechanism to tackle cyber attacks.

Public private partnerships (PPP) on cyber security must be given more importance in India. Presently, PPP in India in the field of cyber security is in infancy stage. Similarly, there are very few international cooperations between India and foreign players regarding cyber security.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) suggest that to start with, we must urgently formulate a techno legal cyber security policy of India. The cyber security policy of India must cover issues like legal framework for cyber security, PPP model for cyber security, international cooperation for cyber security, cyber crisis management plan of India, human rights protection in cyberspace, etc.

Once the cyber security policy of India is at place, we must work in the direction of implementing the same in true letter and spirit. The growing incidences of cyber crimes, cyber attacks against India, cyber espionage against India, websites defacement and cracking, etc show that India has still not taken cyber security seriously.

While absolute cyber security is next to impossible to achieve yet a basic level cyber security audit of Indian government’s websites, computers and computer systems would show that they are vulnerable to cyber attacks.

Perry4Law and PTLB believe that we must at least start securing our websites, servers and government computers. Further, computers located at sensitive government departments and ministries must have a well defined cyber security policy and usage. We hope these suggestions of Perry4Law and PTLB would be useful for Indian government.

Monday, July 4, 2011

US Cyberspace Policy Review And Cyber Security

US President Barack Obama promised during his election campaign that he would streamline the Cyber Security Infrastructure of America. He did not disappoint America and he initiated the “Most Comprehensive” Cyber Security Initiatives of America.

He has also declared that Cyber Threats are serious Economical and National Security related challenges that US must urgently redress. He also believes that America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on Cyber Security.

To achieve the abovementioned Cyber Security Objectives, Obama has directed a top-to-bottom review of the Federal Government's efforts to defend America’s information and Communications Infrastructure.

This resulted in the finalisation of a report titled the Cyberspace Policy Review. To implement the results of this review, the President has appointed Howard Schmidt to serve at the U.S. Cyber Security Coordinator and created the Cyber Security Office within the National Security Staff. The Office works closely with the Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra, the Federal Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra and the National Economic Council.

America’s National Cyber Security Strategy intends to improve its resilience to cyber incidents and reduce the cyber threat. Improving the cyber resilience includes hardening the digital infrastructure to be more resistant to penetration and disruption, improving the ability to defend against sophisticated and agile cyber threats and recovering quickly from cyber incidents—whether caused by malicious activity, accident, or natural disaster.

On the front of tackling Cyber Threats, US intends to reduce threats by working with allies on International Cyber Security Cooperation, strengthening Law Enforcement Capabilities against Cyber Crime, and deterring potential adversaries from taking advantage of its remaining vulnerabilities.

Underlying all of these efforts is the need to acquire the best possible information about the State of America’s networks and the capabilities and intentions of its cyber adversaries. US must also make critical Cyber Security information available to and usable by everyone who needs it, including network operators and defenders, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and emergency management officials in the Federal, State, local, and tribal governments, private industry, and allied Governments.

US has also recognised the importance of Protecting the Civil Liberties and Human Rights in Cyberspace. Similar commitment is also required from United Nations for the Protection of Human Rights in Cyberspace. US maintains that while securing its networks, it will do so in a manner that preserves and enhances our personal privacy and enables the exercise of our civil liberties and fundamental freedoms.

US believes that in the 21st Century, our digital networks are essential to our way of life around the World and are an engine for freedom. The increased security must be accompanied with an enhanced user privacy and keeping the Internet open and innovative.

The President’s Cyberspace Policy Review identifies 10 near term actions to support its Cyber Security strategy:

(1) Appoint a Cyber Security policy official responsible for coordinating the Nation’s Cyber Security policies and activities.

(2) Prepare for the President’s approval an updated national strategy to secure the information and communications infrastructure.

(3) Designate Cyber Security as one of the President’s key management priorities and establish performance metrics.

(4) Designate a Privacy and Civil Liberties official to the NSC Cyber Security directorate.

(5) Conduct interagency-cleared legal analysis of priority Cyber Security-related issues.

(6) Initiate a national awareness and education campaign to promote Cyber Security.

(7) Develop an International Cyber Security Policy Framework and strengthen our International Partnerships.

(8) Prepare a Cyber Security Incident Response Plan and initiate a dialog to enhance public-private partnerships.

(9) Develop a framework for research and development strategies that focus on game-changing technologies that have the potential to enhance the security, reliability, resilience, and trustworthiness of digital infrastructure.

(10) Build a Cyber Security-based identity management vision and strategy, leveraging privacy-enhancing technologies for the Nation.

We at Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) believe that these are far reaching and Reformative Cyber Security Initiatives suggested by US. If implemented in a Timely and Planned manner they can reduce the Cyber Threat against US Cyberspace to a great extent.

Right To Information Act 2005 And Public Records Act 1993

This is another Document of the Series of Research Reports Published by Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) that establishes the relationship of National Archives of India (NAI), Public Records Act 1993 and other Departments, Initiatives and Legislations of India. Perry4Law and PTLB have already provided Research Reports pertaining to Information Technology Act 2000, Electronic Services Delivery Bill 2011, Digital Preservation In India, etc.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act, 2005) has provided for certain obligations that every “Public Authority” is required to fulfill. All Government Departments, including NAI, are Public Authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that "Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted- (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed or (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.

This “Research Report” briefly outlines those responsibilities of NAI vis-à vis RTI Act, 2005.

Section 2 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that unless the context otherwise requires-

(i) "Information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.

NAI would be required to provide “Information” to the information seekers who have made an RTI Application.

(ii) "Record" includes-

(a) Any document, manuscript and file;
(b) Any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document;
(c) Any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and
(d) Any other material produced by a computer or any other device.

The definition of “Public Records” U/S 2(e) of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993) is almost identical with the definition of Records under the RTI Act 2005. These Records can be sough under the RTI Act, 2005 as “Information” through RTI Application.

(iii) "Right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to-

(i) Inspection of work, documents, records;
(ii) Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;
(iii) Taking certified samples of material;
(iv) Obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.

(iv) "Third party" means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.

Section 3 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.

Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that every public authority shall-

(a) Maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;

With laws like the proposed Electronic Services Delivery Bill, 2011 the requirements to computerise Records and Public Records of NAI would become almost mandatory. We at Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) strongly recommend initiation of Digitilisation and Digital Preservation Initiatives by NAI as soon as possible.

The provisions of Information Technology Act, 2000 would also apply to the initiatives of NAI. Further, provisions regarding Digitilisation and Digital Preservation must be incorporated in the proposed Amendments in the Public Records Act, 1993 itself.

(b) Publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,-

(i) The particulars of its organisation, functions and duties;
(ii) The powers and duties of its officers and employees;
(iii) The procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability;
(iv) The norms set by it for the discharge of its functions;
(v) The rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions;
(vi) A statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control;
(vii) The particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof;
(viii) A statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public;
(ix) A directory of its officers and employees;
(x) The monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations;
(xi) The budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made;
(xii) The manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
(xiii) Particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it;
(xiv) Details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form;
(xv) The particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use;
(xvi) The names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers;
(xvii) Such other information as may be prescribed; and thereafter update these publications every year.

These are very wide mandates especially the one created by clause (xiv) that requires NAI to provide details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, and reduced in an electronic form.

(c) Publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;

(d) Provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that it shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.

Again the desirability to adopt Digitilisation of Records and Public records by NAI is clear from Section 4(2) of RTI Act, 2005.

Section 4(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that for the purposes of sub-section (1), every information shall be disseminated widely and in such form and manner which is easily accessible to the public.

Section 4(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that all materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed.

The Explanation to Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 provides that for the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), "disseminated" means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.

Section 6 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in
English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to the appropriate officer.

An RTI Application can also be made through E-Mail, Fax or any other Electronic means. Thus, NAI must keep in place a “System” and “Procedure” for dealing with Electronic Records and Electronic RTI Applications.

Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a) Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(b) Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
(c) Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
(d) Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(f) Information received in confidence from foreign Government;
(g) Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 outlines the “Grounds” on which NAI can “Refuse” to give Information about Records and Public Records to an RTI Applicant. By virtue of Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005, these are the “Only Grounds” subject to which NAI can refuse information to RTI Applicants.

The grounds mentioned in the Public Records Act, 1993 would no more be relevant after the passing of the RTI Act, 2005. The proposed amendments in the Public Records Act, 1993 must add the “Grounds and Exemptions” that NAI wishes to add in addition to the one mentioned by RTI Act, 2005.

Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.

Section 8 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under Section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section:

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.

The 20 years period is in conformity with the proposed amendments suggested by the Consultation Committee of NAI formulated to suggest Amendments in the PRA 1993.

Section 9 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that without prejudice to the provisions of section 8, a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may reject a request for information where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of Copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

Section 10(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.

NAI can provide “Partial Access” to its Records and Public Records.

Section 10 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing-

(a) That only part of the record requested, after severance of the record containing information which is exempt from disclosure, is being provided;
(b) The reasons for the decision, including any findings on any material question of fact, referring to the material on which those findings were based;
(c) The name and designation of the person giving the decision;
(d) The details of the fees calculated by him or her and the amount of fee which the applicant is required to deposit; and
(e) His or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access.

Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

NAI receives many Archives, Records, Books, etc by way of Gifts and otherwise by Third Parties. Such Records, etc must be given subject to the provisions of this Clause or to the Terms and Conditions subject to which they have been given to the NAI by such Third Parties. .

Section 11(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

Section 11(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under Section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

Section 11(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision.

Third Party Relationships of NAI must be suitably regulated. A sound and practical Procedure or Guidelines in this regard is desirable on the part of NAI.

Section 22 of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

The RTI Act, 2005 would “Override” the provisions of Public Records Act, 1993 and its Rules by virtue of this section.

Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government:

Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.

Section 24 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organisation established by that Government or omitting therefrom any organisation already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organisation shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Legal Issues Of New GTLDs Applications And Registrations

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has recently approved allotment of new generic top level domain names (new gTLDs). With this brand and trademark owners can now register their brands and trademarks as the gTLDs.

However, this process would also witness many techno legal issues as well. Issues of cyber squatting and domain names violations, brands violations, trademark violations, ensuring security of new gTLDs, etc may arise. Further, many unforeseen challenges that cannot be anticipated and warned against may also arise in future.

If a person or organisation thinks that the filing of a gTLD application would be an easy task he/it would be greatly surprised. ICANN is in no mood of allowing “casual filing” and only the applicants “proving bonfide claims” would be granted the new gTLDs.

Firstly, the application form itself is very bulky that requires a techno legal analysis. Since the fees of US $ 1, 85,000 is a big one, no organisation or individual would like to go it waste. If the application for gTLDs is not properly filed after taking care of various technical and legal aspects, it may be rejected by ICANN. Further, an incomplete or weak application may also face “opposition proceedings” subsequently

In short, with an increase in new gTLDs registrations, issues like domain names protection, brands protection, trademarks protection, cybersquatting disputes resolution, cyber law compliances, cyber security requirements, cyber due diligence, etc would also arise. Brand owners and trademark owners must prepare their “strategy” in this regard well in advance.

The new gTLDs application process would start from 12 January 2012 to 12 April 2012. Brand owners and trademark owners need to ensure “due diligence” in this regard as soon as possible as that would give them additional time to ensure that their applications are accepted. ICANN is also planning a global outreach policy to raise awareness in this regard.

Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) believe that applying for and getting a new gTLDs requires well planned techno legal strategy. A company or individual desiring to apply for the same need to analyse all the possible strengths and weaknesses of his application well in advance. While the strengths must be further improved special work need to be done upon the weakness of such future application. Perry4Law and PTLB wish all the best to future gTLDs applicants.

Public Records Act 1993 And IT Act 2000 Mandates

Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000) is the sole Cyber Law of India. It deals with E-Commerce, E-Governance, Cyber Crimes, etc. It also provides a “Digital Framework” for ensuring Digitilisation, Electronic Documents Creation and their use in Government Departments. This “Research Report” of Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) is briefly analysing the relationship between IT Act, 2000 and Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA 1993).

Section 2 of IT Act, 200 deals with definitions that are relevant for PRA 1993 purposes. Section 2(1) provides that in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(i) "Access" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means gaining entry into, instructing or communicating with the logical, arithmetical, or memory function resources of a computer, computer system or computer network.

(ii) "Affixing Electronic Signature" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means adoption of any methodology or procedure by a person for the purpose of authenticating an electronic record by means of Electronic Signature.

If documents are issued by NIA in electronic form, they have to be authenticated by using electronic signatures. Unauthenticated electronic documents would not create any right or liability either under the IT Act, 2000 or under the PRA 1993.

(iii) "Asymmetric Crypto System" means a system of a secure key pair consisting of a private key for creating a digital signature and a public key to verify the digital signature.

Digital Signatures are based upon Asymmetric Crypto System and they can be used for “Authentication Purposes” by NAI.

(iv) "Computer" means any electronic, magnetic, optical or other high-speed data processing device or system which performs logical, arithmetic, and memory functions by manipulations of electronic, magnetic or optical impulses, and includes all input, output, processing, storage, computer software, or communication facilities which are connected or related to the computer in a computer system or computer network.

(v) "Cyber Security" means protecting information, equipment, devices, computer, computer resource, communication device and information stored therein from unauthorised access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction.

Cyber Security is an issue that is of “Paramount Importance” for the NAI. When Digitilisation and Digital Preservation would be adopted by NAI, Electronic Documents and Digital Resources would be required to be protected from Cyber Attacks. A Techno Legal Strategy must be formulated by NAI in this regard.

(vi) "Data" means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer.

(vii) "Digital Signature" means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of an electronic method or procedure in accordance with the provisions of section 3.

(viii) "Electronic Form" with reference to information means any information generated, sent, received or stored in media, magnetic, optical, computer memory, micro film, computer generated micro fiche or similar device.

(ix) "Electronic Record" means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.

(x) "Electronic signature" means authentication of any electronic record by a subscriber by means of the electronic technique specified in the second schedule and includes digital signature.

(xi) "Information" includes data, message, text, images, sound, voice, codes, computer programmes, software and databases or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.

(xii) "Intermediary" with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes.

(xiii) "Key Pair", in an asymmetric crypto system, means a private key and its mathematically related public key, which are so related that the public key can verify a digital signature created by the private key.

(xiv) "Private Key" means the key of a key pair used to create a digital signature.

(xv) "Public Key" means the key of a key pair used to verify a digital signature and listed in the Digital Signature Certificate.

(xvi) "Secure System" means computer hardware, software, and procedure that-

(a) Are reasonably secure from unauthorised access and misuse;

(b) Provide a reasonable level of reliability and correct operation;

(c) Are reasonably suited to performing the intended functions; and

(d) Adhere to generally accepted security procedures.

(xvii) "Security Procedure" means the security procedure prescribed under section 16 by the Central Government.

(xviii) "Verify" in relation to a digital signature, electronic record or public key, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means to determine whether:

(a) The initial electronic record was affixed with the digital signature by the use of private key corresponding to the public key of the subscriber;

(b) The initial electronic record is retained intact or has been altered since such electronic record was so affixed with the digital signature.

Section 2 (2) of the IT Act, 2000 provides that any reference in this Act to any enactment or any provision thereof shall, in relation to an area in which such enactment or such provision is not in force, be construed as a reference to the corresponding law or the relevant provision of the corresponding law, if any, in force in that area.

Section 4 of the IT Act, 2000 provides Legal Recognition to Electronic Records. It says that where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be in writing or in the typewritten or printed form, then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such information or matter is

(a) Rendered or made available in an electronic form; and

(b) Accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference

Section 5 of the IT Act, 2000 provides legal recognition to Electronic Signature. It says that where any law provides that information or any other matter shall be authenticated by affixing the signature or any document should be signed or bear the signature of any person then, notwithstanding anything contained in such law, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied, if such information or matter is authenticated by means of digital signature affixed in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Explanation to section 5 provides that for the purposes of this section, "Signed", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person, mean affixing of his hand written signature or any mark on any document and the expression "Signature" shall be construed accordingly.

Section 6 of the IT Act, 2000 deals with use of Electronic Records and Electronic Signature in Government and its agencies. Section 6(1) of the Act provides that where any law provides for

(a) The filing of any form, application or any other document with any office, authority, body or agency owned or controlled by the appropriate Government in a particular manner;

(b) The issue or grant of any licence, permit, sanction or approval by whatever name called in a particular manner;

(c) The receipt or payment of money in a particular manner, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such filing, issue, grant, receipt or payment, as the case may be, is effected by means of such electronic form as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government.

Section 6(2) of the Act provides that the appropriate Government may, for the purposes of sub-section (1), by rules, prescribe -

(a) The manner and format in which such electronic records shall be filed, created or issued;

(b) The manner or method of payment of any fee or charges for filing, creation or issue any electronic record under clause (a).

Section 6A (1) of the IT Act, 2000 provides that the appropriate Government may, for the purposes of this Chapter and for efficient delivery of services to the public through electronic means authorise, by order, any service provider to set up, maintain and upgrade the computerised facilities and perform such other services as it may specify, by notification in the Official Gazette.

The Explanation to Section 6A (1) of the IT Act, 2000 provides that for the purposes of this section, service provider so authorised includes any individual, private agency, private company, partnership firm, sole proprietor form or any such other body or agency which has been granted permission by the appropriate Government to offer services through electronic means in accordance with the policy governing such service sector.

Section 6A of the IT Act, 2000 reflects the intention of Indian Government to provide Electronic Services Delivery in India. In fact, Electronic Services Delivery Bill, 2011 has already been proposed and if implemented would ensure many Electronic Services to Indians.

NAI must start working in the direction of providing its Service Online, if not already done. Even the non-service related matters and matters pertaining to the NAI are already required to be provided online in an Electronic Form as per the requirements of Section 4(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Section 7 of the IT Act, 2000 deals with retention of electronic records. Section 7(1) of the Act provides that where any law provides that documents, records or information shall be retained for any specific period, then, that requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such documents, records or information are retained in the electronic form, if-

(a) The information contained therein remains accessible so as to be usable for a subsequent reference;

(b) The electronic record is retained in the format in which it was originally generated, sent or received or in a format which can be demonstrated to represent accurately the information originally generated, sent or received;

(c) The details which will facilitate the identification of the origin, destination, date and time of dispatch or receipt of such electronic record are available in the electronic record.

The Proviso to Section 7 (1) provides that this clause does not apply to any information which is automatically generated solely for the purpose of enabling an electronic record to be dispatched or received.

NAI can convert its Records and Public Records into Electronic Form. Digital Preservation of Records or Public Records can also be done by NAI. While current records can be digitilised non current records can be digitilised and made available to public and researchers as the Electronic Services by NAI.

Section 7(2) of the Act provides that nothing in this section shall apply to any law that expressly provides for the retention of documents, records or information in the form of electronic records.

For instance, the RTI Act, 2005 provides for creating of many records in digital form and available to the public in an online environment. Similarly, the proposed Electronic Services Delivery Bill 2011 also requires providing of Services in online environment. This would also require digitilisation of Records and Public Records by NAI.

Section 7A of the IT Act, 2000 provides that where in any law for the time being in force, there is a provision for audit of documents, records or information, that provision shall also be applicable for audit of documents, records or information processed and maintained in electronic form.

Audit of Electronic Documents would also be undertaken in future. Just like NAI has to maintain proper paper based documents, it would be required to main proper Electronic Records as well.

Section 8 of the IT Act, 2000 provides that where any law provides that any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter shall be published in the Official Gazette, then, such requirement shall be deemed to have been satisfied if such rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette.

The proviso to section 8 provides that where any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matters published in the Official Gazette or Electronic Gazette, the date of publication shall be deemed to be the date of the Gazette which was first published in any form.

NAI can publish its Rules, Regulations, etc in Electronic Gazette.

Section 9 of the IT Act, 2000 provides that Sections 6, 7 and 8 would not to confer right to insist document should be accepted in electronic form. Section 9 says that nothing contained in sections 6, 7 and 8 shall confer a right upon any person to insist that any Ministry or Department of the Central Government or the State Government or any authority or body established by or under any law or controlled or funded by the Central or State Government should accept, issue, create, retain and preserve any document in the form of electronic records or effect any monetary transaction in the electronic form.

This is a real “Disabling Provision” that is preventing the actual accomplishment of Electronic Services Delivery in India. By making it “Discretionary” India Government has kept at bay for long the Electronic Delivery of Services to Indians. The latest proposed Electronic Services Delivery Bill 2011 addresses a very small and insignificant portion of the Electronic Delivery of Services in India and till now Electronic Services cannot be claimed as a “Matter of Right”.

However, by virtue of RTI Act, 2005 “Providing Information” about Governmental Departments in Electronic Form has been made “Compulsory”. But till now there is no Law or Provision that makes Delivery of Electronic Services Mandatory in India. This is a “Serious Issue” that must be resolved as soon as possible.

Section 11 of the IT Act, 2000 deals with attribution of Electronic Records. Section 11 says that an electronic record shall be attributed to the originator

(a) If it was sent by the originator himself;

(b) By a person who had the authority to act on behalf of the originator in respect of that electronic record; or

(c) By an information system programmed by or on behalf of the originator to operate automatically.

There may be other provisions of IT Act, 2000 that may be relevant for NAI and PRA 1993 purposes. But for the time being, they are not mandatory in nature. We hope this “Research Report” by Perry4Law and PTLB would be useful for Government Departments in general and national archives of India in particular.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Electronic Services Delivery And Public Records Act 1993

The Electronic Services Delivery Bill 2011(ESDB 2011) is a very recent Bill proposed by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT). The Bill has been revised twice and it may still not be the final Bill. However, sooner or later ESDB 2011 would be made an “Enforceable Law” and various “Stakeholders” would be required to comply with the same.

One such Stakeholder is the National Archives of India (NAI), a Department attached to the Ministry of Culture. Once the ESDB 2011 comes into force, NAI and similar Departments/Institutions would be required to adjust their functioning as per the mandates of the Bill. This is not an easy task and it would require great foresight and planning to shift to an Electronic Frontier and an early planning and execution is strongly recommended by Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB).

Many National Archives and Public Records related Services would be required to be provided in an “Online Environment” and through “Electronic Means” in future. This is more so due to the applicability of Public Records Act, 1993 (PRA), Information Technology Act, 2000, Digital Preservation Requirements and Electronic Services Delivery by NAI.

For instance, Section 4 of the PRA 1993 prohibits taking out of India any public record without the prior approval of Central Government. Section 9 punishes the violations under section 4 with imprisonment upto 5 years or with fine upto Rs. ten thousand rupees or with both. When Public records would be converted into “Electronic Form”, they can be easily transferred from one nation to another. NAI needs to take care of this issue through Legal and Technical means, i.e., in a Techno Legal Manner.

Further, NAI may be required to make available Public records U/S 11(2) or any record creating agency may be required to provide access to the same U/S 12(2) of the PRA 1993. These services can be provided in “Electronic Form” for larger efficiency and meeting the requirements of any “Mandatory” Electronic Services Delivery.

NAI would also be required to ensure Digitilisation and Digital Preservation due to the requirements of this Bill. Till now, Section 9 of the IT Act, 2000 was preventing Citizens of India from demanding Electronic Services as a matter of Right. Now things would be changed and Electronic Services Delivery would be demanded by Indian citizens.

We recommend that NAI and other Government Departments must pay sufficient attention towards Digital Preservation and maintenance of Electronic Records in their respective Departments.

Monday, June 27, 2011

E-Discovery Laws And Practices In India

Electronic discovery or e-discovery is a crucial component of corporate management, litigation services, response management, cyber security and so on. E-discovery is used for multiple purposes and by varied organisations and individuals these days.

E-discovery has many purposes to achieve. It can be used as an effective measure to prevent frauds from being committed by timely detection of suspicious activities. It can also be used for detection of these frauds and crimes after their commission. Thus, e-discovery is both preventive and curative in nature. However, despite the significance of this field, e-discovery in India has yet to get attention of Indian companies, individuals and law firms of India.

Even on the front of legal framework we have no e-discovery laws in India as well as e-discovery regulations in India. This is despite the fact that e-discovery is an important part of outsourcing industry of India. This has lead to a limited growth of e-discovery related legal process outsourcing (LPO) and knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) firms and organisations in India. There are very few firms in India that are providing e-discovery related LPO and KPO services in India.

At Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we understand the importance of e-discovery solutions and litigation services to various organisations and individuals. In fact, PTLB is the exclusive institution that is providing techno legal e-discovery related solutions and litigation services. We consider both technical as well as legal aspects of e-discovery and digital evidencing in depth so that acquired information has “probative and evidentiary value”.

E-discovery should never be a simple discovery but it must be undertaken in such a manner that it meets the requirements of “admissibility” in a court of law. Many times e-discovery is not done properly and this results in the evidence acquired being held inadmissible by the courts.

Before hiring the services of a law firm, be sure to ensure that it has techno legal expertise to manage your e-discovery related assignment.

Saturday, June 25, 2011

The E-Waste (Management And Handling) Rule Of 2011 Of India

We have no e-waste laws and regulations in India. In fact, for long e-waste laws and regulations have been ignored in India. Tons of e-waste has been imported and dumped into India for the past decade. This has made India, especially, New Delhi, a dumping ground for e-waste disposal.

Finally, Indian government has woken up to the nuisance of e-waste in India. It has been reported that the E-waste (Management and Handling) Rule of 2011 has been enacted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest as part of the Environment Protection Act of India.

However, the e-waste rules are not applicable with immediate force. The rules would take effect with effect from 1st May, 2012. The rules will apply to every producer, consumer and bulk consumer involved in manufacture, sale, purchase and processing of electronic equipment or components.

The rule defines “environmentally sound management of e-waste” as “taking all steps required to ensure that e-waste are managed in a manner which shall protect health and environment against any adverse effects, which may result from hazardous substance contained in such wastes.”

The rule mandates government departments and producers of electrical and electronic equipment to take responsibility for the collection of e-waste produced while manufacturing or after use in the end-of-life. He rules also require concerned organisations to set up collection centres or take back systems through which consumers can return their products.

Since the required infrastructure cannot be established immediately, a grace period of one year has been given by the Ministry for collection centres to be to set up. Information dissemination on e-waste and the environmentally sound management of e-waste is also mandated from producers.

According to the Indo European E-Waste Initiative for Improved Technology and Skills for Indian E-Waste Management Group (IEeWASTE), about 330,000 metric tonnes of e-waste is produced in India annually.

This is a good step in the right direction and Perry4Law and Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) welcome this effort of the Ministry. We would come up with a more detailed discussion on these rules very soon.

E-Courts Project Of India

Electronic court in India (e-courts in India) is an attempt of Indian government to utilise information and communication technology (ICT) for effective justice administration in India. E-courts project of India is a part and parcel of the national e-governance plan of India (NEGP) and is implemented as a mission mode project of NEGP.

E-courts were first conceived in the year 2003 where it was declared that e-courts would be established in India till the end of year 2003. However, even after passing of 8 years of that deadline, we are still waiting for the establishment of first e-court in India. Till the writing of this article, India does not have even a single e-court.

An e-court is different from computerised court. In the case of e-court everything is done in an “online environment” through the use of Internet and other ICT technologies whereas a computerised court is nothing more than a court having computers and basic level hardware and software.

E-courts essentially involve use of ICT from the stage of dispute to its final adjudication. Everything pertaining to a dispute happens in cyberspace and the parties to the disputes, lawyers, judges, evidence production and analysis, etc all happens through use of ICT.

India has still not achieved this “capacity building” and all it has done in the name of e-courts is computerisation of some traditional clerical work. This is the reason why techno legal experts of India have expressed that we have no e-courts in India and this is also the truth.

India has to shift to the next stage of establishment of e-courts. The computerisation phase is long over and now we must concentrate upon “e-courts capacity development” aspect that is still missing. We have to ensure e-courts related skills development in India that is presently missing.

At Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we are managing the exclusive techno legal e-courts research, education and training centre. It has been providing its suggestions for long and we hope these suggestions would help India in achieving the next stage of e-courts project of India.

Friday, June 24, 2011

ODR Services Providers In Asia

Online dispute resolution (ODR) is becoming a preferred mode of dispute resolution globally. However, Asian countries in general and India in particular have still not considered using ODR for dispute resolution.

Even otherwise there are very few ODR service providers in India. Further, when it comes to techno legal ODR services in Asia or India, there seems to be very few institutions dealing with the same.

At Perry4Law Techno Legal Base (PTLB) we provide techno legal ADR and ODR services. Our services include a wide variety of areas that practically covers all the techno legal ADR and ODR disputes

We believe in party autonomy and therefore are open to all national and international norms, regulations and rules. Whether it is the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) or any other rules or norms of similar international institutions like United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), we adopt and utilise the relevant norms as per the requirements of the case.

Although ODR in India is facing severe legal roadblocks yet at Perry4Law and PTLB we have been providing techno legal technology dispute resolution policies and strategies. We have suggested the technology dispute resolution policy of India and ODR policy of India in the hope that Indian government would consider utilising technology related projects like ODR and e-courts more often.

At the same time we also believe that without international harmonisation, ODR can never be a global reality. We also understand the importance of national and international cooperation and collaboration and are therefore open to all sorts of proposals from global ODR community.

ADR service providers of Asia must utilise concepts like ODR and e-courts as well. Like traditional ADR mechanisms, ODR and e-courts also provide effective dispute resolution. In fact, ODR and e-courts are better mechanisms to resolve disputes without any party moving from his place.

Sooner or later ODR and e-courts have to be established and used by all Asian countries. However, the sooner they are established and used the better it would be for the citizens of these countries.