SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, August 21: The Jharkhand government has assured the High Court that it will streamline the long-pending office of the Adjudicating Officer under the Information Technology Act, 2000, a statutory mechanism meant to deal with cyber frauds and data breaches.
The assurance came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Manoj Kumar Singh, represented by advocate Utkarsh Singh, recently seeking the operationalisation of the office that has remained defunct for over two decades.
Government Seeks Four Weeks’ Time
Pooja Singhal, Secretary of the Department of Information Technology and E-Governance, appeared before the court and informed Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan that the state required more time to put the necessary structure in place. A counter affidavit submitted by the government stated that steps are being taken to streamline the office of the Adjudicating Officer, but further time was essential.
The bench granted the state four weeks to complete the process and directed that the matter be listed again on September 15, 2025. Meanwhile, the petitioner has been given the liberty to file a rejoinder affidavit.
Also Read: ISRO Chairman and Astronaut Shukla highlight achievements of Axiom-4 Mission
PIL Seeks Enforcement of IT Act Provisions
The PIL has sought directions to the state to appoint and operationalise the Adjudicating Officer’s office under Section 46 of the IT Act, 2000, as mandated by Gazette Notifications dated March 2003. The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to ensure proper procedures for filing complaints, payment of court fees, and adjudication of proceedings under the Act.
Further, the PIL urged the court to invoke the principle of “continuing mandamus” so that judicial oversight could be maintained over the progress of the office, preventing further delay.
21 Years of Delay
Highlighting the gravity of the issue, the petition pointed out that Jharkhand has failed for 21 years to establish the statutory adjudicatory mechanism, depriving citizens of remedies available under Sections 43 and 43A of the IT Act, which deal with unauthorised access, data breaches, and compensation for losses.
This prolonged inaction, the petitioner argued, has effectively rendered the law a “dead letter” in the state. The petition emphasised that the failure violates citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, including the right to equality before the law and the right to access justice.
Role of the Adjudicating Officer Under the IT Act
The Adjudicating Officer, appointed under Section 46 of the IT Act, plays a pivotal role as a quasi-judicial authority. Typically, an officer not below the rank of Director in the state government is designated to this role. The Adjudicating Officer has powers similar to a civil court—summoning individuals, examining witnesses, demanding documents—and can impose penalties and award compensation of up to ₹5 lakh to victims of cyber wrongs.
Victims of cyber fraud, including data theft, phishing, unauthorised access, or denial of service attacks, are entitled to compensation. Beyond ₹5 lakh, the jurisdiction shifts to civil courts. This mechanism was designed to provide victims with a swift and accessible remedy instead of forcing them through lengthy civil litigation.
States That Have Implemented the Mechanism
Several states have operationalised the office of the Adjudicating Officer effectively. Maharashtra is considered a model, where adjudicating officers have been hearing cases and granting compensation in cyber fraud matters. Other states, including Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Delhi, have also acted by the statutory mandate, ensuring victims are not left without remedies. In contrast, Jharkhand’s prolonged inaction has created a glaring gap in its cyber law enforcement framework.
Jamtara and the Cyber Fraud Menace
The case assumes special significance for Jharkhand, which has gained notoriety as the hub of cyber frauds, with Jamtara often dubbed the “phishing capital” of India. Over the years, hundreds of cyber fraud cases have been traced back to this region, exposing victims across the country to phishing, OTP fraud, and online scams.
Despite this, the absence of a functional adjudicatory body in Jharkhand has left victims without a direct remedy under the IT Act. Civil courts are expressly barred from handling such cases under Section 61 of the Act, leaving the Adjudicating Officer’s office as the sole statutory forum.
Public Interest and National Concern
The petition underlined that the state’s inaction has broader consequences, not just for Jharkhand but for India’s fight against cybercrime. Without a specialised forum, victims are forced into long and uncertain legal battles, undermining public confidence in the justice system and posing risks to individuals and businesses alike.
Advocate Utkarsh Singh, arguing for the petitioner, stressed that establishing the office is not just a statutory obligation but a pressing public necessity in light of rising cybercrime cases.
What Next?
The High Court’s decision to monitor the matter reflects growing judicial impatience with administrative delays. If the government fails to act within the four-week timeframe, the court may be compelled to issue stronger directions.
For now, citizens and cyber fraud victims in Jharkhand will watch closely whether the government finally delivers on its promise to bring the Adjudicating Officer’s office into operation—21 years after the law required it.
