I.

T Law Project
Sections 6, 6A and 7 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
-

ANASUYA SYAM, Roll No. 645

These sections are part of Chapter III of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which deals
with electronic governance or e-goevrnance. E-governance represents a new form of
governance which is dynamic and exponential. World Bank has defined e-governance as the
use of information and communication technologies by government agencies to transform
relations with citizens, business and other arms of the government.1 The US E-Government
Act of 2002 defines electronic Government to mean (Section 3601)2: the use by the
Government of web-based Internet applications and other information technologies,
combined with processes that implement these technologies, to(A) enhance the access to and delivery of Government information and services to the
public, other agencies, and other Government entities; or (B) bring about improvements in
Government operations that may include effectiveness, efficiency, service quality, or
transformation. Thus, the stress here is on use of information technologies in improving
citizen-government interactions, cost-cutting and generation of revenue and transparency.
In India, the concept of e-governance has more to do with facilitation that regulation. The
primary legal issues surrounding e-governance is all about giving legal sanctity to basic
governmental functions. The I.T Act, 2000 has adopted a functional equivalent approach in
order to extend offline governmental functions and practices to an online environment.
Section 6 specifically deals with the aspect of e-governance. Like the preceding sections in
this Chapter this section gives overriding effect to government transactions like filing,
issuance or grant of license, permit and receipt of payment in electronic form, regardless of
any provisions contained in any other law regulating these. The section itself is titled E-

1 Source: http://go.worldbank.org/M1JHE0Z280

2 Source: E-Government Act of 2002

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?
dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ347.107.pdf

records and e-signatures in government and its agencies. It deals with the various fields in
which technology can be used in government activities:
Electronic filing: Section (6)(1)(a) deals with filing of any form, application or any other
document in a particular form with a body or agency owned or controlled by the appropriate
government. In other words, it deals with e-filing. For example in 2006, the Companies
General Rules and Forms (Amendment) Rules were notified for e-filing of various documents
using the public key infrastructure. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has listed
detailed guidelines on e-filing.
Electronic Grants: Section 6(1)(b) This provides for the issuance or grant of any license,
permit, sanction/approval by electronic means as may be prescribed. For example, the
Government of India has implemented a system utilizing the legal validity of e-grants by
providing for a comprehensive system for e-procurement or tender management services,
awarding contracts related to public works.
The validity of e- licensing was upheld in n the case of J. Rama Krishna Rao v. Municipal
Corporation of Hyderabad3. In this case, the petitioner firm was allotted a Trade
Identification Number (TIN) through the e-seva portal of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, to
set up a restaurant food court and a rejuvenation centre. After being allotted this number, the
form was subjected to inspections by various authorities - fire, traffic etc., and was given a
no-objection certificate and a labour permit. Petitioner at this stage, paid some money to the
respondent corporation and was awaiting a formal trade license. Respondents arbitrarily
cancelled the earlier permit/license awarded through the TIN, without following the
procedure laid down for the rejection of a valid license in the statute books. Their defence
was that since no written permission was given as per the procedure in the Hyderabad
Municipal Corporation Act, the same was invalid and hence the statutory procedural
safeguards available to the petitioner firm for rejection of their permit are not available.
The Court held that once the petitioner paid an amount with the application, which was
processed and a TIN allotted, license fee was notified and collected. It held that the
application of the petitioner firm was processed as per policy. The allotment of TIN and the
collection of the license fee amounted to a grant of a licence, referring to S.6 (1)(b) of the
Act.
3 2005(2) ALT 186

Electronic Receipt: Section (6)(1)(c) Deals with online monetary transactions, i.e., receipt
or payment of money in electronic form. The Act vide this clause gives legal sanctity to the
electronic receipt or payment of money from/to the government or due to it/its agencies. The
mist visible manifestation of this is the online filing of tax returns.
The sweep of sub-section (1) is very broad. It calls for the decentralization of e-governance,
as it grants a legal mandate to the appropriate government. It identifies use of electronic
records and electronic signatures (including digital signatures) in electronic filing, grants and
receipts with any office, authority, body or agency, owned or controlled by the appropriate
government. If sub-section (1) creates an effective e-governance model, then sub-section 2
subjects the said model to the rules prescribed by the appropriate government in terms of the
manner and format in which such electronic records shall be filed, created or issued.
Pursuant to this, the government has notified the I.T. (Use of E-records and Digital
Signature) Rules 2004. These rules prescribe the various requirements for e-filing, e-grants
of licenses and e-receipts of money. The rules prescribe that for the filing of forms,
applications or any other document referred to in 6(1)(a), a public authority shall, while
generating such software take into account a set of minimum standards relating to e-records;
lifetime, preservability, accessibility, readability, comprehensibility,(with respect to linked
information) evidentiary value in terms of authenticity, integrity, controlled destructibility and
augmentability. For payment of and receipt of fee as per section 6(1)(c), the rules stipulate
that the payment shall be made by a cheque in the electronic form as defined in the
explanation to Section 6(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1889. In this statute it is
defined as a cheque which contains the exact mirror image of a paper cheque and is
generated, written and signed in a secure system ensuring minimum safety standards with the
use of digital signature and asymmetric crypto system.
In P.K Sarin v Govt. of NCT through its Secretary4, salary was disbursed electronically
through the Electronic Clearance System (ECS) to government employees in Delhi as
suggested and circulated by the RBI. The petitioner contended this, and said that he wanted a
personal cheque made to him, as the statutory rules in this regard, prescribe the same. The
court held that the ECS mode of payment of salary had the sanction of law by virtue of
section 6(1)(c) of the I.T Act, 2000 and it is a valid receipt of salary.
4

In the U.S., Sections 17 and 18 of the United Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), 1999
deals with the aspect of e-governance. It states that each government agency shall determine
whether and the extent to which it will send and accept e-records and e-signatures to and
from other persons and otherwise create, generate, communicate, store, use and rely on
electronic records. The provisions relating to government records are opt-in provisions, and
the respective governmental agency (or if the state so decides, a designated state officer) will
determine the extent to which it will create and retain electronic records and convert its
written records into electronic records. The respective agencies (or designated state officer)
also have the discretion to determine the extent to which they will accept and send electronic
records. In addition, to the extent that a governmental agency uses electronic records, that
agency (or designated state official) may specify the system that is established for the purpose
of creating, generating, sending, communicating, receiving, and storing electronic records,
and if an electronic signature must accompany the electronic record, then also the type of
electronic signature that is required. Finally, to the extent that governmental agencies move to
electronic records, they must encourage interoperability. Thus, the US law is a
comprehensive legislation to deal with different aspects of e-Governance. It creates new
institutions to implement the overall e-Governance initiatives and to co-ordinate between
governments, agencies and institutions unlike India. It also lays down responsibility and
accountability frameworks. Another significant aspect of the US legislation is that it provides
for implementation and procedural time frames.
Like the Indian I.T Act (vide section 9) it is not mandatory for the U.S government or its
agencies to use/permit the use of e-records and e-signatures.

Section 6A Delivery of Services by Service Provider

Section 6A was introduced by the Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008. For the
purpose of e-governance and for the efficient delivery of services to the public through
electronic means, the appropriate government may authorize, any service provider to set up,
maintain and upgrade the computerized facilities and perform such other services specified in
the official gazette. Service provider so authorised includes any individual, private agency,
private company, partnership firm, sole proprietor firm 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.
Sub-section (1) to section 6A provides for private participation in delivery of e-government

services. The new founded role of private players in e-governance is recognized in this
section. It provides for the appointment of private service providers in e-governance services.
It gives a legal mandate for Public Private Partnership (PPP) concept. By introducing such a
section the lawmakers have tried to create a friendly e-government environment in India; an
admission that the government is becoming more open in seeking technology
solutions/applications for better and efficient government.
The subsections (2) and (3) to 6A have paved the way for e-government service providers to
collect and retain appropriate e-service charges from the persons availing such services.
Every e-government service provider needs a due authorization to: (a) function as egovernment service provider (for a time period as decided by the appropriate government),
(b) provide prescribed services only, and (c) collect and retain such appropriate e-service
charges (or scale of charges thereof) as prescribed. This section has legalized the fees charged
by Customer Service Centers (CSCs) operated and managed by the private entrepreneurs. The
necessity of this arose from the successful implementation of the MCA 21 model, wherein the
private vendor (Tata Consultancy Services) started operating CSCs to manage use of digital
signatures for filing of statutory documents online.
Under the rule-making power granted by this section the government has enacted the I.T
(Electronic Service Delivery Rules) 2011. Rule 2(1) defines Electronic Service Delivery as
the delivery of public services in the form of filing of forms, applications, issues/ grant of
license, permit, sanction, certificate and the receipt or payment of money by electronic means
by following Rule 3. The appropriate Government may on its own or through an agency
authorised by it, deliver public services through electronically- enabled kiosks or any other
electronic service delivery mechanism.(2) may specify the form and the manner of Electronic
Service Delivery.(3) determine the manner of encrypting sensitive electronic records
requiring confidentiality, white they are electronically signed. (4) shall notify the service
providers and their agents authorised for Electronic Service Delivery. (5) may allow receipt
of payments made by adopting the Electronic Service Delivery System to be a deemed receipt
of payment effected in compliance with the financial code and treasury code of such
Government. (6) may authorise service providers or their authorised agents to collect, retain
and appropriate such service charges as may be specified by the appropriate Government for
the purpose of providing such services from the person availing such services: Provided that
the apportioned service charges shall be clearly indicated on the receipt to be given to the

person availing the services. The scale of the services and the norms on service levels to be
complied with by the service provider is also prescribed by the government.
As per Rule 4, the appropriate government will notify services that will be delivered
electronically, and may identify and notify, from time to time, the list or signing authorities in
respect of different classes of licenses, permits, certificates, sanctions, payment receipt
approvals and local limits of their respective jurisdictions. The notification shall specify the
nature of certificate, the names of the signing authorities, as approved by the appropriate
Government, the period of effectiveness of the authority and the extent of their jurisdiction.
All authorities that issue any license, permit, certificate, sanction or approval electronically,
shall create, archive and maintain a repository of electronically signed electronic records of
such licenses, permits, certificates, sanctions or approvals, as the case may be, online with
due timestamps of creation of these individual electronic records. The appropriate
Government may specify the manner of creating, establishing, archiving and maintaining the
repository of electronically signed electronic records. It may direct every service provider
and authorised agent to keep an updated and accurate account of the transactions, receipts,
vouchers and specify the formats for maintaining accounts of transactions and receipt of
payment in respect of the electronic services delivered and the said records shall be produced
for inspection and audit before an agency or person nominated by the appropriate
Government.
Presently, private participation in e-government space revolves around the Public Private
Partnership concept. The government departments are issuing e-procurement tenders defining
Scope of Work(SOW) and selecting technology solution providers to execute the given work
on the basis of: (a) BOO (Build-own-operate) Model (b) BOOT (Build-own-operate and
transfer) (c) ASP (Application Service Provider). One of the biggest projects which would get
a fillip by this section is the National e-governance Plan (NeGP) of the government of
India. The NeGP aims at improving delivery of Government services to citizens and
businesses with the following vision: "Make all Government services accessible to the
common man in his locality, through common service delivery outlets and ensure efficiency,
transparency & reliability of such services at affordable costs to realise the basic needs of the
common man."5
5 Source: http://india.gov.in/e-governance/national-e-governance-plan

NeGP has a three tier architecture6. The Common Service Centres (CSCs) are the front-end
delivery points for a range of citizen services. These centres also provide employment to the
entrepreneurs running them, besides being useful in rolling out all kinds of governmental
schemes such as those for financial inclusion, enumeration of data, insurance and IT
education. The second tier is of the common and support infrastructure that can allow
information to be shared electronically between different agencies of the government and
with citizens. Included in it are the State Wide Area Networks (SWANs) which form the
converged backbone network for data, voice and video throughout a State/UT and the State
Data Centres (SDCs) which can provide common secure IT infrastructure to host state-level
e-government applications and data. The third tier comprises the 27 Mission Mode Projects
(MMPs) which will transform high priority citizen services from their current manual
delivery into e-delivery. Each MMP is owned and spearheaded by the relevant ministry/
agency of the national government or by a state government and is called mission mode
because it has a definite time table, service levels, project implementation team and process
reengineering plans
Examples of MMPs:
Central: The Central Board for Excise and Customs (CBEC) has brought about a major
change in the way the Central Excise and Service Tax formations conduct their regular
business vis- -vis the trade & Industry, by developing and deploying a software application
called Automation of Central Excise and Service Tax (ACES). ACES aims at improving taxpayer services, transparency, accountability and efficiency in the indirect tax administration
in India. This application has automated all major processes in Central Excise and Service
Tax through a web-based and workflow-based system
State: The Apex Committee for the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) chaired by the
Cabinet Secretary has approved the inclusion of Public Distribution System (PDS) as a
Mission Mode Project (MMP) under the NeGP. Computerisation of the PDS is envisaged as
an end-to-end project covering key functional areas such as supply chain management
including allocation and utilisation reporting, storage and movement of food grains,
6 CSR Prabhu, Deputy DG at National Informatics Centre (NIC), Revisiting NeGP:
eBhararth 2020, accessed at : http://www.csiindia.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=1d0c011b-dcf3-42cc-b81d43ec4c8c09f1

grievance redressal and transparency portal, digitisation of beneficiary database, Fair Price
Shop automation, etc.
Integrated: (Both state and Central): The integrated mission mode project, Electronic Data
interchange (EDI) for Trade (e-Trade) was conceptualized to facilitate effective and efficient
mode of transacting business in the area of foreign trade. The Department of Commerce is the
nodal agency for the implementation of the eTrade project. The project is being pursued in
trade regulatory and facilitating agencies like Customs, Ports, Airports, Directorate General
of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Banks, respective Container Corporation of India (CONCOR),
export promotion organizations etc, who also happen to be the community partners of the
project.

Some other examples of e-governance initiatives are:

1. Project Saukaryam (meaning: facility) of Vishakhpatnam Municipal Corporation which is a
PPP model of e-governance. Through the website: www.saukaryam.org facilities like the
online payment of municipal dues, filing and settlement of complaints and grievances,
tracking of building plan status, registration of births and deaths, etc., have been made
possible.
2. Indian Railways has implemented the internet reservation facility on its website
http://www.irctc.co.in wherein one can get the railway reservation done through credit cards.
3. The state of Kerala, in 1999 launched its flagship e-governance project called Information
Kerala Mission (IKM) to strengthen local self-governance through ICT (information
communication technologies). It envisages computerizing and networking the 1215 local-self
government institutions in Kerala.
Online Tax Collection: Kerala became the first state in India to make a successful transition
to paperless commercial tax transaction, which started with the online facilitation of e-returns
and invoice details. The system has harnessed over 1500 Akshaya Centres (quality ICT
dissemination and service delivery centres set up within 2 kms of any household) across the
state as e-filing facilitators, allocating IDs and passwords to each centre. Dealers need only to
visit the nearest Askhaya Centre to file their returns free of charge.

Section 7 : Retention of Electronic Records

The section is reproduced in verbatim below:
S. 7. Retention of electronic records.

(1) 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: Provided 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.
(2) 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.
Record retention is co concerned with the duration of a records life. One major use of such
retention is maintaining official records for use as evidence in legal proceedings. This section
draws its inspiration from Article 10 of the United Nations Commission for International
Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model law on E-commerce. Article 107 addresses the legal
requirement for certain documents to be retained for a period of time or for a specified
purpose, by setting out the conditions that must apply if they are to meet his requirement viz.,
accessibility, retaining the original format, identification etc.
Section 7 applies to the retention of records which are originally in the electronic form as also
to electronic retention of records that originally existed in paper form or any other tangible
7 Article 10. Retention of data messages(1) Where the law requires that certain
documents, records or information be retained, that requirement is met by retaining data
messages, provided that the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) the information contained therein is accessible so as to be usable for subsequent
reference; and
(b) the data message is retained in the format in which it was generated, sent or
received, or in a format which can be demonstrated to represent accurately the
information generated, sent or received; and
(c) such information, if any, is retained as enables the identification of the origin and
destination of a data message and the date and time when it was sent or received.
(2) An obligation to retain documents, records or information in accordance with
paragraph (1) does not extend to any information the sole purpose of which is to enable
the message to be sent or received.
(3) A person may satisfy the requirement referred to in paragraph (1) by using the
services of any other person, provided that the conditions set forth in subparagraphs (a),
(b) and (c) of paragraph (1) are met.
Source: http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.electronic.commerce.model.law.1996/doc.html

media. Electronic records are highly susceptible to partial/total loss of data and can
detrimentally affect the accessibility to the record, its integrity, identity, date and time of
despatch/receipt of such record etc. Hence certain minimum standards are prescribed for
retention. (These requirements are taken verbatim from the UNCITRAL Model law) These
are: a) Information contained therein should remain accessible so as to be usable for future
reference. b) Erecord is to be retained in a format in which it was originally generated,
sent/received or in a format which can be demonstrated to represent accurately the
information originally created/sent/received. c) It should have details which will facilitate the
identification of origin, destination, date and time of such record. Non-compliance of these
minimum standards would render an e-record redundant and inadmissible in a court of law
However, no period for retention of the record has been stipulated.
The proviso to the section further states that any information generated automatically for the
purpose of enabling an e-record to be despatched or received is non-applicable for the
purpose of retention.
In the U.S the United Electronic Transactions Act, 1999 Section 12 deals with retention of
records. It states that if a law requires a record to be retained, the requirement will be met by
retaining an e-record of the same but it should accurately reflect the information set forth in
the record after it was first generated and must remain accessible for later reference. State
officers are designated to oversee the retention of the record in e-form. Moreover, this section
is inapplicable to any information the sole purpose of which is to enable the record to be
received or sent.

SECTIONS 7A, 8, 9 Information Technology Act, 2000

Lakshmi Babu, Roll No. 685
Section 7A Audit of Documents etc. in electronic form
It says Where in any law for the time being in force, there is a provision for audit of
documents, records or in formation, that provision shall also be applicable for audit of
documents, records or in formation processed and maintained in the electronic form.

This newly introduced section 7A deals with electronic auditing. Thus, where ever a law
provides for auditing of documents, records or information, such provision shall also be
applicable to auditing of electronic documents, records or information.
Auditing is the systematic examination of books, accounts, documents and vouchers of an
organization to ascertain how far the financial statements present a true and fair view of the
concern. It also ensures that the books of accounts are properly maintained by the concern as
required by law.
Section 8 - Publication of rule, regulation, etc., in Electronic Gazette.
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:
Provided that where any rule, regulation, order, bye-law, notifications or any other matter is
published in the official gazette or Electronic Gazette, the date of publication shall be deemed
to be the date of that Official Gazette which was first published in any form.
This section provides for the publication of rules, regulations and notifications in the
Electronic Gazette. The requirement of publication of official gazette will be deemed to have
satisfied if the info is published in an electronic gazette. It also provides that when any rule,
regulation, order, bye-law, notification or any other matter is published in the official gazette
or electronic gazette, the date of publication shall be the date of the gazette which was first
published in any form.
This is a way forward in Electronic Governance providing for an Electronic gazette. An
electronic gazette is defined in section 2(1)(s) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as an
official gazette published in the electronic form.
An important case with respect to Electronic Gazette is Orissa Consumers Association
Cuttack v Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission 8. In this case, even though a notification
was first published in the official website of Orissa Electricity Board, it was not considered as
a conclusive proof of its publication. It was observed that the word published means made
known to the persons likely to be affected by the notification. In the instant case, even though
8
AIR 2005 Ori 11

the notification was published in the website first, since the persons likely to be affected
included people in the remote rural areas who do not have means to collect information from
the website. So, the publication in the website was not conclusive proof that the notification
containing some regulations was published.
This section contains the true spirit of E- Governance. The rules, regulations, notifications
etc. can be directly published in the respective websites, which makes it more accessible.
Section 9 - Sections 6, 7 and 8 not to confer right to insist document should be accepted
in electronic form.
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, preserve any document in the form of
electronic records or effect any monetary transaction in the electronic form.
There is no right conferred on any person to insist that the 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 section grants limited E-Governance rights
as it does not confer right upon any person to insist that any Ministry or Department of
Central or state government to accept, issue, create, retain or preserve any document in the
form of electronic records.
Considering the fact that the government and its agencies are still in the process of
implementing Information Technology processes, this section provides a breather. Also, it
should be appreciated that the migration from written documents to electronic record,
signature to digital and electronic signatures is a time consuming process. Thus, the onus is
on the Government whether to follow Sections 4-8 of the Information Technology Act, to opt
in or to opt out? It is imperative that the department/institution must assess its IT strengths
and weaknesses and decide accordingly.

__________________________________________