The Ranchi Bench of the Jharkhand High Court has held that once the statutory framework under Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, and the relevant notifications appointing the Adjudicating Officer are already in place, the State Government and the appointed Adjudicating Officer are under an obligation to operationalize the adjudicatory mechanism and cannot delay commencement of adjudication on the ground that standard operating procedures are still under preparation.
The Court further held that administrative delays in drafting Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) cannot override the existing statutory mandate, and complaints under Section 46 of the IT Act must be received and adjudicated in accordance with the Act, the Rules, and the appointment notifications already issued.
Accordingly, the Court directed that within 15 days, the Government of Jharkhand, together with the Adjudicating Officer already appointed under Section 46 of the IT Act, must widely publish the facility available for filing complaints under the IT Act through local newspapers, including regional language newspapers, and other available modes, with references to websites where the IT Act, the Rules, and complaint-filing mechanism can be accessed.
The Court also directed the Government of Jharkhand and the Adjudicating Officer to formulate SOPs, not inconsistent with the IT Act and the 2003 Rules, as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months, and to give such SOPs wide publicity in electronic form if necessary. In addition, the Court directed that workshops or awareness campaigns should be considered to make people, particularly students and senior citizens, aware of the provisions of the IT Act and the remedies available under it, and required the Adjudicating Officer to file a compliance report before the Court by October 30, 2026 after furnishing an advance copy to the petitioner’s counsel.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar noted that Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 empowers the Central Government to appoint an adjudicating officer for adjudging contraventions under the Act, and that the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003 prescribe the qualifications, manner of inquiry, service of notices and orders, fees payable, and even the compliant proforma.
The Bench recorded that by Gazette Notification No. 240(E) dated March 25, 2003, the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology of each State or Union Territory was appointed as the Adjudicating Officer for the purposes of the IT Act, and that the State of Jharkhand had also issued a notification dated September 02, 2025 specifying Pooja Singhal, Secretary, Department of Information Technology and E-Governance, Government of Jharkhand, as the Adjudicating Officer under Section 46 of the IT Act.
The Bench observed that the grievance of the petitioner was essentially that, despite the statutory framework and the 2003 notifications, the provisions of Section 46 of the IT Act and the 2003 Rules had remained a dead letter in Jharkhand because no effective cognizance was being taken to operationalize the adjudicatory mechanism.
The Bench noted that disproportionate time was being consumed by the Government in preparing and revising drafts for standard operating procedures, but held that this could not justify the failure of the Adjudicating Officer to start functioning under the existing notifications and the 2003 Rules.
The Bench accepted the suggestion that there should be a mechanism to accept complaints online and held that the Government of Jharkhand together with the Adjudicating Officer must devise, within a reasonable time, a methodology for accepting complaints online. It also observed that although the September 02, 2025 notification already permitted complaints by e-mail, wide publicity of this mechanism was necessary so that victims of cyber fraud and other aggrieved persons are aware of the remedy under the IT Act.
Briefly, the petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Jharkhand and its Information Technology & E-Governance Department to operationalize and ensure the proper functioning of the office of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in terms of Gazette Notification No. 220(E) dated March 17, 2003 and Gazette Notification No. 240(E) dated March 25, 2003, and also sought establishment of clear procedures for filing complaints, payment of court fees, and adjudication under the IT Act, with continuing judicial oversight.
Appearances:
Advocate Utkarsh Singh, for the Petitioner
Advocate Sahbaj Akhtar, for the State
