Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief … on 8 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No.4900 of 2024
-----
Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Rajdeo Singh, resident of Flat No.1-
D, Block-E, Satyabhama Grand Apartment, Kusai, Ranchi,
Jharkhand. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government
of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Information Technology & E-Governance, Government
of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi.
3. Union of India, through the Secretary Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology, Government of India, New Delhi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocate
[Through V.C.]
For the State : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to AAG-III
-----
Order No.17 Date: 08.04.2026
1. The petitioner by instituting this petition in public interest seeks
the following reliefs:
I. For issuance of writ/s, order/s, or direction/s particularly
the Prerogative Writ of 'Mandamus' to Respondent No. 1
& 2 to operationalize and ensure the proper functioning of
the Office of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 46 of
the Information Technology Act, 2000, in compliance with
the statutory mandate and as per Gazette Notification No.
220(E) dated 17-03-2003 and Gazette Notification No.
240(E) dated 25-03-2003;
II. Direct the Respondents to establish and implement clear
procedures for the filing of complaints, payment of court
fees, and adjudication of proceedings under the IT Act,
ensuring these mechanisms are fully operational and
accessible within a timeframe specified by this Hon'ble
Court;
III. Invoke principles of 'Continuing Mandamus' to establish
judicial oversight to monitor the progress of the
1
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
operationalization of the Adjudicating Officer's office and
ensure compliance with statutory obligations under the IT
Act.
IV. Award the costs of this petition to the petitioner.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and evaluated
the pleadings on record. Upon doing so, we proceed to dispose
of this petition.
3. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (I.T. Act) was enacted by
the Parliament to provide legal recognition for transactions
carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other
means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as
'electronic commerce', which involves the use of alternatives to
paper based methods of communication and storage of
information, to facilitate electronic filing of documents with the
government agencies and further to amend the Indian Penal
Code, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Bankers' Books Evidence
Act, 1891 and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
4. The said Act was amended in 2009. The statement of objects and
reasons, inter alia, refers to the rapid increase in use of computer
and internet giving rise to new forms of crimes like publishing
sexually explicit materials in electronic form, video voyeurism,
and breach of confidentiality and leakage of data by intermediary,
e-commerce frauds like personation commonly known as
phishing, identity theft and offensive messages through
communication services. So penal provisions have been included
in the Information Technology Act, Indian Penal Code, India
2
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent such
crimes.
5. Section 46 of the I.T. Act refers to the power to adjudicate and
the same reads as follows:
"46. Power to adjudicate.-(1) For the purpose of
adjudging under this Chapter whether any person has
committed a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act
or of any rule, regulation, direction or order made thereunder
which renders him liable to pay penalty or compensation, the
Central Government shall, subject to the provisions of sub-
section (3), appoint any officer not below the rank of a
Director to the Government of India or an equivalent officer
of a State Government to be an adjudicating officer for
holding an inquiry in the manner prescribed by the Central
Government.
(1-A) The adjudicating officer appointed under sub-
section (1) shall exercise jurisdiction to adjudicate matters in
which the claim for damage does not exceed rupees five
crore:
Provided that the jurisdiction in respect of the claim for
damage exceeding rupees five crores shall vest with the
competent court.
(2) The adjudicating officer shall, after giving the
person referred to in sub-section (1) a reasonable opportunity
for making representation in the matter and if, on such
inquiry, he is satisfied that the person has committed the
contravention, he may impose such penalty or award such
compensation as he thinks fit in accordance with the
provisions of that section.
(3) No person shall be appointed as an adjudicating
officer unless he possesses such experience in the field of
Information Technology and legal or judicial experience as
may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(4) Where more than one adjudicating officers are
appointed, the Central Government shall specify by order the
3
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
matters and places with respect to which such officers shall
exercise their jurisdiction.
(5) Every adjudicating officer shall have the powers of
a civil court which are conferred on the Appellate Tribunal
under sub-section (2) of section 58 and-
(a) all proceedings before it shall be deemed to be
judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and
228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);
(b) shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes
of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974);
(c) shall be deemed to be a civil court for purposes of
Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (5 of 1908)."
6. Section 47 of the I.T. Act refers to the factors to be taken into
account by the adjudicating officer and the same reads as follows:
"47. Factors to be taken into account by the
adjudicating officer.-While adjudging the quantum of
compensation under this Chapter, the adjudicating officer
shall have due regard to the following factors, namely:-
(a) the amount of gain of unfair advantage, wherever
quantifiable, made as a result of the default;
(b) the amount of loss caused to any person as a result
of the default;
(c) the repetitive nature of the default."
7. Chapter-X is concerned with the Appellate Tribunal under the I.T.
Act. This chapter also deals with compounding of contraventions
and recovery of penalty or compensation.
8. The Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by
Clauses (p) and (q) of sub-section (2) of Section 87 of the I.T.
Act, has made the Information Technology (Qualification and
Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding
Enquiry) Rules, 2003 (said Rules).
4
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
9. The grievance in the petition was that in the State of Jharkhand,
the provisions of Section 46 of the I.T. Act and the said Rules
continued to remain a dead letter because no cognizance was
being taken of the notifications dated 17th March, 2003 and 25th
March, 2003 issued by the Central Government on the issue of
appointment of adjudicating officers under Section 46 of the I.T.
Act and the said Rules. Accordingly, appropriate writ is prayed to
basically operationalise the functioning of adjudicating officers
inter alia by establishing clear procedures for filing complaints,
payment of court fees and adjudication of proceedings under the
I.T. Act.
10. The Gazette Notification No.220 (E) dated 17th March, 2003 is
nothing but the notification publishing the said Rules of 2003.
These Rules, apart from providing the eligibility conditions for
appointment of an adjudicating officer, make detailed provisions
outlining the scope and manner of holding enquiry by such
adjudicating officer, service of notices and orders, fees payable,
compounding of contraventions etc. Even the proforma for the
complaint to adjudicating officers is annexed to the said Rules.
11. The Gazette Notification No.240(E) dated 25th March, 2003 is an
order issued by the Central Government appointing the Secretary
of the Department of Information Technology of each of the
States or the Union territories not below the rank of Director and
possessing requisite experience in the field of information
technology and also possessing legal/judicial experience as
required, as adjudicating officers for the purposes of the I.T. Act
5
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
12. The contents of the notification dated 25th March, 2003 are
transcribed below for the convenience of reference:
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Information Technology)
ORDER
New Delhi, the 25th March, 2003
G.S.R.240(E)–In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-
section (I) of Section 46 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 (21 of 2000), the Central Government hereby makes the
following order/appointments viz–
1. Whereas Sub-section (1) of the Section 46 makes
provision for appointment of one or more Adjudicating
Officers not below the rank of Director to the Central
Government and Sub-section (3) requires that such an
officer should possess experience in the field of
Information Technology and legal or judicial
experience as may be prescribed by the Central
Government and whereas such experience necessary
for appointment as Adjudicating Officer has been
notified by the Central Government as per the Gazette
Notification for Information Technology Rules, 2003
under the short title Qualification and Experience of
Adjudicating Officer and Manner of Holding Enquiry
vide Gazette Notification G.S.R. 220(E) dated 17th
March, 2003.
2. Further, whereas the Secretary of the Department of
Information Technology of each of the States or Union
Territories are normally not below the rank of Director
and possess the requisite experience in the field of
Information Technology and also possess legal/judicial
experience as required, therefore the Secretary of
Department of Information Technology of each of the
States or of Union Territories is hereby appointed as
Adjudicating Officer for the purpose of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.
6
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
3. The Department of Information Technology of each of
the States or of Union Territories shall provide the
infrastructure and maintain the records of the matters
handled by Adjudicating Officer functioning in the
States/Union Territories.
[F. No. 2(8)/2000-Pers.I]
(S. Lakshminarayanan), Addl. Secy.
13. With the issuance of Gazette Notification/order dated 25th March,
2003, the Secretary of the Department of Information
Technology, normally not below the rank of Director and
possessing the requisite experience in the field of information
technology, law/ judiciary, is appointed as the adjudicating officer
under Section 46 of the I.T. Act. In addition to this, the State of
Jharkhand, has, by notification dated 2nd September, 2025,
specifying Smt. Pooja Singhal, Secretary, Department of
Information and Technology and E-Governance, Government of
Jharkhand, as adjudicating officer under Section 46 of the I.T.
Act.
14. The contents of the notification dated 2nd September, 2025 issued
by the Government of Jharkhand, are transcribed below for the
convenience of reference:
Government of Jharkhand
Department of Information Technology & e-Governance
Jharkhand Mantralaya, 3rd Floor, Dharwa, Ranchi-834004Notification
By virtue of Notification-GSR 240(E) dated 25.03.2003,
in terms of section 46 of “The Information Technology Act,
2000“, Smt. Pooja Singhal, Secretary, Department of
Information Technology & e-Gov., Govt. of Jharkhand is being
appointed as the Adjudicating Officer with her office located
at:
7
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
Department of Information Technology & e-Gov.,
Project Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Dhurwa, Ranchi-834004Accordingly, any matter or case or dispute can be
placed before the authority for hearing/perusal and getting
justice as per the relevant sections of The Information
Technology Act, 2000.
Complaint(s) may be registered either through E-mail
i.e. it-secretary@ jharkhandmail.gov.in or registered letter or
in person at above mentioned office address on any working
days between 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
(Bhim Rabidas)
Joint Secretary to the Govt.
15. All this indicates that the appointment of the adjudicating officer
is in place. Besides, the said Rules, as noted earlier, make detailed
provisions for the adjudicating officer’s functioning. Therefore,
there should have been no difficulty for the adjudicating officer
to start entertaining complaints and disposing of them in
accordance with the law.
16. At one stage, when some difficulties were raised, we had placed
orders suggesting the drafting of standard operating procedures
to assist the adjudicating officer in entertaining and disposing of
complaints under the I.T. Act in an orderly and people-friendly
manner. However, from the affidavits filed before us, we find that
this disproportionate time is consumed by the Government in
preparing drafts, sending them for approval, and having the
approving authorities resend them for the preparation of fresh
drafts, etc. While this process can go on, in the meantime there
is no justification for the adjudicating officer not to start
8
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
functioning in accordance with the notifications referred to
hereinabove and the said Rules, which provide detailed
procedures regarding the scope and manner of holding enquiries
and passing of orders under the I.T. Act. Accordingly, a
mandamus to this effect is liable to issue to the Government of
Jharkhand and also to the adjudicating officer so appointed to
take all steps to operationalise the functioning of adjudicating
officers under the I.T. Act. We do so.
17. Mr Utkarsh Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed
out that there should be a mechanism to accept complaints
online. We think that this is a good suggestion. The Government
of Jharkhand, together with the adjudicating officer, must devise,
within a reasonable time, a methodology for accepting complaints
online.
18. Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-III, points out that the
notification dated 2nd September, 2025, specifying Smt. Pooja
Singhal, as the adjudicating officer, specifically provides that
complaints can be registered, inter alia, by e-mail at it-
19. This is proper. However, we still feel that wide publicity is
required for this aspect so that any persons who are victims of
cyber fraud, etc., are aware of this mechanism under the I.T. Act.
Further, all steps must be taken to ensure that this mechanism is
fully operational and accessible to those who may have
grievances that could be redressed under the provisions of the
9
2026:JHHC:9941-DB
20. Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by issuing the following
directions:
a) The Government of Jharkhand, together with the
adjudicating officer already appointed under Section 46 of
the I.T. Act, must ensure that complaints are received and
adjudicated under Section 46 of the I.T. Act, without any
hindrance hereafter. This process must commence within
a month from today, at the latest.
b) Within a period of 15 days from today, the Government of
Jharkhand and/or the adjudicating officer appointed under
Section 46 of the I.T. Act must widely publish this facility
available to all persons for filing complaints under the I.T.
Act. Such a publication should appear in local newspapers,
including those in regional languages, apart from other
available modes. The advertisements can refer to the
websites where the I.T. Act and the said Rules can be
accessed and the complaints filed.
c) The Government of Jharkhand and the adjudicating officer
are also directed to formulate Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs), not inconsistent with the provisions of
the I.T. Act or the said Rules, as expeditiously as possible
and in any event within 6 months from today. Such SOP
should also be given wide publicity, if necessary, by issuing
advertisements that provide access to it in electronic form.
d) The Government of Jharkhand and the adjudicating officer
should consider holding workshops or awareness
10
2026:JHHC:9941-DBcampaigns to ensure that people, in particular students,
senior citizens, etc., are made aware of the provisions of
the I.T. Act and the remedies it provides to deal with
cybercrimes, etc.
e) The adjudicating officer must file a compliance report in
this Court by furnishing an advance copy to the learned
counsel for the petitioner by 30th October, 2026, even
though we are disposing of this petition.
21. No costs.
22. Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
8th April, 2026
Sanjay/Rohit
Uploaded on 10.04.2026
A.F.R.
11