Section 73 prohibits publication or availability of an electronic signature certificate where the publisher knows that it was not issued by the named Certifying Authority, was not accepted by the named subscriber, or has been revoked or suspended. Publication to verify an electronic signature created before suspension or revocation remains permitted. Contravention is punishable by imprisonment, fine, or both.

Section 72 imposes liability where a person exercising statutory powers obtains access without consent to electronic records, correspondence, information, documents or other material and discloses it to another person. The provision operates subject to contrary permission under applicable law. Unauthorised disclosure attracts a monetary penalty that may extend to five lakh rupees, replacing the earlier consequence of imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Section 71 criminalises misrepresentation or suppression of material facts before the Controller or a Certifying Authority for obtaining a licence or an electronic signature Certificate. The offence may result in imprisonment, fine, or both. The expression "electronic signature" replaced the earlier expression "digital signature" through the 2008 amendment.

Section 70 establishes a protected-system regime for computer resources affecting Critical Information Infrastructure. The appropriate Government may notify such resources as protected and authorise access only through written orders. Unauthorised access or attempted access to a protected system is punishable with imprisonment and fine. The Central Government must prescribe information-security practices and procedures for protected systems.

Section 69 permits specially authorised Government officers to issue written orders for interception, monitoring or decryption of information in a computer resource on specified security, public-order, anti-incitement, or investigation grounds. Reasons must be recorded in writing and prescribed procedures and safeguards apply. Subscribers, intermediaries and persons in charge must provide access, technical assistance, interception, monitoring, decryption, or stored information when required. Failure to comply is punishable by imprisonment and fine.

Controller's power to issue binding directions enables an order requiring a Certifying Authority or its employee to undertake specified measures or discontinue specified activities where necessary to secure compliance with applicable statutory provisions, rules, or regulations. Intentional or knowing non-compliance with a Controller's direction constitutes an offence and attracts a monetary penalty.

Section 67 criminalises publishing, transmitting, or causing publication or transmission in electronic form of material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt persons likely to encounter it. Liability depends on the material's character and likely effect in the relevant circumstances. Punishment escalates for repeat convictions, and the substituted provision modified the scope of causative transmission and the maximum punishments under the earlier version.

Section 66 imposes criminal liability on any person who dishonestly or fraudulently commits an act covered by section 43. The offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to three years, a fine up to five lakh rupees, or both. The expressions "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" take their meanings from the Penal Code.

Knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying, altering, or causing another person to do so with computer source code constitutes an offence where the code must be kept or maintained by law. Computer source code includes programme listings, commands, design and layout, and programme analysis in any form. Punishment may include imprisonment, fine, or both.

Unpaid penalties imposed or compensation awarded may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The relevant licence or electronic signature certificate must be suspended until the penalty is paid. The recovery mechanism was expanded from penalty-only wording to cover compensation, and certificate terminology was changed from digital signature to electronic signature.

Contraventions under the Information Technology Act, 2000 may be compounded before or after adjudication by the Controller, a specially authorised officer, or the adjudicating officer, subject to specified conditions. The compounding amount cannot exceed the maximum applicable penalty. Repeat or similar contraventions within three years of an earlier compounded contravention cannot be compounded, while later contraventions are treated as first contraventions. Compounding precludes further proceedings for the same contravention.

Section 62 permits a person aggrieved by an Appellate Tribunal decision or order to appeal to the High Court on any question of fact or law arising from that order. The appeal must be filed within sixty days of communication. Where sufficient cause prevented timely filing, the High Court may allow a further period not exceeding sixty days.

Section 61 bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings on matters that an adjudicating officer or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the Information Technology Act, 2000. It also prevents courts and other authorities from granting injunctions concerning actions taken or proposed under powers conferred by that framework.

Limitation for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963, as far as may be practicable. The general statutory limitation framework applies to appellate proceedings, subject to its suitability for such appeals. The designation "Appellate Tribunal" replaced "Cyber Appellate Tribunal" through the Finance Act, 2017.

Section 59 establishes an appellant's right to legal representation before the Appellate Tribunal. An appellant may appear personally or authorise one or more legal practitioners or its officers to present the case. Legal or officer representation is available as an alternative to personal appearance for presenting the case before the tribunal.

The Appellate Tribunal follows natural justice rather than Civil Procedure Code procedure and may regulate its procedure and sittings. It exercises civil-court powers to compel attendance, obtain documents or electronic records, receive affidavits, issue commissions, review decisions, and dismiss applications for default or decide them ex parte. Its proceedings have judicial-proceeding status, and it is deemed a civil court for specified criminal-procedure purposes.

Section 57 provides an appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal against orders of the Controller or an adjudicating officer, except consent orders. Appeals must be filed within forty-five days of receiving the order, subject to condonation of delay for sufficient cause. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the challenged order and must communicate its order to the parties and concerned officer. Appeals are to be dealt with expeditiously, with an endeavour for final disposal within six months.

Section 56 was omitted, removing the statutory framework for Central Government provision of officers and employees to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. Before omission, personnel performed functions under the Chairperson's general superintendence, while their salaries, allowances, and service conditions were prescribed by the Central Government. The provision had replaced the reference to Presiding Officer with Chairperson.

Section 55 confers finality on Central Government orders appointing the Chairperson or a Member of the Appellate Tribunal, barring such orders from being called in question. It also prevents acts or proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal from being challenged merely on the ground of a defect in the Tribunal's constitution.

Section 54, governing resignation and removal of Cyber Appellate Tribunal officeholders, was omitted with effect from 26 May 2017. Previously, resignation required written notice to the Central Government, subject to continued office until the earliest prescribed event. Removal for proved misbehaviour or incapacity required an inquiry by a Supreme Court Judge, notice of charges, and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The Central Government could regulate the investigation procedure by rules.