Indian Computer Emergency Response Team serves as the national agency for cyber-security incident response. Its functions include collecting, analysing and disseminating cyber-incident information; issuing forecasts and alerts; undertaking emergency measures; coordinating incident-response activities; and issuing guidelines, advisories, vulnerability notes and white papers on information-security practices, prevention, response and incident reporting.

The Central Government may designate a Government organisation as the national nodal agency for Critical Information Infrastructure Protection by Official Gazette notification. The designated agency is responsible for protective measures, including related research and development, and must perform its functions and duties in the prescribed manner.

Section 69B authorises the Central Government to empower a government agency to monitor and collect traffic data or information through computer resources for cyber security and prevention of intrusions or computer contaminants. Intermediaries and persons in charge must provide technical assistance and facilities for online access when required by an authorised agency. Intentional or knowing non-compliance attracts imprisonment, a fine, or both, subject to prescribed procedures and safeguards.

Section 69A permits written directions requiring a government agency or intermediary to block public access to information through a computer resource on specified sovereignty, security, foreign-relations, public-order, or cognizable-offence incitement grounds. Blocking is subject to prescribed procedures and safeguards. Intermediary non-compliance with a blocking direction may result in imprisonment and fine.

Intermediaries must preserve and retain specified information for the prescribed duration and in the prescribed manner and format. Intentional or knowing contravention of these information preservation and retention obligations may attract a penalty extending to twenty-five lakh rupees.

Customs clearance may temporarily proceed on an undertaking instead of the bond otherwise required under section 143AA during lockdown-related disruption. This facility remains available until 15 June 2020, while the deadline for submission of the proper bond is extended until 30 June 2020. Existing conditions governing the undertaking remain unchanged, and the relaxation is subject to review after the lockdown period.

Section 67B criminalises electronic publication, transmission, creation, collection, browsing, downloading, promotion, exchange, or distribution of material depicting children in an obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit manner. It also covers online grooming for sexually explicit conduct, facilitation of online child abuse, and electronic recording of sexually explicit abuse of children. Imprisonment and fine apply, with enhanced imprisonment for repeat convictions, subject to public-good and bona fide heritage or religious-purpose exceptions.

Section 67A criminalises publishing, transmitting, or causing publication or transmission in electronic form of material containing sexually explicit acts or conduct. A first conviction may attract imprisonment of up to five years and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees; second or subsequent convictions may attract imprisonment of up to seven years and a fine of up to ten lakh rupees.

Cyber terrorism includes unauthorised computer conduct intended to threaten national unity, integrity, security or sovereignty, or to strike terror. It covers denial of authorised access, unauthorised access, and introducing computer contaminants causing or likely to cause death, injury, property damage, disruption of essential services, or harm to critical information infrastructure. It also includes accessing restricted State-security or foreign-relations information where it may injure protected national interests or advantage a foreign nation or group. Commission or conspiracy may attract life imprisonment.

Unconditional withdrawal of a writ petition constitutes abandonment of the claim and bars a subsequent writ petition on the same cause of action as a matter of public policy. Although the Code of Civil Procedure does not directly apply to proceedings under Article 226, its equitable principles may guide the High Court's jurisdiction. Withdrawal or dismissal of proceedings under Article 32 does not itself determine whether a fresh writ petition before the High Court is maintainable. The bar on a second Article 226 petition follows from abandonment and prevention of repetitive litigation, rather than direct application of Order XXIII Rule 1.

Section 66E criminalises intentional or knowing capture, publication or transmission of an image of a person's private area without consent in circumstances violating privacy. The offence may result in imprisonment, fine, or both. Privacy-violating circumstances include a reasonable expectation of disrobing without image capture or of a private area not being publicly visible, whether the person is in a public or private place.

Cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource is criminalised under Section 66D. The offence concerns using technological means to deceive another by assuming or presenting a false identity, and is punishable with imprisonment of either description for up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.

Identity theft arises where a person fraudulently or dishonestly uses another person's electronic signature, password, or other unique identification feature. Criminal liability covers any such unique identifier belonging to another person where the fraudulent or dishonest mental element is present. Punishment may include imprisonment of either description for up to three years and a fine up to one lakh rupees.

Section 66B criminalises dishonest receipt or retention of a stolen computer resource or communication device where the person knows or has reason to believe that it is stolen. Liability requires dishonest receipt or retention and awareness, or reason to believe, that the resource or device is stolen. The offence may result in imprisonment, fine, or both.

Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning punishment for sending offensive messages through a communication service or related electronic means, is omitted. No surviving operative text remains under the provision, whose former subject matter concerned an offence relating to offensive communications.

AEO certificate validity is extended until 30 September 2020 for certificates that expired or were due to expire between 1 March and 30 September 2020, owing to lockdown-related renewal difficulties. Entities against which a negative report is received during the relevant period remain excluded. The extension replaces the earlier, narrower temporary extension while preserving the existing certificate-validity structure.

Members of a two-Member Appellate Tribunal Bench who differ on any point must formulate the points of disagreement and refer them to the Chairperson. The disputed points are resolved according to the opinion supported by the majority of all Members hearing the case, including those who initially heard it.

Section 52C, concerning the Chairperson's power to transfer cases within the Appellate Tribunal framework, is omitted. No operative text remains to confer, regulate, or qualify authority to transfer cases, and no procedure, conditions, scope, or independent case-transfer mechanism is retained under the provision.

Section 52B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, on distribution of business among Benches of the Appellate Tribunal, is omitted. The provision therefore contains no operative terms governing allocation of the Tribunal's business among Benches and lays down no applicable criteria, procedures, or mechanisms for inter-Bench assignment of matters under section 52B.

Section 52A, formerly identified with powers of superintendence, direction, and related matters concerning the Appellate Tribunal, is omitted. The provision contains no surviving operative terms setting out those powers, their scope, conditions, procedures, or consequences. Accordingly, no substantive mechanism is specified under section 52A for superintendence or direction in relation to the Appellate Tribunal.