Section 70 permits the appropriate Government to declare a computer, computer system or computer network a protected system through notification in the Official Gazette. Persons may access a notified protected system only when authorised by a written order. Securing or attempting to secure access in contravention of these requirements is punishable with imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine.

Controller-authorised interception may be directed to a Government agency where necessary or expedient for sovereignty or integrity, State security, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or prevention of incitement to a cognizable offence. Subscribers and persons in charge of computer resources must provide facilities and technical assistance to decrypt information when called upon by the directed agency. Failure to provide decryption assistance is punishable with imprisonment extending to seven years.

Section 68 empowers the Controller to direct a Certifying Authority or its employee to take specified measures or stop specified activities when necessary to secure compliance with the Act, rules, or regulations. Failure to comply constitutes an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment up to three years, a fine up to two lakh rupees, or both.

Electronic obscenity is criminalised where material published or transmitted electronically is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt likely recipients in the relevant circumstances. Liability extends to persons causing such publication, and penalties escalate for subsequent convictions.

Hacking arises where a person intends, or knows the conduct is likely, to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person by destroying, deleting, or altering information in a computer resource. It also includes diminishing that information's value or utility or injuriously affecting it by any means. The conduct is punishable by imprisonment, fine, or both.

Knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying or altering legally required computer source code, or causing another person to do so, is punishable. The covered source code includes programme listings, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of a computer resource in any form. Punishment may include imprisonment, fine, or both.

Unpaid penalties imposed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Where a penalty remains unpaid, the relevant licence or Digital Signature Certificate shall be suspended until payment, combining revenue-style recovery with suspension of the applicable licence or certificate. Recovery and suspension therefore continue in force throughout the period in which the penalty remains unpaid.

Section 63 authorises the Controller, a specially authorised officer, or the adjudicating officer to compound a contravention before or after adjudication begins. Compounding is subject to conditions fixed by the competent officer, and the sum imposed cannot exceed the maximum penalty otherwise imposable. Repeat or similar contraventions within three years are ineligible for compounding, while compounding prevents further proceedings concerning the resolved contravention.

Section 62 permits a person aggrieved by a decision or order of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal to appeal before the High Court on a question of fact or law arising from the order. The appeal must be filed within sixty days of communication of the order. On sufficient cause for delay, a further filing period not exceeding sixty days may be allowed.

Civil court jurisdiction is excluded for suits or proceedings concerning matters assigned under the Information Technology Act, 2000 to an adjudicating officer or the Cyber Appellate Tribunal for determination. Courts and other authorities are also barred from granting injunctions against actions taken, or proposed to be taken, pursuant to powers conferred under the Act. The provision establishes a statutory bar on civil proceedings and injunctive relief within the specialised adjudicatory framework.

Limitation for appeals to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is governed, as far as applicable, by the Limitation Act, 1963. Its limitation framework applies to appeals made to the Tribunal, subject to suitability in the appellate context.

Right to legal representation before the Cyber Appellate Tribunal allows an appellant to appear personally or use authorised representation. One or more legal practitioners, or any officer of the appellant, may present the case. Personal appearance remains available, while authorised representation permits the appellant's case to be presented before the Tribunal.

The Cyber Appellate Tribunal follows principles of natural justice rather than the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and may regulate its own procedure and sittings. It has civil-court powers to summon and examine persons, require documents and electronic records, receive affidavit evidence, issue commissions, review decisions, dismiss applications for default, and decide matters ex parte. Its proceedings are treated as judicial proceedings for specified criminal-law purposes, and it is deemed a civil court for specified purposes under criminal procedure law.

Appeals to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal lie against orders of the Controller or an adjudicating officer, except consent orders of an adjudicating officer. Appeals must be filed in the prescribed form with the prescribed fee within forty-five days of receipt, subject to admission of delayed filings for sufficient cause. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the order.

The Central Government is to provide the Cyber Appellate Tribunal with officers and employees as it considers fit. Their functions are performed under the general superintendence of the Presiding Officer, and their salaries, allowances, and other conditions of service are prescribed by the Central Government.

Central Government orders appointing the Presiding Officer of a Cyber Appellate Tribunal are final and cannot be challenged in any manner. Acts and proceedings before the Tribunal remain insulated from challenge merely because of a defect in the Tribunal's constitution. The provision preserves the validity of proceedings notwithstanding such constitutive defects.

Resignation by the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal requires written notice to the Central Government, with continuation in office until earlier permitted relinquishment, successor appointment, expiry of three months, or expiry of the term, whichever occurs first. Removal is limited to proved misbehaviour or incapacity following an inquiry by a Judge of the Supreme Court, with notice of charges and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Vacancies in the office of the Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, other than those caused by temporary absence, must be filled by the Central Government through appointment of another person in accordance with the applicable provisions. Pending proceedings may continue from the stage reached when the vacancy is filled, preserving procedural continuity.

Salary, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the Presiding Officer, including pension, gratuity, and other retirement benefits, are to be determined by prescribed terms. Post-appointment protection prevents any variation that places the Presiding Officer at a disadvantage in relation to salary, allowances, or other conditions of service.

Presiding Officer of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal holds office for five years from entering office, subject to earlier cessation of tenure upon attaining sixty-five years. The office cannot continue beyond the specified retirement age even where the five-year period has not expired.