Confidentiality and privacy protection imposes a monetary penalty of up to five lakh rupees where a person, while exercising powers under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or its rules or regulations, obtains access to electronic records, information, documents, or other material and discloses it to another person without the concerned person's consent.

Misrepresentation or suppression of material facts to the Controller or a Certifying Authority for obtaining a licence or electronic signature Certificate is punishable with imprisonment up to two years, a fine up to one lakh rupees, or both.

Section 70 permits the appropriate Government to notify a computer resource affecting Critical Information Infrastructure as a protected system. Access may be granted only to persons authorised by written order. Securing or attempting to secure access contrary to these requirements is punishable with imprisonment extending to ten years and fine. The Central Government must prescribe information security practices and procedures for protected systems.

Section 69 authorises interception, monitoring, or decryption of information through computer resources where necessary or expedient for specified public interests or offence investigation. Directions require recorded written reasons and remain subject to prescribed procedures and safeguards. Subscribers, intermediaries, and persons in charge of computer resources must provide access, technical assistance, or stored information when required. Failure to assist attracts imprisonment and fine.

Controller may direct a Certifying Authority or its employee to take specified measures or discontinue activities necessary to secure compliance with information technology law, rules, or regulations. Intentional or knowing non-compliance with such direction constitutes an offence and attracts a monetary penalty up to the prescribed limit.

Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalises publishing, transmitting, or causing the publication or transmission of obscene material in electronic form. The prohibition applies to material that is lascivious, appeals to prurient interest, or tends to deprave and corrupt likely readers, viewers, or listeners. It prescribes imprisonment and fine for a first conviction, with enhanced penalties for repeat convictions.

Section 66 criminalises dishonest or fraudulent performance of an act covered by section 43. The offence is punishable by imprisonment extending to three years, a fine extending to five lakh rupees, or both. The terms "dishonestly" and "fraudulently" have the meanings assigned under the Indian Penal Code.

Knowingly or intentionally concealing, destroying, altering, or causing alteration of computer source code required by law to be maintained constitutes an offence. The prohibition covers source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system, or computer network. Computer source code includes programme listings, computer commands, design and layout, and programme analysis of a computer resource. The offence is punishable with imprisonment, fine, or both.

Unpaid penalty or compensation under the Information Technology Act, 2000 is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The relevant licence or electronic signature certificate remains suspended until payment of the penalty.

Section 63 permits compounding of contraventions before or after adjudication proceedings, subject to conditions and a sum not exceeding the maximum imposable penalty. Compounding is barred for the same or similar contravention committed within three years of an earlier compounded contravention, while a later contravention is treated as a first contravention. Once compounded, no proceeding or further proceeding may continue for that contravention.

An aggrieved person may appeal a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court within sixty days of its communication, on a question of fact or law arising from the order. Where sufficient cause prevented timely filing, the High Court may permit filing during a further period not exceeding sixty days.

Section 61 bars civil courts from entertaining suits or proceedings concerning matters that an adjudicating officer or Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine under the statutory framework. It also prohibits courts or other authorities from granting injunctions against action taken, or proposed to be taken, pursuant to powers conferred under that framework.

Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are governed, as far as practicable, by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 60 applies that limitation framework to appellate proceedings before the Tribunal, making the Limitation Act the governing basis for determining timeliness of an appeal.

Right to legal representation before the Appellate Tribunal permits an appellant to appear personally or authorise one or more legal practitioners or officers to present the appellant's case. The provision applies to both individual and institutional appellants.

The Appellate Tribunal is guided by natural justice rather than the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure and may regulate its own procedure and sittings, subject to the governing Act and rules. It has civil-court powers to compel attendance, obtain documents or electronic records, receive affidavit evidence, issue commissions, review decisions, and dispose of applications by default or ex parte. Its proceedings have judicial-proceeding status and the Tribunal receives civil-court treatment for specified procedural-criminal purposes.

Persons aggrieved by orders of the Controller or an adjudicating officer may appeal to the competent Appellate Tribunal, except where an adjudicating officer's order was made with the parties' consent. Appeals require prescribed form and fee, must ordinarily be filed within forty-five days of receipt of the order, and may be admitted late on sufficient cause. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the order.

Section 56 concerning staff of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal was omitted, removing the statutory framework for Tribunal personnel. Before omission, the Central Government was required to provide officers and employees as considered fit. Their functions were subject to the general superintendence of the Presiding Officer, while salaries, allowances, and other service conditions were to be prescribed by the Central Government.

Central Government orders appointing the Chairperson or a Member of an Appellate Tribunal cannot be challenged. Acts and proceedings before an Appellate Tribunal cannot be questioned merely because of a defect in the tribunal's constitution, preserving the validity and continuity of appellate proceedings.

Section 54 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning resignation and removal in relation to the Appellate Tribunal, stands omitted. It contains no continuing substantive rules, procedure, eligibility condition, removal mechanism, or consequence concerning resignation or removal. The provision is represented only by an omission marker and has no operative text in its present form.

Section 53, dealing with filling vacancies in the Appellate Tribunal, is omitted from the Information Technology Act, 2000. No vacancy-filling procedure, eligibility criterion, appointment mechanism, consequential arrangement, or separate replacement mechanism is set out within this provision. The legal effect is confined to removal of the former statutory provision governing Appellate Tribunal vacancies.