Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource – Sec.69A

*[ 69A. Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.-(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.
[* Inserted vide Information Technology Amendment Act, 2008]

[] Tampering with computer source Documents – Sec.65 (IT Act)

65. Tampering with computer source documents. –

Whoever knowingly or intentionally conceals, destroy, or alter any computer source code used for a computer, computer programme, computer system or computer network, when the computer source code is required to be kept or maintained by law for the time being in force, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or with fine which may extend up to two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation – For the purposes of this section, “computer source code” means the listing of programmes, compute commands, design and layout and programme analysis of computer resource in any form.

Central Board of Direct Taxes introduces Paperless PAN & TAN application process

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes

New Delhi, 22nd July, 2016.

For fast tracking the allotment of PAN and TAN to company applicants, Digital Signature Certificate(DSC) based application procedure has been introduced on the portals of PAN service providers M/s NSDL eGov and M/s UTIITSL. Under the new process PAN and TAN will be allotted within one day after completion of valid on-line application.

Similarly, a new Aadhaar e-Signature based application process for Individual PAN applicants has been made available on the portals of PAN service providers M/s NSDL eGov.Introduction of Aadhaar based e-Signature through M/s NSDL eGov in PAN application not only ensures paperless hassle free PAN application process but also seeding of Aadhaar in PAN which will curb the problem of duplicate PAN to a great extent.

(Meenakshi J. Goswami)
Commissioner of Income Tax
(Media and Technical Policy)
Official Spokesperson, CBDT.

Credits: incometaxindia.gov.in

Detention procedures applicable to Khobragade, US clarifies

usa

In the case of the senior Indian diplomat, Deputy Consul General Devyani Khobragade, arrested in New York last Thursday, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), the “police” of the Department of Justice (DoJ) answered multiple media queries confirming that she had been “strip-searched.”

While it was also clear that she had been handcuffed, the USMS however shied away from providing further details surrounding the conditions of her detention between around 9.10am and 4pm that day, saying only that she was “was subject to the same search procedures as other USMS arrestees in accordance with USMS Policy Directives and Protocols.”

To understand these protocols better, The Hindu identified the specific protocol documents – known as Prisoner Operations Service Directives – that determine what actions the USMS can take against an inmate of the sort that Ms. Khobragade was considered to be.

The documents separately address three USMS protocols, respectively for “body searches,” “restraining devices,” and “DNA sample collection.”

According to the body searches protocols, there are four types of searches that the USMS is authorised to conduct: pat-down search, in-custody search, strip-search and digital cavity search. Of these the USMS and other sources have indicated that the strip-search was performed on Ms. Khobragade.

Defined as a “complete search of a prisoner’s attire and a visual inspection of the prisoner’s naked body, including body cavities,” the strip-search is typically ordered depending on the circumstances surrounding the prisoner’s detention, specifically whether the is a pre-trial detainee, which the diplomat was.

The USMS protocol mandates that when such a search is conducted Marshals should ensure they have “a private location that prevents all but designated personnel from viewing the prisoner,” and “all attempts to protect the modesty of the prisoner will be made to include modifying viewing and recording of CCTV.”

It also requires that only a deputy of the same-sex can conduct a strip-search unless the person conducting the search is a physician or nurse, and a witness of the same-sex as the person being searched must be present during the search.

The use of “reasonable force” is allowed if the prisoner refuses to cooperate in removing any article of clothing or otherwise impedes the deputy; however Marshals are called upon to do the search “in a professional manner, causing the prisoner as little embarrassment as possible.”

When conducting a strip-search, the deputy will instruct the prisoner to remove all loose articles and conduct “a thorough visual examination of the prisoner’s body, from the top of the head to the bottom of the feet,” the protocol says.

The deputy then moves on to inspect behind each ear and look inside the prisoner’s ear canals, nostrils, and mouth, checking under the tongue, roof of the mouth, and between the lips and gums.

They are also required to visually inspect down the front of the body, paying close attention to areas such as armpits, breasts, and genital area, the protocol says, including directing the prisoner to “spread her legs and bend forward at the waist [to] observe the anus area and genitals from the rear.”

“Conclude with an observation of the bottoms and between the toes of both feet,” the protocol advises.

In terms of the restraints that may have been used on Ms. Khobragade, USMS protocols firstly mandate that “All persons in the operational custody of the USMS will be fully restrained during transportation,” and the definition of “fully restrained” is that “handcuffs, waist chains, and leg irons (shackles) are required.”

Ms. Khobragade was undoubtedly in transit while under custody on Thursday, as it was initially the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service that arrested near her daughter’s school, then handed over to USMS custody and finally she was produced in a courthouse later that day.

This implies that she is likely to have been “fully restrained” at several points during the day, as defined by the protocol.

Additional protocol-recommended restraints that may have been used include “padlocks, flex cuffs and security boxes.”

Finally, the protocols also call for DNA sampling for all prisoners facing criminal summons by a U.S. District Court for the purpose of facing federal charges “regardless of which federal law enforcement agency is the investigative agency.”

To this end USMS personnel are required to DNA sample collection kits and techniques as provided and advised by the FBI respectively.

Here too the use of “non-lethal force” is allowed within the protocols “as are reasonably necessary to detain, restrain, and collect a DNA sample from an individual who is unwilling to submit to DNA collection.”

According to DoJ documents the most common DNA “reference samples” collected from prisoners are “blood, oral/buccal swabs, and/or plucked hairs (e.g., head, pubic).”

 

Kerala HC confirms death sentence for Soumya murder accused

kedi

Kochi, December 17, 2013 A division bench of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday confirmed the death sentence awarded by the Thrissur Fast Track Court to Govindachamy, the sole accused in the Soumya murder case. The murder took place on February 1, 2011. The prosecution case was that, Govindachamy had pushed Soumya, a passenger, out of the Ernakulam-Shoranur passenger train after attempting to rob her. He had raped the seriously injured woman after she fell down in woods nearby the railway track at Vallathole Nagar. She later succumbed to injuries at the Thrissur Government Medical College Hospital on February 6. The bench comprising Justice T.R. Ramachadran Nair and Justice B. Kemal Pasha while upholding the sentence observed that it did no find any reason to interfere with the conclusions of the fast track court. . The fast track court had observed that the brutal rape was one of the reasons for the death of Soumya. There was no legal or moral justification

‘When I tried to move away, he kissed my arm, repeated he loved me… Asked me to share room’

ki

‘Is this how you would treat your daughter, My Lord?’ The Additional Solicitor General asks as she shares what the law intern who has accused ex-SC judge A K Ganguly of sexual harassment told a court panel

Following the allegations of sexual harassment against a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India, the Attorney General filed a petition on the same day asking for an investigation into the matter. When the matter was mentioned at 2 pm, the Chief Justice announced that he had set up a committee in his administrative capacity, of three judges, two being incumbent chief justices and a woman judge, to investigate and give a report to the Chief Justice.

The intern gave her statement to the committee, provided the affidavits of witnesses to whom she spoke immediately after the incident, gave all the mobile phone numbers of witnesses and of Justice Ganguly, and stood by her statement. Justice Ganguly was also called and his statement was video recorded. Apart from denying the allegations, he said the new law of 2013 making sexual harassment an offence did not apply to him as the alleged incident was of 2012, forgetting that outraging the modesty of a woman was always an offence, a law under which K P S Gill was prosecuted successfully by Rupan Deol Bajaj.

The committee gave its report in which it concluded: “We have carefully scrutinised the statement (written as well as oral) of the intern, the affidavits of her three witnesses and the statement of Mr Justice (Retd) A K Ganguly. It appears to the committee that in the evening on 24.12.2012, the intern had visited hotel Le Meridien where Mr Justice (Retd) A K Ganguly was staying to assist him in his work. This fact is not denied by Mr Justice (Retd) A K Ganguly. Further the committee is of the considered view that the statement of the intern, both written and oral, prima facie discloses an act of unwelcome behaviour (unwelcome verbal/ non-verbal conduct of sexual nature) by Mr Justice (Retd) A K Ganguly with her in the room in hotel Le Meridien on 24.12.2012 approximately between 8 pm and 10.30 pm.”