top of page

Information Technology Act 2000 Section 28

IT Act Section 28 empowers the Controller to investigate and examine digital signature certificates and related matters.

Section 28 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deals with the powers of the Controller to investigate matters related to digital signature certificates. It authorizes the Controller to examine and verify the issuance, suspension, or revocation of digital signatures to ensure compliance with the law. This section is vital in maintaining trust in electronic transactions and digital authentication.

In today’s digital world, where electronic signatures facilitate secure online dealings, Section 28 safeguards the integrity of the digital signature framework. It impacts users, businesses, and law enforcement by providing a mechanism to address irregularities and enforce accountability in digital signature management.

Information Technology Act Section 28 – Exact Provision

This section empowers the Controller to conduct investigations to ensure that digital signature certificates are issued and managed according to the Act’s provisions. It helps prevent misuse or fraudulent issuance of digital signatures, thereby protecting electronic transactions' authenticity and security.

  • Grants investigative authority to the Controller.

  • Focuses on digital signature certificates.

  • Ensures compliance with IT Act provisions.

  • Supports enforcement of digital signature regulations.

  • Prevents misuse of digital signatures.

Explanation of Information Technology Act Section 28

Section 28 authorizes the Controller to investigate digital signature certificate matters to uphold legal compliance.

  • The section states the Controller’s power to investigate digital signature-related issues.

  • Applies to the Controller, Certifying Authorities, and related entities.

  • Triggered by suspicion or complaints regarding digital signature misuse or non-compliance.

  • Legal criteria include adherence to the IT Act and related rules.

  • Allows investigation but does not specify penalties directly.

  • Prohibits unauthorized issuance or misuse of digital signatures.

Purpose and Rationale of IT Act Section 28

This section aims to maintain trust in digital signatures by empowering the Controller to investigate compliance. It ensures the digital signature ecosystem functions securely and reliably.

  • Protects users relying on digital signatures.

  • Prevents cyber fraud related to digital certificates.

  • Ensures secure electronic authentication.

  • Regulates Certifying Authorities’ conduct.

When IT Act Section 28 Applies

Section 28 applies when there is a need to verify compliance or investigate irregularities in digital signature certificates.

  • When complaints or suspicions arise about digital signature misuse.

  • Invoked by the Controller or authorized officials.

  • Requires evidence of non-compliance or irregularity.

  • Relevant to digital signature issuance, suspension, or revocation.

  • Does not apply to unrelated cyber offences.

Legal Effect of IT Act Section 28

Section 28 creates the Controller’s authority to investigate digital signature certificate matters. While it does not directly impose penalties, findings from investigations can lead to actions under other provisions. It supports the enforcement framework ensuring digital signature integrity. This section complements other IT Act provisions and IPC laws related to fraud or forgery.

  • Establishes investigative rights for the Controller.

  • Supports enforcement of digital signature regulations.

  • Indirectly aids in penalizing violations under related sections.

Nature of Offence or Liability under IT Act Section 28

Section 28 itself does not define an offence but empowers investigation into digital signature certificate compliance. It is a regulatory provision enabling oversight rather than imposing direct criminal liability. Investigations may lead to actions under other sections involving criminal or civil liability.

  • Regulatory compliance provision.

  • Does not create standalone offence.

  • Investigations may trigger criminal or civil proceedings elsewhere.

  • Non-cognizable nature as it relates to inquiry powers.

Stage of Proceedings Where IT Act Section 28 Applies

Section 28 applies primarily at the investigation stage to verify compliance with digital signature rules. It supports evidence collection and fact-finding before formal complaints or prosecution under other sections.

  • Initiates investigation by Controller.

  • Involves examination of digital signature records.

  • Supports gathering of digital evidence.

  • Precedes filing of complaints or legal action.

  • May inform trial and appeal stages indirectly.

Penalties and Consequences under IT Act Section 28

While Section 28 itself does not prescribe penalties, investigations may reveal violations leading to penalties under other IT Act provisions. These can include fines, suspension or revocation of certificates, or prosecution for offences like forgery or fraud.

  • No direct penalties under Section 28.

  • Findings may lead to certificate suspension or revocation.

  • Possible fines or imprisonment under related sections.

  • Corporate or intermediary liability possible if violations found.

Example of IT Act Section 28 in Practical Use

X, a Certifying Authority, is suspected of issuing digital signature certificates without proper verification. The Controller invokes Section 28 to investigate the matter. During the inquiry, records and procedures are examined. The Controller finds non-compliance with IT Act rules and recommends suspension of the certificates and penalties. This action restores trust and prevents misuse of digital signatures in electronic transactions.

  • Section 28 enables Controller’s inquiry into digital signature irregularities.

  • Supports enforcement actions to maintain digital trust.

Historical Background of IT Act Section 28

The IT Act was introduced to regulate electronic commerce and digital signatures. Section 28 was included to empower the Controller to oversee digital signature management. The 2008 Amendment further strengthened regulatory mechanisms. Over time, interpretation has evolved to address emerging digital authentication challenges.

  • Introduced to regulate digital signature framework.

  • Amended in 2008 for enhanced oversight.

  • Evolved with technological advancements.

Modern Relevance of IT Act Section 28

In 2026, with growing digital transactions, Section 28 remains crucial for cybersecurity and trust. It supports data protection, fintech operations, and digital identity verification. Social media and intermediary reforms also rely on robust digital signature regulation.

  • Supports digital evidence authenticity.

  • Enhances online safety and trust.

  • Addresses enforcement challenges in digital authentication.

Related Sections

  • IT Act Section 24 – Duties of Certifying Authorities.

  • IT Act Section 25 – Suspension and revocation of digital signature certificates.

  • IT Act Section 26 – Controller’s powers to grant licenses.

  • IT Act Section 43 – Penalty for unauthorized access and data theft.

  • IPC Section 420 – Cheating, relevant for digital fraud.

  • Evidence Act Section 65B – Admissibility of electronic evidence.

Case References under IT Act Section 28

No landmark case directly interprets this section as of 2026.

Key Facts Summary for IT Act Section 28

  • Section: 28

  • Title: Controller’s Investigation Powers

  • Category: Digital signature regulation, compliance

  • Applies To: Controller, Certifying Authorities

  • Stage: Investigation

  • Legal Effect: Empowers investigation, supports enforcement

  • Penalties: Indirect, via related provisions

Conclusion on IT Act Section 28

Section 28 is a vital regulatory provision empowering the Controller to investigate digital signature certificate matters. It ensures that digital signatures, which are essential for secure electronic transactions, are managed in compliance with the law. This oversight helps maintain trust in the digital ecosystem.

Although it does not prescribe penalties directly, Section 28 supports enforcement actions under other IT Act provisions. It plays a key role in preventing misuse and ensuring the integrity of digital authentication, benefiting users, businesses, and law enforcement alike.

FAQs on IT Act Section 28

What authority does Section 28 grant to the Controller?

Section 28 empowers the Controller to investigate any matter related to digital signature certificates to ensure compliance with the IT Act and its rules.

Does Section 28 impose penalties directly?

No, Section 28 itself does not prescribe penalties but enables investigations that may lead to actions under other sections involving penalties.

Who can be investigated under Section 28?

The Controller can investigate Certifying Authorities and related entities involved in issuing or managing digital signature certificates.

When is Section 28 invoked?

It is invoked when there are suspicions or complaints regarding misuse, irregularities, or non-compliance in digital signature certificate management.

How does Section 28 impact digital transactions?

By enabling investigations, Section 28 helps maintain the authenticity and security of digital signatures, fostering trust in electronic transactions.

Related Sections

Contract Act 1872 Section 75 explains when a party can recover money paid under a void agreement.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 52 defines the admissibility of oral evidence, specifying when oral statements are relevant and acceptable in court.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 84 empowers the Central Government to make rules for effective implementation of the Act.

CPC Section 154 details the procedure for filing a police report (FIR) upon receiving information about a cognizable offence.

CrPC Section 243 details the procedure for trial of offences committed by companies and their representatives.

CrPC Section 140 empowers police to disperse unlawful assemblies to maintain public peace and order.

Companies Act 2013 Section 56 governs the transfer and transmission of shares in Indian companies.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 121 defines when oral admissions are relevant, detailing their use in proving facts in civil and criminal cases.

CrPC Section 316 details the procedure for taking evidence of a witness who is unable to attend court due to age or infirmity.

IPC Section 287 addresses negligent conduct with respect to causing injury to persons or property, focusing on preventing harm through carelessness.

IPC Section 340 defines wrongful confinement by a person in authority, focusing on unlawful restraint by public servants or officials.

IT Act Section 32 mandates secure electronic records and digital signatures for legal recognition in electronic transactions.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 83 outlines penalties for non-compliance with orders by Consumer Commissions, ensuring enforcement of consumer rights.

CrPC Section 476 deals with punishment for counterfeiting valuable security or documents, outlining penalties and legal procedures.

CrPC Section 442 details the procedure for a person to surrender before a Magistrate and the Magistrate's power to grant bail or remand.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 2(38) defines 'defect' in goods or services, crucial for consumer rights and dispute resolution.

IPC Section 345 defines wrongful confinement in a place of worship or public religious assembly, protecting religious freedom and public order.

CrPC Section 12 details the procedure for filing a complaint before a Magistrate to initiate criminal proceedings.

CrPC Section 438 provides anticipatory bail to protect individuals from arrest in certain cases before any accusation is made.

IPC Section 218 addresses public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury, ensuring accountability in official duties.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 66 governs the admissibility of electronic records as evidence in Indian courts.

CrPC Section 439A details the procedure for granting bail to accused persons in cases involving offences punishable with death or life imprisonment.

Evidence Act 1872 Section 22 defines the admissibility of admissions made by parties, crucial for establishing facts in civil and criminal cases.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 2(43) defines 'product liability' and its scope under the Act.

CrPC Section 347 defines the procedure when a Magistrate refuses to take cognizance of an offence.

IPC Section 242 defines the offence of wrongful confinement and its legal implications under Indian law.

IPC Section 121A defines conspiracy to commit offences against the state, addressing plans to disrupt national security.

bottom of page