Click the Play button to listen to article

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the Central Government to decide a representation challenging the September 21, 2026, deadline for private individuals and professionals to continue using FIPS 140-2 tokens for their Digital Signature Certificates (DSCs).

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia asked the Government to decide the representation made by lawyer Ramkishan Saraswat latest by September 20.

While doing so, the Court refused to interfere with a single judge order which had asked the Centre, on August 31, to decide the representation within four weeks.

The appeal was filed by Saraswat alleging that despite the judicial direction, his representation, which was made way back in June, had not been decided yet by the Government.

“Without interfering with the order passed by the learned single judge, we dispose of this appeal with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner latest by September 20,” the Court said.

Saraswat claimed that he was required to use a FIPS-validated USB cryptographic token for e-filings and various statutory, judicial, regulatory and financial transactions.

He had challenged the advisory issued in January this year, contending that it unfairly required private or commercial entities and individual professionals to migrate from FIPS 140-2 tokens by September 21, 2026, while permitting Government organisations to continue using such tokens until September 21, 2029 through a risk-assessment or waiver mechanism.

According to Saraswat, the advisory itself recorded that there is no known security vulnerability arising from the continued use of FIPS 140-2 modules.

It was therefore his case that requiring private users to migrate three years earlier than Government organisations lacked an intelligible differentia or rational nexus.

He had also alleged that the differential cut-off dates were prescribed without consultation, regulatory impact assessment or cost-benefit analysis.

The single judge did not examine the merits of the challenge and only directed the authorities to consider and decide Saraswat's representation within four weeks.

During the hearing today, the division bench questioned the rationale of excluding government employees, saying that every user of a digital signature should be on same pedestal.

“Every user of a digital signature should be at same pedestal. The hardships to government employees using it should be the same. What is the rationale? What is the intelligible differentia of these two (categories)?,” the Court remarked.

However, not going into the merits of the matter, the Court asked the Union Government to decide Saraswat's representation.

Title: Advocate Ramkishan Saraswat v. Union of India & Anr

Case Number: LPA 738/2026

Tags: