Electronic Signatures : Position Under Indian Law

Overview: Electronic means of document execution have been gaining popularity since the past decade owing to the convenience they bring, and their undeniable potential in environmental conservation. However, in today's pandemic-stricken times where conventional forms of execution of documents are crippled, electronic execution of documents is no longer considered merely an "idealistic alternative", but rather a compelling necessity. This article aims at analyzing how documents executed through electronic means may be viewed under the statutory framework of Indian Law. Induction of Electronic Signatures under the IT Act, 2000 ("IT Act"): The IT Act did not recognize electronic authentication of documents through any means other than through "digital signatures", prior to the 2008 amendment. Subsequent introduction of the term "electronic signatures" in place of "digital signatures" throughout the IT Act, effectuated via the 2008 amendment, clearly reflects the legislature's intent in conferring acceptability to a wider set of electronic authentication techniques, than previously contemplated. In fact, the IT Act has its genesis in adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Laws on E-Commerce, which envisaged adoption of secure electronic alternatives to traditional paper and ink based authentication methods, and therefore the 2008 amendment was a further step in this direction. Statutory requirements of an Electronic Signature: Digital signatures are statutorily recognized as the most secure kind of electronic signatures, since they allow authentication of documents using encryption and decryption mechanisms, thereby ensuring integrity. Electronic signatures, in common parlance could refer to multifarious means of affixing signatures to documents electronically, having varying degrees of reliability, including imposing a scanned image of a signature upon a document. However, under the IT Act, for a mechanism of electronic authentication to qualify as an "electronic signature", such technique would have to be (i) reliable, and (ii) specified under the second schedule to the Act. Section 3A(2) of the IT Act specifies the following prerequisites for determining the reliability of a technique used for electronic signatures: "the signature creation data or the authentication data are, within the context in which they are used, linked to the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and to no other person; the signature creation data or the authentication data were, at the time of signing, under the control of the signatory or, as the case may be, the authenticator and of no other person;any alteration to the electronic signature made after affixing such signature is detectable;any alteration to the information made after its authentication by electronic signature is detectable; and it fulfils such other conditions which may be prescribed." A strict and conservative reading of the relevant provisions[1] of the IT Act imply, that even if a particular technique meets the reliability criterion as specified under section 3A(2), stipulation of such technique in the second schedule would remain a condition precedent for such technique to be rendered a statutorily recognized means of affixing electronic signatures. The second schedule of the IT Act, currently only refers to an e-authentication technique using Aadhaar e-KYC services, thereby ousting all other forms of electronic signatures. Validity of contracts, not authenticated through statutorily recognized electronic signatures: The foregoing interpretation casts a shadow of doubt upon the enforceability and validity of contracts executed by affixing electronic signatures, through means other than the Aadhaar e-KYC technique, including the widely popular Docusign. The pertinent question that arises, is whether a contract that has been electronically signed by both parties (using means other than the Aadhar e-KYC technique) and exchanged over email between the parties, is unenforceable, only for the reason that the said contract does not bear a statutorily recognized electronic signature? In the Trimex case[2], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the necessity of formal execution of a contract for enforceability of its terms, opined as follows: "Once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has to be prepared and initialed by the parties would not affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof, even if the formal contract has never been initialed." Another relevant extract from the said judgement: "The celebrated judgment of Lord Du Parcq in Shankarlal Narayandas Mundade v. The New Mofussil Co. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 1946 PC 97 makes it clear that unless an inference can be drawn from the facts that the ...

Electronic Signatures : Position Under Indian Law

Sahil Ahuja

Tags