Section 33 of IT Act 2000: Surrender of licence

Section 33(1)

Every Certifying Authority whose licence is suspended or revoked shall immediately after such suspension or revocation, surrender the licence to the Controller.

Section 33(2)

Where any Certifying Authority fails to surrender a licence under sub-section (1), the person in whose favour a licence is issued, shall be liable to penalty which may extend to five lakh rupees.

Note: Sub-section (2) reflects the amendment introduced by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, effective from 30 November 2023. The original imprisonment and fine provision has been replaced by a monetary penalty.

Explained:

Subsection (1): Mandatory surrender of licence

Subsection (1) establishes a legal obligation on every Certifying Authority whose licence has been suspended or revoked.

Once the suspension or revocation takes effect, the concerned authority must immediately surrender its licence to the Controller of Certifying Authorities.

The purpose is to ensure regulatory control over organisations authorised to issue electronic signature certificates. A Certifying Authority cannot continue claiming authorisation under a licence that is no longer valid.

Subsection (2): Penalty for failure to surrender the licence

Subsection (2) deals with situations where the concerned person fails to surrender the licence as required under subsection (1).

Following the 2023 amendment, such failure attracts a penalty of up to ₹5 lakh.

The amendment replaced the earlier punishment of imprisonment up to six months, a fine up to ₹10,000, or both.

This change reflects the legislative approach of rationalising certain regulatory offences and replacing imprisonment with monetary penalties. CSIR+1

Role of the Controller of Certifying Authorities

The Controller of Certifying Authorities is responsible for regulating Certifying Authorities under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Controller’s functions include:

• Supervising the activities of Certifying Authorities.
• Granting and regulating licences under the Act.
• Ensuring compliance with applicable statutory requirements.
• Exercising regulatory powers concerning suspension and revocation of licences.
• Maintaining oversight of electronic signature certification services.

Section 33 supports these regulatory functions by requiring the surrender of a licence after suspension or revocation.

Important Judgments

There are limited reported judicial decisions directly interpreting Section 33. The following Supreme Court decisions provide broader legal context concerning electronic transactions and electronic records.

1. Trimex International FZE Ltd. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (2010)

The Supreme Court recognised that a binding commercial agreement can be concluded through electronic communications, provided the essential elements of a valid contract are established.

Relevance: The judgment illustrates the growing legal importance of electronic transactions and the regulatory need for reliable electronic authentication.

2. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)

The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Relevance: The decision highlights the importance of authenticity and reliability when electronic records are produced in legal proceedings.

3. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020)

The Supreme Court clarified the requirements for proving electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Relevance: The judgment provides important guidance on the legal treatment of electronic records, although it does not directly interpret the licence-surrender obligation under Section 33.

Conclusion

Section 33 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, establishes an important regulatory obligation for Certifying Authorities in India. It requires the immediate surrender of a licence when the licence is suspended or revoked by the competent authority.

The 2023 amendment significantly changed the consequences of non-compliance by replacing the earlier imprisonment and fine provision with a penalty of up to ₹5 lakh. This provision strengthens regulatory accountability and supports the proper functioning of India’s electronic signature certification framework.