Rajesh, a software developer, wanted to start offering secure digital contract services to his clients. For this purpose, he applied to a licensed Certifying Authority for the issuance of electronic signature certificate

As per section 35 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the procedure of obtaining electronic signature certificate from the Certifying Authority is as follows: Any person may make an application in prescribed form to the Certifying Authority for the issue of electronic signature certificate in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Every such application shall be accompanied by prescribed fees. Every such application shall be accompanied by a certification practice statement or where there is no such statement, a statement containing such particulars, as may be specified by regulations. On receipt of an application, the Certifying Authority may, after consideration of the certification practice statement or the other statement and after making such enquiries as it may deem fit, grant the electronic signature certificate or for reasons to be recorded in writing, reject the application. Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed rejection. In the given situation, Rajesh submitted the prescribed application form and paid the required fee but failed to attach the necessary certification practice statement or its substitute. While the absence of this statement could be a valid ground for rejection, the Certifying Authority was bound by the law to give Rajesh a reasonable opportunity to explain or rectify this omission before rejecting the application. By rejecting the application outrightly without giving such an opportunity, the authority violated the mandatory requirement of Section 35. Therefore, the rejection was procedurally invalid under the Information Technology Act, 2000.