Section 22 IT Act: Application for license

Section 22 of Information Technology Act: Application for license

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) Every application for a licence under section 21 shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) Every application for issue of a licence shall be accompanied by—

(a) a certification practice statement;

(b) a statement including the procedures with respect to identification of the applicant;

(c) payment of such fees, not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees as may be prescribed by the Central Government; and

(d) such other documents, as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22

Section 22 establishes the formal procedure for applying for a license to issue Digital Signature Certificates, prescribing mandatory application fees, certified technical documentation, capital adequacy norms, and substantial bank guarantees.

Prescribed Application Form and Fees: Requires prospective Certifying Authorities to apply to the CCA in the prescribed form accompanied by statutory application fees and exhaustive operational documentation.
Certification Practice Statement (CPS): Mandates the submission of a comprehensive Certification Practice Statement detailing operational procedures, personnel screening, and key lifecycle management.
Financial Solvency and Performance Guarantee: Obligates the applicant to demonstrate prescribed minimum capital adequacy and furnish a performance bank guarantee to secure against subscriber claims.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489: Supreme Court established that statutory licensing conditions must be applied uniformly to all applicants without arbitrary deviations.
Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651: Supreme Court held that regulatory qualification criteria and technical standards set by the executive must be respected unless patently arbitrary or unreasonable.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. (2016) 16 SCC 818: Supreme Court affirmed that statutory authorities have primary competence to evaluate compliance with complex technical licensing standards.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Applicants for a CA license must ensure their Certification Practice Statement submitted under Section 22 strictly mirrors the CCA's baseline security guidelines; minor omissions in key generation procedures will trigger immediate application rejection.

Section 22: Application for license

Section 22 of Information Technology Act: Application for license

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22