Section 35: Certifying authority to issue Electronic Signature Certificate

Information Technology Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 2000

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 35

Section 35 sets out the statutory procedure for the issuance of Digital Signature Certificates by Certifying Authorities, mandating rigorous identity verification, certified credentials, and statutory fee compliance prior to certificate issuance.

  • Formal Application and Identity Verification: Requires prospective subscribers to apply in the prescribed form, accompanied by statutory fees and certified proof of identity and authority.
  • Statutory Certification Practice Compliance: Obligates the CA to verify that the applicant holds the private key corresponding to the public key to be listed in the certificate before grant.
  • Mandatory Opportunity of Showing Cause Prior to Rejection: Mandates that no application for a certificate shall be rejected without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against rejection.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Pooja Menghani v. Union of India 2014 SCC OnLine Del 4490: Delhi High Court held that electronic credential verification must adhere strictly to statutory standards, prohibiting arbitrary denials of digital certifications.
  • Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1: Supreme Court recognized that digital certificates issued under Section 35 form the cryptographic bedrock for electronic evidence admissibility.
  • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600: Supreme Court examined the procedural rigor required in verifying subscriber identity during digital credential issuance.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In identity theft and financial cyber fraud cases, summon the Certifying Authority's Section 35 subscriber application dossier; proof that the CA issued the certificate without verifying physical KYC documents establishes co-liability for the resulting fraud.