Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law relating to Information Technology

An intermediary refuses to comply with a valid blocking direction issued under Section 69A(1) of the IT Act, 2000. What is the consequence provided in the Act?

The intermediary is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years and is also liable to fine. This is the consequence stated in Section 69A(3) for failing to comply with a blocking direction, and it differs from the penalties in Sections 67C and 70B.

  1. AImprisonment up to seven years and liability to fineCorrect
  2. BPenalty only, up to twenty-five lakh rupees
  3. CImprisonment up to one year or fine up to one crore rupees
  4. DMere warning, with the intermediary losing its registration

Explanation

Section 69A(3) provides that an intermediary failing to comply with the direction is punished with imprisonment up to seven years and is also liable to fine. The twenty-five lakh penalty belongs to Section 67C and the one-year or one-crore punishment belongs to Section 70B(7), so those options mix up different provisions.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law relating to Information Technology shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law relating to Information TechnologyFree diagnostic mock

More Law relating to Information Technology questions