Thursday, April 15, 2010

Shri Umarshankar Sivasubramanian V/s ICICI Bank will change e-security followed the banking Industry in India

On April 12, 2010, Shri Thiru PWC Davidar, IAS, the Adjudicating Officer and Secretary to Government Information Technology Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, has passed the landmark judgment in the first petition filed under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Act) by Shri Umarshankar Sivasubramanian (Petitioner) against ICICI Bank.

ICICI Bank was directed to pay Rs. 12,85,000/-(also the IT Secretary) has passed an award for payment of Rs 12.85 lakhs to the Petitioner in this phishing case. The Adjudicating Officer concluded that ICICI has failed to establish the due diligence was exercised to prevent the convention of the nature of unauthorized access as laid out in section 43 of the Act. It has further observed by the Adjudicating Officer that ICICI Bank has failed to put in place a foolproof Internet Banking system with adequate levels of authentication and validation which would have prevented the type of unauthorized access in the instant case (Phishing fraud case).

Before this judgment, SBI Bank was using only one layer of security (Egg Layer Security) for online payment through their banking website Simply, you have to login to your bank account online and you can make an e-payment.

But after this judgment, it has been changed. SBI Bank is now using more than one layer of security (Onion Layer Security) for online payment. Now, you are require to punch-in (using online key and not by your keyboard) a secured password sent onto your registered mobile for every online payment through their website.

I trust other bankers are following SBI bank practice. If not soon they should in order to minimize their financial risk.

Certainly, ICICI Bank has right to appeal against this order. But this judgment will make our country e-banking pretty secured.

Wish you a pretty secured e-banking.

Copy of judgment is available on It is uploaded by Shri Na Vijayashankar, Techno Legal Consultant, who was representing the Petitioner in the above case.