The Information Technology Act, 2000
CHAPTER X: THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Section 52D: Decision By Majority
Bare Act
If the Members of a Bench consisting of two Members differ in opinion on any point, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal who shall hear the point or points himself and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it.
Simplified Act
If two judges (Members) on a panel can't agree on a decision, they need to write down the issue(s) they disagree on. Then, they ask the head judge (Chairperson) of the appeals court to look at these issues. The final decision will be based on what most of the judges think, including the opinions of the original two judges.
Explanation using examples
Let's consider a hypothetical scenario where an Appellate Tribunal is hearing a case related to a cybercrime committed under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The bench consists of two members, Member A and Member B. They are reviewing the case, but they reach a disagreement on a specific point - whether the defendant's act constitutes a violation of a certain clause of the Act.
Member A believes that the defendant's act is a violation of the clause, while Member B disagrees. According to Section 52D of the Act, both members are required to state their differing opinions and refer the matter to the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal. The Chairperson will then hear the point of disagreement himself.
The decision on the disputed point will be made according to the majority opinion of the members who heard the case, which includes Member A, Member B, and the Chairperson. If the Chairperson agrees with Member A, then the point of disagreement is decided in favor of Member A's viewpoint. Conversely, if the Chairperson agrees with Member B, then Member B's viewpoint is upheld.
