BACK TO IT ACTKerala HC
IT Act 2000
Section 42
Control of Private Key
THE STATUTE
Original Text
(1) Every subscriber shall exercise reasonable care to retain control of the private key corresponding to the public key listed in his Digital Signature Certificate and take all steps to prevent its disclosure. (2) If the private key corresponding to the public key listed in the Digital Signature Certificate has been compromised, then, the subscriber shall communicate the same without any delay to the Certifying Authority in the specified manner. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the subscriber shall be liable for any obligation that may arise as a result of a failure to communicate under this sub-section.
Simplified
Section 42 is the subscriber's foundational private key security obligation — and one of the most practically consequential provisions for DSC holders. It establishes two duties. First, positive retention: the subscriber must take all steps to retain exclusive control of their private key and prevent its disclosure to anyone. This means: keeping the private key on a hardware security token or HSM, never sharing the token's PIN with anyone, not exporting the private key to insecure media, and protecting the physical device from theft or loss. Second, immediate notification on compromise: if the private key is compromised — whether through device theft, malware, social engineering, or any other means — the subscriber must notify the CA immediately. The Explanation is critical: it removes any doubt about liability. If a subscriber fails to promptly notify the CA of a key compromise, and the key is then used to create fraudulent signatures that cause loss to third parties, the subscriber bears liability for that loss. This makes Section 42 the subscriber-side counterpart to the CA's revocation duty under Section 38 — together they create a framework where compromise → notification → revocation → protection of relying parties. In practice, subscriber failures under Section 42 are frequently cited in identity theft prosecutions under Section 66C and fraud cases under Section 66D.
Legal Evolution
Section 42 was in the original IT Act 2000. It implements the subscriber duties concept from the ABA Digital Signature Guidelines. The practical challenge has always been enforcement — most subscribers are unaware of their Section 42 obligations, and hardware token theft is rarely reported to CAs before criminal complaints are made.
Key Amendments
Unchanged since 2000.
Class 3 DSC regulations now mandate hardware security tokens, making the 'retain control' obligation more technically defined.
Landmark Precedents
Muthoot Finance v. State (2019)
RELEVANCE
Examined subscriber liability where an employee's DSC token was misused by a colleague — Section 42's control obligation used to assess whether adequate care had been taken.