The bill could become a new cause of yet another standoff between the government and the opposition in the upcoming winter session of Parliament, starting November 29.
Highlight
- The Bill seeks to provide protection of personal data of individuals.
- It also seeks to establish a data protection authority.
- TMC lawmakers say the bill provides overboard exemptions to the Indian government.
Data Protection Bill News: After nearly two years of deliberations, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, on Monday adopted the report on the Bill, which empowers the government to exempt its investigative agencies from the provisions of the Act. The move was opposed by opposition MPs who filed their dissent notes.
Congress leader and party’s chief whip in Rajya Sabha Jairam Ramesh, besides four Congress MPs, two Trinamool Congress MPs and one Biju Janata Dal MP submitted their dissent note on the report of the committee headed by PP. Chieftain.
The bill, seeking to provide protection of personal data of individuals and setting up a data protection authority for the same, was brought in Parliament in 2019 and referred to a joint committee for further investigation on the demand of opposition members.
What is data protection bill
According to the PDP Bill, the central government can exempt its agencies from the provisions of the Act to protect the national interest and safeguard the security of the state, public order, sovereignty and integrity of India.
Exemption of certain provisions for processing of personal data in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of any offense or violation of any other law was also provided in the Bill.
The main objection of the opposition members was to give “unbridled powers” to the central government to exempt any of its investigating agencies, including the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI, from the purview of the entire Act.
Some opposing lawmakers suggested that the government should seek parliamentary approval to exempt its agencies from the purview of the Act as a safeguard to ensure greater accountability, but this was not accepted.
Data protection and privacy of individuals has been a major cause of concern among opposition leaders opposing certain provisions of the bill, including giving unbridled powers to the state and its agencies for the use of personal data.
The PDP Bill and this report are likely to become a new trigger for yet another standoff between the government and the opposition in the upcoming winter session of Parliament beginning November 29.
The monsoon session of Parliament over the Pegasus espionage issue was washed out with opposition parties demanding a discussion with the JPC and a court-monitored probe.
Read also: Government convenes all-party meeting on 28 November; PM Modi likely to attend
Opposition members are expected to raise the issue yet again, even after the Supreme Court ordered an independent inquiry into allegations of unauthorized surveillance using Pegasus spyware and the formation of a three-member technical committee.
The JCP has made a total of 93 recommendations, sources said, adding that it seeks to strike a fine balance between the functioning of the government by processing the data for the benefit of individuals and equally protecting the privacy of the individual.
Choudhary said the government and its agencies are exempted from processing the data of individuals if it is used for the benefit of individuals and no consent is required if the matter pertains to national security.
He said that the report is the result of extensive deliberations by all the members and stakeholders.
“This law will have a global impact and will set international standards in data protection,” Choudhary told PTI.
Opposition MPs expressed displeasure over the bill
However, registering his dissent, Ramesh lauded the democratically functioning of the panel headed by Choudhary for the past four months.
Besides Ramesh, Congress MPs Manish Tewari, Gaurav Gogoi and Vivek Tankha also submitted their dissent notes along with TMC’s Derek O’Brien and Mohua Moitra and BJD’s Amar Patnaik.
The report by the panel was delayed as its former chairman Meenakshi Lekhi was made a minister and Chowdhury was appointed as its new chairman.
Tweeting on the issue, Ramesh said, “I am compelled to submit a detailed dissent note. But it should not diminish the democratic way in which the committee has worked. Now, for debate in Parliament” and Posted your dissatisfaction note. Twitter.
“Finally, it is done. There are notes of dissent but it is in the best spirit of parliamentary democracy. Sadly, under the Modi regime such examples are few and far between,” he said.
He said he was forced to submit a detailed dissent note on the bill as his suggestions were not accepted and he was unable to convince the members.
Tiwari and Gogoi also said that they had submitted their dissent notes to the committee’s secretariat after the last meeting of the JCP on the PDP Bill.
“We started in December 2019 and ended in November 2021,” Tiwari said.
“I have been compelled to submit a detailed note of dissent as I do not agree with the fundamental design of the proposed law. It will not stand the test of law,” he said.
Claiming that there is an inherent design flaw in the formulation of the bill, Tewari said that a bill which seeks to provide blanket exemption to the “state” either for an eternity or for a limited period and its subsidiarity is not a fundamental right. for confidentiality prescribed by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court”.
Tewari said he doesn’t think the bill in its current form, especially most of its exceptions and exemption clauses, including carving out for governments that exempt these veterans from the purview of the law, will stand trial in court. .
“Therefore, I am obliged to reject the bill in its present form as a whole for this design flaw,” he said.
On his objection to the bill, Gogoi said the damage caused by surveillance and the effort to set up a modern surveillance framework is being ignored.
Ramesh, in his dissent note, said he has argued that Section 35 gives the Center almost unbridled powers to exempt any government agency from the entire Act.
“Under the amendment, I had suggested that the Center would have to seek parliamentary approval to exempt any of its agencies from the purview of the law.
Nevertheless, the government should always follow the requirement of the Bill for fair and proper processing and implementation of necessary safeguards,” Ramesh said.
Describing the Bill as “Orwellian” in nature, the TMC MPs questioned the functioning of the panel and alleged that it hastened through its mandate and did not provide adequate time and opportunity for consultation with stakeholders, sources said.
Sources said lawmakers also opposed the bill for the lack of adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy of data principles.
In the note, he has also opposed the recommendations to include non-personal data in the law, he said.
TMC lawmakers said the bill provides overboard exemptions to the Indian government without proper safeguards.
Ramesh, in his dissent note, said the JCP report allows a period of two years for private companies to migrate to the new data protection regime, but the government and their agencies have no such condition.
He argued that the design of the Bill assumes that the constitutional right to privacy arises only where the operations and activities of private companies are concerned.
Sources said that while fixing the upper limit in the report of the committee, a provision for penalty has also been kept.
In case of minor defaults, the penalty on the data fiduciary shall not exceed rupees five crore or two per cent of the total worldwide turnover. For major offences, fines will also be levied by the central government, but not more than Rs 15 crore or four per cent of the total worldwide business of the data fiduciary, the sources said.
,