This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
The peoples Union for Human Rights of Indiana have submitted this dispute to the Supreme Court of Indiana, dated March 11, 2011. This Court jurisdiction is invoked under article 32 of the Constitution of Indiana.
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
in order to afford the cheapest services in the mobile industry. The country is well equipped with the cultural outlook with civilisation. the IT Parks as well as the mobile phone companies entered into tie ups with the various social organisations and launched a host of websites. the Government. the Multinational Companies developed certain guidelines to ensure that extensive information is gained by them so as to provide various services to the individuals. Government liberalised various laws for the establishment of a large number of Service centres by IT parks. After the opening up of economy. the Government updated its administrative machinery and most of the Public Institutions sought personal information of the individuals. It is a democratic country with a republican constitution. The constitution of the country guarantees fundamental rights to the citizens at par with the principal of International law on human Rights. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . relaxed a number of clauses to provide licences to mobile companies. • Thereafter. • In order to keep up with the technological advancement. the country and the union have started in line with the Information technology and started rendering various services through Information technology. Thereafter.The information included photographs which were digitally modified and used for various illegal activities which are offensive to the reputation of the individuals.STATEMENT OF FACTS Background of facts: • The state of Indiana is located in the South Asia region of Asia. • To cater the need of the society the state of Indiana opened up its economy in 1990. • Basing on this. Apart from that. individuals as well as mobile phone companies. The multinational companies in order to provide their services have developed formats to get extensive information of individuals. • The service providers started to leak out the information of their clients to a host of websites with different purposes.
FACTUAL MATRIX: • Taking into account the background mentioned above. 2012. In this situation as argued by the opposition parties. • The Ministry of Home Affairs of the Country issued a communiqué to state that the steps taken by the Government are only in consonance with the basic principles of the Constitution and the philosophical contours of Human Rights. • In order to avoid panic and ensure good governance. the Government conveyed to the news channels that no item associated with the above issue be broadcast. the Office of the Prime Minister sought the entire personal information of the individuals and for that reason. etc to tap the mobile phones and encrypt the computer of any person in the country. • The Criminal Laws as well as the Law of Evidence have provisions in relation to the development of Information Technology. the Government authorised organisations like Police. • The Government validated their act by putting it under the purview of Good Governance and on the pre note of the security of the Country. • It further stated that the paramount consideration of the Government is to provide security to all its citizens under any circumstances and to prevent the breach of security by foreign invaders. some of the mobile companies were approached. Vigilance. the said law was extensively amended. • Further. the Government enacted the Information Technology Law and Regulation on the year 2000. The Government decided upon issuance of National identity cards to all the citizens before December.• In order to provide remedies for the said activities. privacy is not the only sole criteria to collect information of individuals by the state. this Law was seen to be lopsided as it does nothing to protect the privacy of the individuals and permits data banks to reveal the information to the Government as well as the other agencies approved by the Government on the name of the security of the Country. However. In the year 2008. However. • The Opposition Parties opposed the said steps of the Government on the grounds of them being violative of Fundamental Rights as well as Human Rights inspite of Indiana being a party to various International Conventions on Human Rights. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . Apart from that. they need to be updated.
Seeking further directions for the destruction of the data collected by the investigating agencies and the police. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . especially from the massive attacks of terrorists and other national groups fighting for various reasons and killing innocent people. 5. • Following this. the People’s Union for Human Rights wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of Indiana requesting intervention on the following grounds: 1. Non atonement to the basic principles of Democratic Governance as well as Good Governance. It also said that seeking of such information of individuals whenever it deem fit will effectively help the state to identify the acts of any group which tries to destabilize the peace and security of the country and the mass killings and other destructive activities aimed at the innocent lives of people. The action of mobile phone tapping will give rise to corruption within the Country and will further create loss to the Government. To issue Directions for the State to amend the law on Information Technology and other necessary Civil and Criminal Laws. The state is only taking preventative measures protection of the individuals.• The communiqué assured that the information received by the state in no way will be either misused or leaked to private agencies for illegal purposes. Violation of Right to Privacy as well as Law of Copyright. • The Communiqué blamed the opposition parties as well as the Press for the exaggeration of the issue in order to gain popularity and create chaos in the Country while misguiding the people in the name of the infringement of the Right to Privacy. 2. 4. • It was also stated that if any individual or Organisation refuses to abide by the regulations passed by the Government. strict Criminal or Civil proceedings would be initiated by the State. It also empowered the police to take cognizance of any such incident in case of its occurrence in the Country. • The communiqué also stated that the national security is of paramount interest and even the human rights law is not above the interests of the state in providing security to its citizens. 3.
ISSUE RAISED 1) Whether the said Petition is maintainable before the Honourable Supreme Court? 2) Whether there has been a violation of the Right to Privacy? 3) Whether the State is committing gross violations of the provisions of the Constitution as well as International obligations? 4) Whether the Government is legally justified to scrutinise Communications? 5) Whether the present laws with regard to Information Technology need amendments? MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .• Therefore. the present Petition.
6) Whether relief is required to be granted by this Honourable Court in favour of the Petitioner. taking into consideration the Fundamental rights of the Citizens? SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .
Professional. vocational or technical training. Apart from that. The Facts suggest that the Petition has been made before the Honourable Supreme Court stating that there has been a violation of the Right to Privacy as enshrined in the Constitution of India. However. including the training of the Poilice officers.ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 1. there has been no violation to the Right to Privacy of the citizens. there has been no violation of any fundamental Right as enlisted. In the instant case. However. or MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . The Right to privacy as interpreted under Article 21 is not an absolute right. The said petition is not maintainable.1 There is no infringement of any Fundamental Right The Writ Jurisdiction as enveloped under Article 32 of the Constitution of India suggests that it can be invoked only in case there is violation of any Fundamental Right mentioned in the Constitution. It is humbly submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court that. The Petition is not maintainable before the Honourable Supreme Court. The entry states the Central Government has the power to make laws with regard to: Union Agencies and Institutions for: a. the Constitution itself provides for the power of a State to make laws in relation to Institutions of National Security under Entry 65 of the Union list. It is subject to the restriction of the Procedure established by Law. The grounds for the said contention are as enlisted below: 1. the Right to Privacy is subject to the restriction of Public Interest.
1. The Constitution of India suggests that the writ of mandamus can be invoked under Article 32 only in case of violation of a Fundamental Right. in the instant case.P1 is not valid in the instant case due to the difference in the nature of the two cases. “A mere irregularity however in an authority exercising its power is not a sufficient ground for issue of the Writ.” 1 2 AIR 1963 SC 1295 AIR 1954SC220 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . or c. Excise Commisioner2 states that. Therefore. the writ for mandamus cannot be invoked. More so. in the instant case. The promotion of special studies or Research. State of U. However. Scientific and technical assistance in the investigation and detection of crime. Apart from this entry. broadcasting and other like forms of communication. wireless. telephones.2 No writ can be invoked under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The above steps mentioned act as a step towards the protection of the larger interest of the citizens.b. in the case of Cooverji v.In such a scenario. there has been no violation of any Fundamental right. The Article 32 of the Constitution of India suggests that a Writ can be filed only in case of there being an absence of an Alternate Remedy. However. The Right to Privacy as determined by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kharak Singh v. we can say that the action of the State is very much as per the limitations determined by the Constitution and No where proves to be Utra vires the same. Entry 31 gives the power to the State to make laws with regard to the Posts and Telegraphs. the Indian Penal Code suggests an alternative remedy under Section 500 for Degfamation. The instant case comes after a series of Terrorist attacks as well as instances of violation of the National Security.
The power of the State Legislature is subject to Article 246(1) while the power of Parliament is unfettered by Article 246(3). dealing and handling of information as each privacy element is a critical ‘cog’ in the ‘wheel’ of data protection regime (‘security’ being one of the privacy elements). 1963 MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .In the instant case. though the Indian government is expected to include Privacy Principles through the issuance of rules pertaining to clause 43A. However. 2008 limits its scope to ‘implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures’ when possessing. This power of the State Legislature is subject to Article 246(1) and (2). ITAA 2008. This power of Parliament is unfettered by Article 246(2) and (3). clause 43A becomes even more critical from an Indian context as Indians are less aware and educated about their privacy rights and it is the responsibility of the Indian Government to protect their privacy by penalizing information misuse. Adopting all the applicable principles of privacy in the ITAA 2008. namely (i) The Indian Telegraph Act. the IT (Amendment) Act. the Article 246 (1) of the Constitution of India gives the Parliament the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (Union List). 1885 (ii) The Indian Contract Act. It is critical to address all the principles of privacy other than processing. In the absence of a specific privacy related regulation in India. IT (Amendment) Act. The Indian legal system addresses cyber security and data protection issues with various enactments. dealing and handling of the sensitive personal data by ‘body corporate’ and does not specifically address the ‘collection’ and ‘use’ of this sensitive data by the ‘body corporate’ amongst other prevalent privacy principles. 2008 – clause 43A is a step in the right direction to protect the privacy rights of the individual in the digital economy. 1872 (iii) The Specific Relief Act. Moreover. Article 246 (3) of the Constitution of India gives the State Legislature the exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List II in the Seventh Schedule (State List). The entry Article 246 (2) of the Constitution of India gives the Parliament and the State Legislature the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (Concurrent List). there is absolutely no form of illegality as all the guidelines given by the Judiciary as well as the legislature have been followed.
(2) That there is constitutional recognition given to the right of privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion.(iv) The Public Financial Institutions Act. In the case of Gobind v. It is subject to reasonable restrictions. but only what situations of privacy will be afforded legal protection3. Vakul. 2005 (vii) The IT (Amendment) Act.” The above statement refers to the legal protection afforded to the Privacy in India.U. 1986 (vi) The Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act. State of M.1 The Right to privacy “The law does not determine what privacy is.The Supreme Court laid down that “ …………privacydignity claims deserve to be examined with care and to be denied only when an important countervailing interest is shown to be superior.L. 42 N. 3 4 Hyman Gross.. 36. a law infringing it must satisfy the compelling State interest test………” If one follows the judgments given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ltd. Rev. 2. 2004. Delhi: Universal Law Publishing Co.Y. If the Court does find that a claimed right is entitled to protection as a fundamental privacy right. three themes emerge5: (1) That the individual’s right to privacy exists and any unlawful invasion of privacy would make the ‘offender’ liable for the consequences in accordance with law. Information Technology-Law & Practice. Pvt. 36 (1967). The Concept of Privacy. The concept of Privacy has undergone Judicial Activism through Various case laws and it can be said that it is not an absolute right. 2008 2. (1975) 2 SCC 148 5 Sharma. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . There is no violation of the Right to Privacy. 1983 (v) The Consumer Protection Act.P4.
.U. disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others.C. since it may result in rendering the idea of surveillance or information gathering useless. from a detailed examination of the Constitutional position and the history of the right to privacy in India that the right must be made subservient to the national interest and national security at all times. 6 Privacy and the Indian Constitution: A Case Study of Encryption. It is evident. The third theme is most valid here. the Government has all authority to formulate laws that protect the nation’s foundation.(3) That the person’s “right to be let alone” is not an absolute right and may be lawfully restricted for the prevention of crime. This position has been rejected in P. It is also important to note that the formulation of safeguards by Justice Kuldip Singh in the P. Hence. The instant case comes in the scenario of the recent terrorist activities that have shaken the very basics of the establishment of the defence of India.Nehaluddin Ahmad MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . At such an instance.L case is remarkably similar to the safeguards devised by the OECD.U. one important exception. The OECD guidelines make it clear that the person who is the subject of the investigation should be consulted before any kind of action is taken. the action taken by the Government to collect the information from the people for the purpose national security is valid and bona fide in nature. the matter could be referred to the judiciary for prior review6. The Right to privacy cannot be taken as an absolute right especially when the Security of the majority is at stake. It may be mentioned that in certain cases. There is however. Dr.L.C.
The State has adhered to the norms of the Constitution as well as the International Obligations when it comes to Governance. implement and continuously monitor a risk based data protection program. With the evolving data privacy ecosystem. The responsibility of the businesses and corporates to build. clause 43A is a step in the right direction as it intends to protect ‘sensitive personal information’ by penalizing body corporate that fails to implement ‘reasonable security practices’. The present scenario is not with an intention to curtail the rights of an individual but to protect the freedom of the majority. Amendments in IT Act 2000 in year 2008 reflect government’s commitment towards the need of hour and strengthening the data protection regime in India. It is likely to contain specific rules that will address any breach of a citizen’s right to privacy and include safeguards against potential violations of the law even by the government. Indian Government is also gearing to strengthen the privacy protection measures. Further to ITAA 2008. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . The State has not committed any gross violations of the Constitution of India International Obligations. Once in place. the law will effectively recognize the right to privacy of an individual. 3. law enforcement agencies (LEA).3. businesses and corporates also hold equal responsibility. create awareness amongst individuals / employees / customers / consumers and ensure compliance to data protection laws either through self regulation or co-regulation is to be reinforced. The regulatory bodies shall be made to understand the industry specific privacy needs and issue specific and granular set of guidelines in order to provide direction and guidance to the industry under their purview. regulatory bodies. The Government here is in no manner in contravention to the same. The International obligations state clearly that the Freedom of a person with regard to Speech and Expression must be protected. Where government is ascertaining the measures for protecting the individual privacy. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under Government of India is also working on enacting India’s first ‘specific’ law to safeguard privacy. The intention here is also to be in consonance with the Global standards and strengthen the data privacy system. ITAA 2008.1.
Cyber Crimes Speedier Trials through training of law enforcement agencies and judiciary in cyber forensics At the same time. establishing an Information Technology Offence of “Breach of Confidentiality and Privacy” reads as under: “72. has secured access to any electronic record. trainings. register. register.NASSCOM has established DSCI as not-for-profit. Thought Leadership: Develop. book.—Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force. Public Advocacy on data protection and cyber security. document or other material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Capacity Building through security and privacy awareness seminars. Establish a Dispute Resolution Mechanism based on Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures acceptable to clients and service providers f. or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.” The nature of the penalty can be seen to state that the liability can be as good as a criminal liability. Promote and Implement Best Practices and Standards for Data Security and Data Privacy d. information. e. rules or regulations made there under. The Indian Parliamenty has clearly stated under Section 72 of the Act. information. law enforcement agencies and judiciary for a strong and credible data protection regime through appropriate policy instruments. Independent Oversight as a credible and committed body that would oversee data security and privacy implementations and evolve a mechanism to provide independent assurance over service provider’s preparedness. document or other material without the consent of the person concerned discloses such electronic record. and conferences c. or with both. workshops. with an independent Board of Directors. that is governed by corporate laws. correspondence. It is a SRO. b. This in itself reveals the bona fide intention of the Government. both in India and abroad: Engage with governments. DSCI’s Charter & Mission are as follows: a. book. Breach of confidentiality and privacy. if any person who. independent entity – a Section 25 Company. correspondence. in pursuance of any of the powers conferred under this Act. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .
2000 also gives power to the Central Government to prepare laws in relation to digital signatures. 2000 have expressly provided for provisions in relation to the telephone tapping. took a broad overview of the development of the right to privacy as a constitutional right in India and held that telephone tapping was definitely a move against privacy and. J. The section 10 Information Technology Act.1 The Indian Telegraph Act. AIR1997SC568. 1885 has stated in Section 5(2) that the Government has the power to intercept the communication between two parties in any form. The PUCL7 judgment delivered by Kuldip Singh. in order to secure the nation’s best interest. In the light of the terrorist activities that have shaken Indiana. the Central Government has exercised its power under The Indian telegraph Act. 1885. Apart from that. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . 7 People’s Union of Civil Liberties v. ought not to be permitted except in the gravest of grave circumstances such as a public emergency. In the given case. the Security of the Country is at Stake. This is valid in case of any kind of Public emergency as well as the security of the State. it is essential to devise such laws that would help in the betterment of the security. Union of India and Anr. 1885 as well as the Information Technology Act.4.. Hence. The State has the power to scrutinise communication. therefore. The Indian Telegraph act. They state that the Government has full authority to scrutinise any activity in such a scenario. 4. the messages that may lead to any form of disruption of Public Order may be intercepted or detained. Hence. the Central Government can amend as well as create laws.
2000. The aforesaid resolution of the U. 1997 regarding the Model Law on Electronic Commerce earlier adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in its twenty-ninth session. (b) to enable the use of digital signatures in authentication of electronic records. The Laws with regard to Information Technology are sufficient at the present stage. security and integrity of electronic transactions. the legislative intent has been not to ignore the national or municipal (local) perspectives of information technology and also to ensure that it should have an international perspective as advocated by the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce.5. There were three objectives: (a) to facilitate the development of a secure regulatory environment for electronic commerce by providing a legal infrastructure governing electronic contracting. It is important to understand that while enacting the Information Technology Act. the Indian Parliament provided a new legal idiom to data protection and privacy. ‘electronic form’. 2000. Enumeration of the main principles of the Information Technology Act. 2000 It is significant to note that by enactment of the Information Technology Act. computer MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . The main principles on data protection and privacy enumerated under the Information Technology Act.1 The Indian Parliament enacted an Act called the Information Technology Act. ‘addressee’ etc. in view of the need for uniformity of the law applicable to alternatives to paper-based methods of communication and storage of information. and (c) to showcase India’s growing IT prowess and the role of Government in safeguarding and promoting IT sector and attracting FDI in the said sector. This Act is based on the Resolution A/RES/51/162 adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 30th January. 2000 are: (i) defining ‘data’. (ii) creating civil liability if any person accesses or secures access to computer. ‘computer database’. ‘originator’. General Assembly recommends that all States give favourable consideration to the Model Law on Electronic Commerce when they enact or revise their laws. 2000 and is effective from 17th October. ‘information’.N. It was a foresight on the part of the Government of India to initiate the entire process of enacting India’s first ever information technology legislation in the year 1997 itself. 5. 2000. It received the assent of the President on the 9th June. 2000.
the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal etc. computer database theft.. i. downloading and extraction of data.system or computer network (iii) creating criminal liability if any person accesses or secures access to computer.2 (1)(r)].2 (1)(l)].2 (1)(zf)]. the Information Technology Act. and similarly section 66 [Hacking with Computer System] covers cyber offences related to (a) Illegal access. and computer database. computer system or computer network as a protected system (v) imposing penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy (vi) setting up of hierarchy of regulatory authorities.Data [S. violation of privacy etc. The Information Technology Act.. theft of data held or stored in any media. The Act provides a complete Chapter (Chapter IX) on cyber contraventions. computer database or information. but it also safeguards data and computer databases.e. i. Further. Computer network [S. spyware. 2000 defines certain key terms with respect to data protection. login IDs) etc.. addition. For example. deletion.. 2000 provides for civil liability in case of data. The Act also provides a complete Chapter (Chapter XI) on cyber offences. (e) computer data/database disruption. including offences related to unauthorised alteration. Electronic form [S. data theft. (b) unauthorised digital copying. computer system or computer network (iv) declaring any computer. computer system. Secure system [S. modification.43. Section 43 of the Act covers instances such as: (a) computer trespass. (c) Data MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .2 (1)(w)]. Electronic record [S.2 (1)(i)].. (c) unauthorised transmission of data or programme residing within a computer. alteration. (d) data loss. Intermediary [S. privacy violation etc.2 (1)(j). computer database theft. data corruption etc.2 (1)(o)]. Explanation (ii)]. 2000 provides for criminal liability in case of data.e. destruction.2 (1)(v)]. computer system or computer network (cookies. like access [S. Computer system [S. (f) denial of service attacks. spamming etc. Information [S. The Information Technology Act. GUID or digital profiling are not legally permissible). section 65 [Tampering with computer source documents] of the Act is not limited to protecting computer source code only. (b) Illegal interception. Computer resource [S. privacy violation etc. Computer [S.2 (1)(t]. fraud.. computer network or resources. (g) unauthorised access to computer data/computer databases and (h) instances of data theft (passwords. forgery etc. Computer database [S. sections 65-74 which cover a wide range of cyber offences. namely adjudicating officers.2 (1)(ze)] and Security procedure [S.2 (1)(a)]. section 43 (a) – (h) which cover a wide range of cyber contraventions related to unauthorised access to computer. duplication or transmission of data.2 (1)(k)].
in the absence of a contract between the parties or any special law for this purpose. Expert Panel submitted its report in August. Proposed amendments to the Information Technology Act. (e) Misuse of devices. if any. Explanation (vi) “Sensitive personal data or information” means such personal information. which have been granted power under the Act to secure access to any electronic record. information. book. the proposed amendments have enlarged the scope of section 66 by making it consistent with the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. privacy violation etc. correspondence. 2000 vis-à-vis data protection and privacy The Expert Panel constituted by the Department of Information Technology. etc. computer database theft. 2005 Page 11 of 11 Further. as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the self-regulatory bodies of the industry. 1860. (d) System interference.interference. The relief cannot be granted in favour of the Petitioner. such intermediaries to pay damages by way of compensation to the subscriber so affected. which is prescribed as “sensitive” by the Central Government in consultation with the self-regulatory bodies of the industry. It is obligatory to note that not only the aforementioned proposed amendments would pave the way of self-regulation in terms of defining what constitute: “reasonable security practices and procedures” and “sensitive personal data or information” but also grant statutory protection to sensitive personal data. use. damage. Now. if any. Government of India in its recommendations proposed following amendments in the Act to strengthen data protection and privacy: Section 43. newly proposed sub-section (2) of section 72 makes the intermediaries (network service providers) liable for data and privacy violations. The idea behind the aforesaid section is that the person who has secured access to any such information shall not take unfair advantage of it by disclosing it to the third party without obtaining the consent of the disclosing party. 6. These public and private authorities may be referred as ‘data collectors’ or ‘data users’. and also providing extent of criminal liabilities in case of data. Ministry of Information Technology. disclosure or impairment. Page 10 of 11 Interestingly. document or other material information. MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . section 72 [Penalty for breach of confidentiality and privacy] is aimed at public (and private) authorities10. modification. such security practices and procedures as appropriate to the nature of the information to protect that information from unauthorized access. Explanation (v) “Reasonable security practices and procedures” means. Section 43. Moreover. register.
Indian Government is also gearing to strengthen the privacy protection measures. As per the arguments advanced. The Government is not in violation of the With the evolving data privacy ecosystem. create awareness amongst individuals / employees / customers / consumers and ensure compliance to data protection laws either through self regulation or co-regulation. that is governed by corporate laws. DSCI’s Charter & Mission are as follows: MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT . The responsibility of the businesses and corporates is to build. ITAA 2008. with an independent Board of Directors. the law will effectively recognize the right to privacy of an individual. law enforcement agencies (LEA). NASSCOM has established DSCI as not-for-profit. independent entity – a Section 25 Company. implement and continuously monitor a risk based data protection program. Law enforcement bodies need to update themselves with latest technology. Amendments in IT Act 2000 in year 2008 reflect government’s commitment towards the need of hour and strengthening the data protection regime in India. businesses and corporates also hold equal responsibility. and need to regularly hone their skills to combat cyber crime. The regulatory bodies need to understand the industry specific privacy needs and issue specific and granular set of guidelines in order to provide direction and guidance to the industry under their purview. etc. we can say that the Government is not at the fault here since the State is taking measures to ensure the privacy of the citizens. trends. Further to ITAA 2008. It is likely to contain specific rules that will address any breach of a citizen’s right to privacy and include safeguards against potential violations of the law even by the government.6. Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) under Government of India is also working on enacting India’s first ‘specific’ law to safeguard privacy. Where government is ascertaining the measures for protecting the individual privacy. regulatory bodies. clause 43A is a step in the right direction as it intends to protect ‘sensitive personal information’ by penalizing body corporate that fails to implement ‘reasonable security practices’. It is a SRO.1. Once in place.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.