The Congress Rajya Sabha MP opposed the "unbridled powers" given by the Bill to the Union government to exempt any government agency from the purview of the law.
Jairam Ramesh. Photo: PTI
New Delhi: With the joint committee of parliament (JCP) set to adopt its report on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, Congress MPs Jairam Ramesh and Gaurav Gogoi have submitted dissent notes expressing reservations about the absence of state-level data protection authorities and “unbridled” exemptions given to government agencies.
Ramesh tweeted his dissent note, saying he was compelled to file it.
Today, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 will adopt its report. I’m compelled to submit a detailed dissent note. But that should not detract from the democratic manner in which the Committee has functioned. Now, for the debate in Parliament. pic.twitter.com/tavBnF9y5B
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) November 22, 2021
Shortly after, the JPC adopted the final report.
According to Hindustan Times, Manish
Tewari of the Congress, the Trinamool Congress’s Derek O’Brien and the
Biju Janata Dal’s Amar Patnaik are also likely to follow suit.
Ramesh, while praising the committee for functioning in a “completely democratic, transparent and consultative manner”, said he had two very basic disagreements with the final report. “I had suggested amendments to Section 35 which is the most crucial provision of the Bill as well as to Section 12. The JCP gave me a patient hearing but I was unable to convince it of the merits of my arguments. The general consensus in the JCP appeared to be in favour of not accepting my amendments and I did not want to force the issue beyond a point,” the Rajya Sabha MP said.
He said that the design of the Bill assumes that the constitutional right to privacy arises only where operations and activities of private companies are concerned. “Governments and government agencies are trated as a separate privileged class whose operations and activities are always in the public interest and individual privacy considerations are secondary,” he wrote. The idea that the Supreme Court’s Puttaswamy judgment is relevant only for a minute section of the Indian population is “deeply flawed and troubling”, Ramesh said, adding that he totally rejects this notion.
“Section 35 gives almost unbridled powers to the Central Government to exempt any government agency from the entire Act itself,” Ramesh said, adding that an amendment he had suggested would have required parliamentary approval before any government agency is exempted from the purview of the law. “Even then, the Government must always comply with the Bill’s requirement of fair and reasonable processing and implementing the necessary security safeguards,” he said.
This controversial section was a significant dilution of the Bill proposed by the Srikrishna Committee, which incorporated the Puttaswamy judgment’s opinion that any invasion into privacy by the government must be authorised by law and should be necessitated by a legitimate state purpose and proportional to the said goal.
“Section 12(a)(i) creates certain exceptions for governments and government agencies from the provisions of consent. While fully understanding the logic for such exemptions in a number of circumstances, I had suggested some changes to make this exemption less sweeping and less automatic,” Ramesh said.
The Congress MP also said that while the JCP’s report allows a period of two years for private companies to migrate to the new data protection regime, there is no such stipulation for governments and government agencies.
Gogoi’s dissent note cites a “lack of attention” paid to “harms arising from surveillance” and said a “modern surveillance framework” may be created by the exemptions granted by the Bill, according to Hindustan Times. He also identified Sections 35 and 12 for particular concern, also criticising the report for not providing any “parliamentary oversight and engagement”. The newspaper said that the Biju Janata Dal’s Patnaik is likely to object to the absence of state-level data protection authorities.
The JPC began looking into the Bill in 2019 and was granted several deadline extensions. The last extension was granted after members, including chairperson Meenakshi Lekhi, were inducted into the Union cabinet in July.
The JPC report proposes that social media platforms should be treated as publishers, which will make them liable for content posted by users, according to Hindustan Times.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments