THE CONTEXT
Recent actions against journalists from the online portal NewsClick indicate that India is facing a lack of digital data protection, and even the judiciary is not acting against the injustices.
MORE ON THE NEWS
- The interrogations of journalists pivot on three significant events:
- Anti-farm law protests
- North East Delhi Riots of 2020
- Response to COVID-19
- All these events are not just matters of public interest demanding accountability from the Union Government but also subjects of criminal prosecutions by the Delhi police.
ISSUES RAISED
- Seizure of assets: There arises concerns related to seizure of assets even without warrants, fearing heightened risks such as physical assaults or prosecution under an unrelated charge. A report noted that by May 2023, 44 media entities and journalists faced scrutiny from investigative and tax agencies over the previous five years.
- Executive aggressive action: The Union executive is taking aggressive actions against NewsClick, accusing staff of terrorism, reflecting a wider issue of interference by the executive. The only safeguard comes from technological precautions such as encrypted messaging apps, but even this is breached by forcing to unlock smartphones, which leads to investigatory oppression.
- India’s press ranking in the international arena: India ranks 161 out of 180 countries in the World Press Freedom Index which reflects the worst place of India in press freedom in world.
- Judiciary issue: Apart from fear of prosecution, journalists are feeling hopelessness as there is absence of corrective action by the judiciary.
- Outdated laws: In the age of instant messaging and cloud storage, the Code of Criminal Procedure is still rooted in oldest times which guides India’s criminal justice process. This approach not only ignores the invasiveness of modern technological advances but also struggles to uphold democratic rights within the Constitution of India.
- Issue of privacy: Police and Magistrates issue warrants, and misuse is done under acts as PMLA and Income tax, which clash with rights to privacy and protection against self-incrimination. With the Lokniti-CSDS-Common Cause ‘Status of Policing in India’ report shows that 47% believe that the police can access their phones without consent.
DETENTION PROVISIONS IN CONSTITUTION
- Article 22(3) (b): It allows for the preventive detention and puts restriction on personal liberty for ensuring state security and public order.
- Article 22(4): It states that no law providing for preventive detention shall authorize the detention of a person for a period longer than three months. In case of extended extension, a report by the advisory board is required for sufficient cause.
DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA REGULATION
- IT Amendment Act,2008: Existing Privacy Provisions in India have some privacy provisions in place under the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008. However, these provisions are largely specific and restrictive to certain situations.
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India 2017: In August 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) Vs Union of India unanimously held that Indians have a constitutionally protected fundamental right to privacy that is an intrinsic part of life and liberty under Article 21.
- Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021: IT Rules (2021) mandate social media platforms to exercise greater diligence with respect to the content on their platforms.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: DPDP Act aims to establish a higher level of accountability for entities operating within India involved in the collection, storage, and processing of citizen’s data. With a strong emphasis on the “Right to Privacy,” this legislation seeks to ensure that these entities operate transparently and are answerable when it comes to handling personal data.
THE WAY FORWARD
- Reform the current policing methods: There is need to explore current policing methods and their clash with fundamental rights to ensure that
- Proactive judiciary: It requires the Supreme Court of India to take lesson from Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent to act with judicial courage for ensuring justice. Higher judiciary needs to act without fear or favour to uphold the freedom of press.
- Ensuring press freedom: Our nation seems to be passing through the phase of digital authoritarianism and thus press freedom needs to be ensured. As, only free journalism can act as a check to maintain India’s constitutional framework.
THE CONCLUSION
Such seizures of assets is clearly an act against fundamental rights of the citizen and curb on free media. There is a need to ensure proper regulation of digital data protection to ensure transparency and accountability.
PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS
Q.1 Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy. (2017)
Q.2 “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have a profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss. (2020)
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION
Q.1 Critically examine the view that loopholes in the digital data protection regime and high handedness of the investigating agencies in seizure of digital assets of individuals reflect digital authoritarianism in the country.
Note: Please refer to 5th October and 9th October Mains Focus for more on this news.
Spread the Word