In a significant development, the Lok Sabha recently passed the Data Protection Bill amidst vociferous opposition protests. On August 7, 2023, the bill gained approval in the Lok Sabha, and despite an opposition boycott, it was subsequently passed by the Rajya Sabha as well. However, concerns loom large over the implications of this legislation, which grants the government unprecedented access to citizens’ privacy, paving the way for potential mass censorship and surveillance. Six years ago, the Apex Court of India unequivocally declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right for all citizens. Ironically, the very bill designed to protect the government apparatus now casts a shadow of uncertainty over the masses. Citizens find themselves vulnerable to government encroachment into their most intimate affairs, a stark contrast to the principle of privacy enshrined in the constitution. Traditionally, the media has been hailed as the fourth estate, holding the government accountable. However, section 36 of the Data Protection Bill upends this balance, granting the government the authority to demand personal information from any citizen. This provision could potentially extend the government’s control over the media, while also paving the way for classification of “private information”, allowing public officials to shield their actions under the guise of privacy. Unsettlingly, the bill carries forward all the controversial aspects present in the original version drafted in November 2022, including provisions opposed by privacy experts. One of the most alarming facets is the virtual censorship powers bestowed upon the Central government. It empowers the government to shield “instrumentality of the state” from consequences, citing national security and other vague justifications, further eroding public accountability.
Amidst these concerns, the bill’s approach towards consent norms for data collection by entities is striking. The government can process citizens’ data without seeking explicit consent under the pretext of national security and essential services provision. This raises concerns about how private companies could exploit this privilege for purposes such as employment-related matters and even corporate espionage. A noteworthy example is Clause 12(3), which enables individuals to request the removal of personal data shared with news publications, even overriding public interest. This provision potentially undermines journalism’s role in keeping those in power accountable. Furthermore, Clause 37(1)(b) affords the Union government sweeping censorship authority without the need for specified grounds, stifling freedom of expression and press freedom. The Data Protection Bill’s scope extends to exemption of publicly available personal data from its provisions. This opens the door for AI and surveillance companies to scrape data from social media and news publications without consent, raising concerns about privacy violations and misuse of facial recognition technology. These developments highlight the urgency of surveillance reforms in the nation.
A significant oversight in the bill is the lack of provisions safeguarding journalists and their work. The initial draft by the Justice Srikrishna Committee recognised the challenges journalists face and proposed exemptions for their work. The current version, however, fails to acknowledge public interest journalism, exposing media organisations to legal risks and hampering their ability to hold power accountable. As the Data Protection Bill takes steps toward becoming law, it is imperative to address these glaring concerns. Balancing the rights of citizens, press freedom, and the government’s legitimate interests is crucial. Amending the bill to reflect these considerations will not only safeguard privacy and press freedom but also uphold the democratic values that our nation cherishes.
