It should be challenged, says the former judge of the Supreme Court.thehindu.com

Sonam Saigal Mumbai, December 14, 2019 22:20


HYDERABAD, 15/07/2014: Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and Chairman of Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC), B.N. Srikrishna, addressing at FINSEC 2014, the 2nd Financial Sector Conclave, organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in Hyderabad on July 15, 2014.
Photo: P.V. Sivakumar

HYDERABAD, 15/07/2014: Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India and Chairman of Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC), B.N. Srikrishna, addressing at FINSEC 2014, the 2nd Financial Sector Conclave, organised by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in Hyderabad on July 15, 2014. Photo: P.V. Sivakumar   | Photo Credit: P_V_SIVAKUMAR

It should be challenged, says the former judge of the Supreme Court.

The retired Supreme Court judge, B.N. Srikrishna, who led the committee that came with the draft of the Personal Data Protection Bill, said it is a unique legislation and it is in contrast with the draft, which mentions no data will be processed without the consent of the person.

He said the Bill gives autonomy to the government. “If this is passed in its current form, it should be challenged in the Supreme Court,” he said.

He said the committee was told to frame a law for data protection and privacy and digital empowerment of citizens. “At that time, there was no law at all, so we had to look at laws in Europe, South Africa, Singapore, Australia and come up with what is good for us.”

Safeguards suggested by panel left out: Srikrishna

Retired Judge Srikrishna said “We didn’t have to pick and follow everything there is in the General Data Protection Regulation. So we built upon it in less than 18 months and mentioned all the safeguards which are no longer part of the Bill.”

Commenting on the constitution of the Data Protection Authority of India, he said, “We had said in the draft that the DPA should comprise people who are independent, people who are representatives of the stakeholders and, maybe, some government nominee. However, now all we have is government nominees, so it will be like a government department. That’s another dangerous part, it defeats the purpose.”

He explained that the data could be misused by the government in several ways — which book do you read, how much money do you have in the bank, where are you getting the money from, where do you go for a walk, which restaurants do you visit… “All this information and much more can be accessed without your consent. It will lead to framing people and implicating them. That is exactly what I meant when I said Orwellian, it is the Big Brother looking at you.”

Related posts