Censorship Archives - Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Dr. Usha Ramanathan’s Talk on the UIDAI Litigation

[Ed Note : The following post is based on Dr. Ramanathan’s enlightening talk at the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. It has been authored by Karthik Subramaniam and Yashasvi Raj, first year students of the aforementioned university, who, in a slightly longer but informative read aptly put forth Dr. Ramanathan’s views on the Aadhar issue and its judicial journey.

Dr. Usha Ramanathan, an internationally recognized legal expert, is currently research fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and professor at the Indian Law Institute. Since 2009, she has consistently brought forth the loopholes in the Aadhar project, exposing its shoddy functioning.]

Comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill 2018 – V

[Ed Note : The following post, the fifth post in the series of posts containing comments to the Report and Draft Bill, 2018 published on the MeitY website, has been authored and compiled by students of NALSAR University of Law. This post contains comments on data localisation framework put forth by the Committee.
The first post in the series can be found here.]

The Data Protection Bill under Section 41 mandates any data fiduciary to store personal data of all data principals in India. It also requires companies process and store all critical personal data only in servers or data centers located in India. This requirement is colloquially known as ‘Data Localisation.’ The report justifies data localisation on several grounds such as easy enforcement, increase in compliance, reduction of foreign surveillance, among others. The following paper will discuss briefly the reasons provided by the Report, it will then critically evaluate the claims, and arguments made by the Committee. It will conclude by arguing against a requirement for data localisation.

Comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill 2018 – IV

[Ed Note : The following post, the fourth post in the series of posts containing comments to the Report and Draft Bill, 2018 published on the MeitY website, has been authored and compiled by students of NALSAR University of Law. This post contains comments on the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 that has been proposed by the Committee.

The first post in the series can be found here. Keep watching this space for more posts!]

Transparency and accountability in a government and its administration is an indispensable part of a participatory democracy. Information is the oxygen for the survival of a democracy. The Right to Information Act was passed in 2005 replacing the Freedom of Information Act, 2002 so that every citizen has the right to access information controlled by public authorities. RTI is intrinsic to good governance and a necessity for democratic functioning.

Comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill 2018 – II

[Ed Note : The following post, the second post in the series of posts containing comments to the Report and Draft Bill, 2018 published on the MeitY website, has been authored and compiled by students of NALSAR University of Law. This post contains comments on the Report and Draft bill in relation to the AADHAR issue.

The first post in the series can be found here. Keep watching this space for more posts in the series!]

With the Supreme Court upholding the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and scheme on the 27^th of September, 2018, a significant impact will be felt by the Data Protection Bill. If one looks at the larger aim of a Bill like the Data Protection Bill, it is to recognize that an individual’s data and their rights over it are of utmost importance. With the Apex Court upholding the validity of Aadhaar albeit certain caveats, a thorn is created in the larger realization of the Bill’s goal. Principally, the limitation of the role of Aadhaar by the judgment would secure rights in terms of who uses available data and the interference of private parties. However, the fact that biometric data collection is still a valid process creates doubts regarding the conflicting nature of the aims of data protection and Aadhaar.

Comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill 2018 – I

[Ed Note : The following series of posts contain comments on the Srikrishna Committee Report and the Draft Data Protection Bill, 2018 made and compiled by students from NALSAR University of Law -Ankush Rai, Ashwin Murthy, Arvind Pennathur, Namratha Murugesan, Priyamvadha Shivaji, Shweta Rao, Sriram Kashyap, Vishal Rakhecha and Tanvi Apte. The comments have been uploaded on the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) website.

The present post deals with comments made in relation to four issues that arise in relation to the Report and Draft Bill – a) vagueness, b) government interference, c) the data protection authority and d) surveillance.