Editors' Picks 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 – 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.

TechLaw Symposium at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad – Press Note

[Ed Note : The following press note has been authored by Shweta Rao and Arvind Pennathur from NALSAR University of Law. Do watch this space for more details on the symposium!}

On the 9^th of September NALSAR University of Law’s Tech Law Forum conducted its first ever symposium with packed panels discussing a variety of issues under the broad theme of the Right to Privacy. This symposium took place against the backdrop of the recent draft Data Protection Bill and Report released by the Srikrishna Committee.

Privacy & Transparency as Complementary Rights: Inadequacies in the Proposed Amendments to the RTI Act

[Ed Note : The following cross – post, authored by Sayan Bhattacharya of NALSAR University of Law, was first posted on the Law School Policy Review. The link to the same can be found here. ]

By leaving essential terms undefined and placing a higher burden to disclose personal information, the amendments proposed by the Srikrishna Committee are defeating the purpose of a right to privacy i.e. to make the state more transparent and the citizen less transparent.

The B.N. Srikrishna Committee was constituted a year ago by the Government of India to draft a data protection law for India. Recently, the committee submitted the draft “The Protection of Personal Data Bill, 2018” comprising 15 chapters that address various facets of a data protection regime. In the final chapter of the proposed bill, the committee suggested amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005. The controversy around the proposed amendments have brought to the fore the conflict between a right to privacy and a right to information; with the fear of the former being used as an exemption to make the State less accountable.

Admissibility of Secondary Digital Evidence in Courts

[Ed Note: The following is a guest post by Shriram Kashyap, a second year student of NALSAR University of Law.]

INTRODUCTION

The sudden influx of computers brought about major changes in the legal framework for regulating technology in India. The Information Technology Act 2000 (hereinafter the ‘IT Act’) was one such change that impacted various fields, including Criminal Law and Law of Evidence. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was one of the many Acts that was amended by the IT Act, and it introduced the concept of digital evidence to Indian Courts by adding Sections 65A and 65B, which describe the procedure to produce electronic evidence in courts during criminal trials and the admissibility of the same. These sections minimise the risk of falsification of digital evidence through various stipulations.