A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law
[This post has been authored by Shivang Tandon, a fourth year student at Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University.]
The ‘self-incrimination’ doctrine is an indispensable part of the criminal law jurisprudence of a civilized nation. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provide protection against self-incrimination.
In a recent decision, the Government of India banned 59 Chinese Applications under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with relevant provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009. This ban was imposed as an interim measure on the ground that the concerned applications were “engaged in activities which are prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.” In lieu of this imposition, the Technology Law Forum of NALSAR University of Law (“Forum”) authored a letter to Shri Ajay Prakash Sawhney (Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) on 6 July 2020, expressing concerns and seeking clarifications about the ban.
Firstly, the Forum asserted that the power under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and its corresponding Rules is meant to be exercised for imposing content-based restrictions on the internet, and not for sweeping bans on entire applications. Secondly, the Forum pointed out that the Government had failed to make public a reasoned order justifying how the ban was reasonable and proportionate under Article 19 of the Constitution. Thirdly, the Forum noted that while some of the banned applications like TikTok and Weibo did have data protection and privacy concerns, others like Kwai did not have any such concerns or history of data leaks. To this end, it noted that a sweeping ban was arbitrary, more so in the absence of any data protection law supporting it. Fourthly, the Forum called upon the Government to clarify whether the ban was imposed under the exception framework of the GATT or the GATS, and to demonstrate how this ban was non-discriminatory under international law. Lastly, the Forum pointed out that many of the banned applications such as TikTok and Kwai were extremely popular in India’s semi-urban and rural areas, serving as a much-needed outlet of self-expression and source of income for marginalised communities. Accordingly, the Forum requested the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to consult with deprived user-stakeholders before arriving at the final decision.
[This post has been authored by Prashant Khurana, LL.M. Graduate (Class of 2020) from the UCLA School of Law and Founding Editor at Polemics and Pedantics Magazine, and Parth Maniktala, LL.B. Candidate (Class of 2021) at the Campus Law Center, University of Delhi, and Editor at Polemics and Pedantics Magazine.]
COVID-19 has spawned efforts geared towards contact-tracing, triggering collection and processing of sensitive personal data across the world. Legal protections surrounding this large-scale data collection are predominantly nascent, raising significant concerns about the precedent this sets for data privacy. In India, the Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgement recognized privacy as intrinsic to the right to life and liberty, as secured by Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Court conceded that privacy may be abridged if a legitimate interest, say, an epidemic, exists—provided the doctrine of ‘proportionality’ is satisfied. Notably, India’s controversial data protection legislation is yet to be enacted, and in its absence, judicial pronouncements govern.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced in a press release on 29th June that it had invoked its powers under section 69A of the Information Technology Act to ban 59 Chinese applications. The Indian government cited ‘raging concerns on aspects relating to data security and safeguarding the privacy of 130 crore Indians’ as reasons behind the ban. The move comes after a border skirmish with China resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers. Regardless of the cybersecurity concerns cited in the press release, speculation remains rife over whether the ban was a retaliatory measure in light of the worsening geopolitical situation between India and China. India is a huge market for Chinese apps, particularly for the video-sharing platform Tik-Tok which had previously been banned in February 2019 for encouraging the spread of pornography and ‘cultural degradation’. The ban was ultimately lifted after assurances by Tik-Tok that it had the tools to censor explicit content. The current ban has been called a purely political decision and criticised for its procedural impropriety and its excessive restriction on dissemination of online content.
[This post has been authored by Sanchit Khandelwal, a third year student of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.]
The ‘digital economy’ has witnessed remarkable growth and change in the last few decades and promises to continue to do so. Deepened penetration and wider access to the internet has further helped to alter the erstwhile relationship between customers and businesses. The exponential growth of computing power has enabled the upsurge of business models based on the collection and processing of ‘information/data’ exchanged between consumers and business firms.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here. [Ed Note: This newsletter has been prepared by Dhananjay Dhonchak and Sanchit Khandelwal]
Paytm has knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court complaining that the telecom operators are not taking action against fraudsters carrying out phishing activities under Paytm’s name. The petitioner has claimed that its users are being duped using unsolicited commercial communications (UCC) in the form of SMS or voice calls made over telecom companies’ networks.
[This post has been authored by Prajakta Pradhan, a 1st year student at Dr. Ram Manhar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU), Lucknow.]
Facial recognition involves the use of face mapping techniques to identify an individual’s facial features and compares it with available databanks. The facial recognition market is expected to grow to $7.7 billion in 2022 from $4 billion in 2017. The reason for this stellar growth is the varied application of facial recognition technology in both private and public sectors, with governments of many countries using facial recognition for law enforcement and surveillance.
[This post has been authored by Urmil Shah and Vishwa Mukhtyar, 3rd year students at Auro University, Surat.]
With the growth in economic activities in digital space, the e-commerce industry has gained traction in the last decade and revenue from the sector is expected to shoot USD 120 billion by 2020. Realizing the anti-competitive concerns arising out of the inventory model of e-commerce, whereby the platforms can hold inventory and sell directly to consumers, the DPIIT has disallowed FDI and permitted 100% FDI under automatic route for marketplace model. The Indian anti-trust regulator CCI, in January 2020, released a detailed report on understanding the modus operandi of e-commerce operations in India and the anti-trust ramifications in the market. The focus of the study was on e-commerce marketplace platforms in sector of goods food delivery and accommodation service. Certain competition issues are akin to this sector, which creates a novel groundwork for regulatory supervision for competition authorities includes:
[This post has been authored by Sanah Javed, a fourth year student at the School of Law, Christ University.]
Blockchain technology refers to a distributed ledger which helps record the transactions taking place between multiple users over the internet. In a blockchain, there exist multiple blocks of information that rests with the computer base of each user (node), in order for a transaction to be complete. Each node must verify or authenticate the transaction thereby negating the need for a centralised trusted body such as a Bank. Blockchain technology possesses certain key functions such as ‘hash’ and ‘timestamping’ that make it unique. The Hash function helps in validating the integrity of a file. In case of any tampering or difference, the hash will produce an entirely different result hence detecting the tampering. Further, Timestamping provides a chronological record regarding the creation, access and modification of the transaction. These aspects make blockchain an irreversible and incorruptible repository of information, and hence extremely useful form of evidence.