A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law
[Samraat Basu is a technology and data protection lawyer and Naveen Jain is a corporate lawyer specialising in M&A and PE/VC funding.]
The Indian regulatory landscape regarding the use of remotely piloted and autonomous drones has been evolving over the last few years. In June, the Government of India released the draft Unmanned Aircraft System Rules, 2020 (“UAS Rules”) to regulate the use of drones.
[This post has been authored by Sindhu A., a final year student at School of Law, Christ University.]
In terms of organ donation, India is ranked among the lowest globally, with an organ donation rate of a mere 0.86 donors per million. According to a recent study, around 5,00,000 people need organ transplantation every year and 90 percent of the people on the waiting list die without receiving an organ. India was known as the most common source of organ trade and although there was a gradual decline with the enactment of legislations, the illegal underground market persists as a looming threat. The above-mentioned statistics indicate the need for a fundamental change in the way the Indian organ network operates. One of the most efficient ways to remedy this is to appropriate blockchain technology to better manage organ donation and allocation.
[This post has been authored by Samarth Srivastava, a 3rd year student at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences.]
In the 21st Century, almost all routine, manual jobs like manufacturing and driving may become automated. Simultaneously, the potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is expected to grow, and these changes will be felt in the legal sector as well. In 2016, a report by Deloitte UK estimated that 39% per cent of jobs in the legal sector may be automated in the next ten years and that the industry will undergo profound reforms.[1] One field in which AI has had a significant impact recently is Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), specifically when disputes are filed and resolved online (hereafter ODR). With respect to ODR, AI has made the resolution process faster by making the filing of claims more convenient, and by improving the process of human decision-making.
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.
Jio was recently made a party in a matter regarding adjusted gross revenue (AGR case) between companies in India and the Department of the Telecommunications and other telecom companies in India. The issue was regarding investigation into whether telcos like RCom, Videocon and Aircel wanted to evade paying their dues to the DoT by filing for insolvency. The DoT had decided that Jio was to be made liable for the 31000 crore AGR dues that RCom owed to the Department, since Jio was using RCom’s airwaves as evidenced by a 2016 spectrum sharing agreement. Jio sought to prove that the spectrum was simply leased and that they didn’t have any exclusive use of the spectrum. They further argued that spectrum sharing agreements do not assume a sharing of liabilities for DoT’s AGR dues.
[This post has been authored by Ujjawal Bhargava, a fourth-year student at the Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad.]
Copyright is a right provided to the creators of literary, artistic, dramatic and musical works as well as to the producers of sound recordings and cinematographic films. The rights of the creators include inter alia, right of reproduction, adaptation, and translation of work and communication to the public. However, despite the bundle of rights to provided to the authors, they are infrequently utilized even their copyright is infringed. The reasons for the this include lack of transparency about the legal status of copyrighted work, lack of knowledge about the right owner and piracy, etc. The status quo can be appropriately described “like having the keys and title to your car, but not knowing where it’s parked: in theory you own it, however in practice you cannot use it in the intended way.”
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.
In an increasingly globalised world, major retail companies like Amazon have reached even the most inaccessible places. The consumers that are exposed to e-commerce companies can only be protected in the presence of increased accountability. The newly issued E-Commerce Rules set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority to police companies that violate consumer rights. Misleading ads and unfair trade practices are prevented as e-retailers have to mandatorily disclose return, refund, warranty, exchange, guarantee, delivery and grievance redressal details. Henceforth, prices of products cannot be manipulated to produce unreasonable profits for companies. These rules apply to retailers either registered in India or abroad.
[This post has been authored by Jalaj Jain of the Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gandhinagar.]
In the past decade, ‘consumer personal data’ has transformed from a mere tool of service to a ‘social currency’. Creation of regulatory barriers to determine the legal right of ownership and storage of data impacts consumer behaviour, stock markets and national elections. Indian authorities are struggling to introduce robust regulations, as they have failed to settle the debate regarding advantages and disadvantages of ‘cross border data flows’. On June 29th, 2020, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stated that under section 69A of the Information Technology Act, it had imposed a ban on 59 Chinese applications. Data security and privacy of millions of Indian citizens were cited as the main reasons for the questionable ban; contributing to the rising tensions between India and China. While such ban has both economic and security implications, the larger concern is to determine India’s stance on cross border data flows.
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.
Former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya filed a public-interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi to prompt Google, Twitter and Facebook to disclose identities of designated content moderation officers on the basis of the Information Technology Rules. In response, Google submitted that the officers worked with government authorities to remove illegal content. Govindacharya claimed that without disclosure of the officers’ identities, no mechanisms to enforce obligations could not be adequately instituted. However, Google responded by stating that revealing the identities of officers would jeopardize their capacity to work efficiently with the government, as they would be exposed to public scrutiny and criticism.
[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.