I refer to the PIL filed in the Supreme Court recently with prayers for scrapping of the DPDPA 2023 as an act and DPDPA Rules.
The petitions are being filed by persons who claim to be representing public interest. However all the past activities of the persons filing the petition are connected to opposing some moves or the other of the Government.
We therefore take objection to them being considered as “Representatives of the Public”. The real public are often no where in the litigations like these. The Government cannot be considered as the representative of the public in such cases since they are one of the parties who has drafted the law. Hence it is incorrect to leave the entire responsibility of representing the public with the Government.
Some times, the Government will only defend the process of law making and does not have commitment to the cause of the law. It may enter into compromises with the petitioners either because the peitioner lawyers are more aggressive or because the Government lawyer may not be able to look at the issue from all angles.
Hence it is our desire that no PIL should be taken note of without giving an opportunity for the “Real Public” to particiapte.
In one of the recent cases related to Digital Arrest, Supreme Court had appointed an Amicus Curiae and asked any body who wanted to express views to send it to her/him .
Long time back (around the year 2001), Mumbai high court had taken note of an article in naavi.org (case was related to Cyber Cafe regulation and prevention of obscenity) as a public view and published it as part of the Court documents and invited views from public.
We feel that publications in www.naavi.org are to be considered as public views and even without a formal intervention petition, should be considered as knoweldge to be incorproated in the trial.
Supreme Court should insist that the Attorney General files an affidavit where he confirms that his views incorproate views published by experts in the field on the Internet which are considered relevant for the case.
While these are suggestions for the Supreme Court for future, at present Naavi has raised a petition under www.change.org with the title” I am the real public in India and I donot support scrapping of DPDPA and DPDPA Rules”
We may have many suggestions for resolution of the concerns of the petitioners without scrapping of the law and the rules. Our suggestions may also be directed towards the Government if required which the Government will not consider by its own.
Hence we shall through these columns in www.naavi.org shall present our views meant to resolve the dispute in “Real Public Interest”.
We hope Supreme Court takes note of our articles here before considering the “Pseudo Public Interest representatives” who may be present in the Court and carry out a high decible campaging with support of vested media interests.
We request readers to support the petition and follow the discussions in these pages which presently rests with the article “Whose Privacy are the Petitioners of DPDPA Challenge Brigade are protecting?“. This discussion will continue and more articles will be placed here for you to respond.
The petition can be accessed here.
Naavi
