One more objection raised by Reporter’s Collective which is bizarre and sinister is the interpretation that while the Search Committee may recommend some candidates either for the Chairman’s position or the members of Data Protection Board, The Government may appoint some body other than the recommended persons.
It is not clear where from they got this creative idea which is unsubstantiated and completely ridiculous.
The petition goes further and states that sincethe DPB may act through a “Digital office” it is “exclusionary” forgetting that the law is meant only for “Digital Personal Data” and the related disputes and further that the disputes with Data Principals if any for personal remedy may be handled not by DPB but by the Adjudicating officer of ITA 2000. When the suject matter of the dispute itself is “Digital”, it is difficult to understand how the dispute can be settled without touching a “Digital Office”. The petitioner has just invented a reason to raise the dispute.
To support its view it has referred to several judicial decisions which have no relation to the formation of DPB through a process involving selection by a search committee consisting of three secreatries and two exernal persons.
Finally the petitioner thinks that the penalty of Rs 50 crores to Rs 250 crores are exaggerated forgetting that the recommendation is “Upto” Rs 50 crores or “Upto” Rs 250 crores. The law does not mandate specifically that the minimum penalty should be Rs 50 crores. The law also provides an option for Volunatary undertaking which could mean that in some instances, no finacial penalty may be impsoed at all and only certain remedial directions may be issued.
Petitioners also need to reflect that under GDPR penalties are at levels of 1 billion US dollars in some cases and comparitively the maximum penalties under the DPDPA are much lower.
The petitioners assume that though the Act provides that Government may exempt specific classes of fiduciaries or specific classes of data from parts of the act, and such selective exemptions may be for SMEs, or even for Religious institutions such as Temples or even for the Journalists, the Government is not empowered to grant such powers. This sort of statements are malicious and meant only to make the Court believe what is not true.
The petitioners need to be asked to justify some of these assetions or admit that they are committing “perjery”.
Thus on several grounds the petition from Reporter’s collective is considered as based on false premises meant to mislead the Court. It should ideally be rejected with a penalty.
We would have appreciated if the Reporter’s Collecive had restricted itself to express its concerns and seem specific remedies rather than asking for scrapping of the entire Act. This demand betrays that the petitioners have come with a pre-conceived conspiracy to get the act scrapped and prevent the Indian public rom getting whatever benefits they would have expeted from the “Right to Protect Personal Data” which the Act tries to provide.
We have our prescriptions on how the act and the rules may be inerpreted to the effect that none of the concerns expressed can be considered as not addressable with a suitable interpretation.
Naavi
