Government snoops over common man's right to privacy
The foremost topic that was deliberated a lot on while the country stood on the threshold of welcoming Aadhar, was about the issues surrounding privacy of individuals. Many experts had expressed their apprehensions about how Aadhar may highly comprise an individual's right to privacy. There were allegations that government was introducing Aadhaar to invade or take control of people's private details and their lives. Now it is out in the open as to how information can be leaked through Aadhaar.
Till now the government would face arguments on the basis that Aadhar was fool proof as far as data is concerned. Now they have gone a step further. The government has now indirectly declared that people's personal information is the right to the government. Hence the government has issued a directive that any information stored on any computer shall be accessed by the government even without the permission of the owner of this information. Legal experts and cyber security professionals have been expressing great concerns about a directive such as this one. This directive empowers intelligence departments, narcotics control units, executive directorate, excise intelligence department, central investigation agency, national intelligence agency, cabinet committee, Jammu and Kashmir, north eastern states, secret code intelligence department in Assam, and Delhi police to monitor, and extract information from any computer whether personal or private. The right to privacy is under threat now. This will enable the government to misuse its powers now. And this will complicate people's lives even further. Defending the decision of the government, union minister Jaitley said this provision exists within the framework of IT act framed by the UPA government, and that the government wasn't misusing its powers in any manner. This way he is trying to absolve his government of any chances of having to shoulder the blame. If UPA government had done everything right, what was the need for the people to choose new government? If UPA had indeed made a mistake Modi government should not use it as defence but try to fix that error through the power and responsibility they have.
Even experts agree that IT Act does have a provision to empower the said agencies with snooping rights for the sake of national security. An act to monitor PCs was introduced in 2008 by the UPA government. Now by implementing it, the NDA government is trying to make this act effective and thus give it the sanctity that's required. Though this provision existed, no one had issued a special order to use it or empowered agencies to use the provisions. Though the IT act was amended in 2008 from the time it was framed in 2000, the rules to use this provision was publicised in 2009.
In a ruling in 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy. Hence this directive by the government clashes directly with the Supreme Court's emphasis on privacy pertaining to constitutional rights. Starting from the CBI, the government is interfering with every investigating agency and its works. Instead of working for the welfare of the nation, allegations are aplenty that the agencies are serving the ruling dispensation.
Elements of Sangh Parivar have made a foray into these investigation agencies. Armed with information from private computers, the government and non governmental agencies too can use them against people and exploit them. Those in power may use them to silence their detractors. If the government can peep into your private space, that marks the end of constitution. This directive is an example of how the government is able to use the existing framework to push people around into delicate situations. This needs to be fought against, legally both inside and outside the courts. Or else everyone would lose their right to privacy and kneel before the higher powers. All those voices that could question the government would be silenced with this.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru (PTI): Justice B V Nagarathna of the Supreme Court on Saturday called for the creation of a judicial reforms commission to reduce mounting pendency in the courts, saying systemic incentives across stakeholders were contributing to delays in justice delivery.
She was speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association's (SCBA) first National Conference on the theme "Reimagining judicial governance: strengthening institutions for democratic justice" here.
Nagarathna, who was part of the panel session addressing "From Pendency to Prompt Justice: Rethinking Justice Delivery in Indian Courts," said, this reforms commission must have membership not only from the judiciary of the Supreme Court, the High Court, as well as the District judiciary, but also have members from the Bar, Attorney General, Solicitor General, and also certain members representing the Bar at the institutional level, such as the Bar President, and from the government side to enable an inter-institutional dialogue on reducing pendency.
She reflected that, from the point of view of various stakeholders, a litigant gains from the status quo, to proceed to prolong proceedings.
ALSO READ: A political legacy, but no win yet: Padmaja Venugopal''s new fight in Thrissur
"A lawyer or an advocate loves adjournments and postponement because he/she benefits from per appearance and extended timelines. A government department reduces bureaucratic risk by appealing rather than accepting defeat.
"A judge, and particularly a trial judge, is always acting with caution because he/she is confronted with appellate reversal, and therefore he/she prefers procedural caution rather than having an aggressive docket control. Each of these decisions is individually rational, but how does it help the system? It is only leading to systemic delay," she added.
In order to break this equilibrium, Justice Nagarathna said that what is required is institutional interventions through a judicial commission to reduce pendency, rather than merely exhorting better conduct from judges, adherence to procedural timelines, asking advocates not to seek adjournments, urging the government to reduce litigation, or expecting courts to function round the clock and judges not to take leave.
On pendency, the judge questioned the inclusion of defective filings in court statistics, suggesting that such cases should not be counted until they are procedurally ready for hearing.
She also underlined the role of the government as the "largest generator of litigation", noting that officials tend to file appeals to avoid scrutiny, even in cases where disputes could be settled earlier. This, she said, results in cases travelling through multiple judicial levels unnecessarily.
"The government publicly expresses concern about judicial backlog, while simultaneously feeding that backlog through relentless litigation," she observed.
Justice Nagarathna further claimed judicial capacity is constrained by inadequate public investment, including delays in appointment of judges, lack of infrastructure and insufficient use of technology.
Among the measures suggested, she called for improved case management, curbs on unnecessary adjournments, adoption of technology, prioritisation of cases, promotion of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and creation of specialised benches.
She also urged advocates to adhere to professional and ethical standards, litigants to avoid frivolous appeals, and the government to adopt a practical litigation policy and ensure timely funding and appointments in the judiciary.
