Digital Personal Data Protection bill now an Act; receives President's assent
New Delhi (PTI): The Digital Personal Data Protection bill, passed by Parliament this week, has received President's assent, Union Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said on Saturday.
Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) law aims to protect the privacy of Indian citizens while proposing a penalty of up to Rs 250 crore on entities for misusing or failing to protect digital data of individuals.
Companies handling user data will be required to safeguard the individual's information, and instances of personal data breach have to be reported to the Data Protection Board (DPB) and the user.
"DPDP Bill becomes an Act. Received Hon'ble President's assent," Vaishnaw said in similar posts on X (formerly Twitter), and homegrown app Koo.
On August 9, the Rajya Sabha approved the DPDP bill that introduces several compliance requirements for the collection and processing of personal data, has provisions to curb misuse of individuals' data by online platforms, and entails up to Rs 250 crore penalty for any data breach.
Data of children can be processed after consent from guardians, as per the DPDP law. The Lok Sabha had approved the bill on August 7. The government expects to implement the Act within 10 months, IT Minister Vaishnaw had said earlier this week.
The bill lays down the manner in which companies should process users' data, and gives the government power to seek information from firms and issue directions to block content on the advice of a data protection board appointed by the Union government. It allows users the right to correct their personal data.
The bill applies to the processing of digital personal data in India, where the personal data is either collected in digital form or in a non-digitised format and subsequently digitised.
The bill defines 'personal data' broadly to include any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data. 'digital personal data' is defined to mean personal data in digital form.
DPDP gives the government powers to exempt state agencies from the law.
"The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 a bill to provide for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognises both the right of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process such personal data for lawful purposes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto," the DPDP bill said.
It moots creation of Data Protection Board of India to handle grievances of individuals around personal data privacy if data fiduciaries or firms using personal data fail to address individuals' complaints.
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.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
