National interest will override personal interest : PP Chaudhary, head of JPC on Data Protection Bill

BJP MP, PP Chaudhary, who headed the 30-member committee, tabled the report in Lok Sabha on December 16.

The much-awaited report of the joint parliamentary committee (JPC) on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on December 16.

The panel reviewing the country’s first proposed data protection law recommended tougher norms to regulate social media platforms by holding them accountable for the content they host, while asserting that it is imperative to store data in India and restrict access to it by categorising it as sensitive and critical personal data, according to a PTI report.

Read: Joint committee report on Data Protection Bill tabled in both Houses of Parliament

Despite seven dissent notes, the panel, in its 542-page report, did not recommend toning down the controversial Section 12 of the Bill that has grounds for processing of personal data without consent in certain cases and Section 35 which give powers to the government to keep any of its agencies outside the purview of the data protection legislation.

In an exclusive conversation with MoneyControl, Bharatiya Janata Party MP PP Chaudhary, who headed the 30-member committee, said the proposed law could lay the foundation of a strong digital economy, that the objections to the exemption provision were uncalled for and that the national interest will always override personal interests. Edited excerpts:

Finally, the report has been submitted after many extensions. Your thoughts?

I took over as chairperson of the committee six months ago. In this time, we had 16 meetings. We have introduced 170 amendments. I am glad the report has been tabled. The credit for this goes to all members of the committee. Every one cooperated. I thank them all.

The panel made 170 amendments but nothing has been done to the controversial clauses despite dissent notes. Why?

Basically, some members had raised issues with respect to Section 35 and Section 12 of the report. Section 35 is clear. It talks about giving power to the government to process data.

READ: Data protection bill is Orwellian, loaded in favour of the government: Justice BN Srikrishna

The origin of this section is the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It states “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” So we can deprive the liberty of a citizen through a law made by Parliament. If the Constitution gives the right, then what is the problem?

Then as mentioned in “freedom of speech and expression” under Article 19, liberty can be curtailed when it comes to national security, integrity, sovereignty and public order, etc.

Section 35 says clearly that the government can authorise any agency to process data. The reasons to authorise the agency should be there. Also, the agency can process the data only for specific purposes such as national security, integrity and sovereignty. The government will make rules with reasonable procedure. I do not see any problem there. Whenever there is a conflict between national interest and private interest, the national interest will have an overriding effect.

There were reservations against Section 12 with regard to consent for data processing? What is the panel’s stand on that?

There is a lot of misconception being spread. Section 11, which is the basic section, says you cannot process data without consent.  Then there are exceptions in sections 12, 13, 14, 35 and 36. For example, as mentioned in Section 36, if you are investigating someone, you can process data without consent.

Similarly, in Section 12, if the government is providing a service to someone, such as sending money into farmers’ bank accounts, you do not need to have consent.

Also, read: Why India must fortify its data privacy laws

You cannot keep a consent clause in service providing, otherwise the welfare system of PDS (public distribution system), RTGS (real-time gross settlement), etc., will collapse. The purpose of data processing is what matters. If it is meant for providing benefits and services or conducting an investigation under the law, why do you need consent?

Some opposition members, who were part of the panel, said government agencies are treated as a separate privileged class in the Bill.

People who allege that the Bill is giving powers to the government do not realise that if we do not have such exemptions we will end up stalling the functioning of welfare schemes in the country. Let me be very honest, the Bill strikes a fine balance. The idea is to process data only for specific purposes. It is a step towards making India a solid digital economy.

The report recommends two years for the government to implement the law. Is it possible?

The first part of the report by the panel is a recommendation part which is not binding on the government. We have recommended 24 months to implement the law. The government can do it in 30 months or three years, it’s up to them.

Also, read: Expansion of scope of data protection bill needs careful analysis, deeper debate: Nasscom

The second part is binding on the government. The amendment can be only on the floor of the H. In the second part we have not mentioned 24 months.

The panel has recommended declaring social media intermediaries as publishers. Experts have pointed out that including social media in data protection might not be right.

We have made a recommendation but that is not to be included in this law. That will be incorporated in IT Act.