Logo

Defender of your Digital Freedom

Home > Freedom of Speech > RTI Reply Reveals Delhi Government’s Plans to Monitor the Internet

RTI Reply Reveals Delhi Government’s Plans to Monitor the Internet

Dec 12,2011 | 01:43 am

Sflc.in after a long procedure involving multiple RTI applications and complaint before the Central Information Commissioner could get access to a copy of the draft Regulation (Control and management of internet information) 2010(sic) of the State Government of Delhi. This draft reveals the attempt of the government to legalise monitoring of information on the the Internet and this raises serious questions of surveillance in the light of therecent reports in the mediabased on spy-files released by Wikileaks.

Under this regulation the Secretary, Department of IT is authorised to issue orders regarding monitoring of information. The regulation provides for an Advisory Board that will approve the permissions issued pertaining to interception, monitoring and decryption of information. Also, it gives power to the Secretary (IT) to order the intermediaries to provide certain information for welfare of people. The regulation also gives the state government the power to install Internet content monitoring system.

After going through the Bill (yes, that is what the first page of the draft says), we have identified following irregularities and shortcomings –

1. The draft empowers the Secretary, Department of IT to issue orders regarding monitoring of information. However as per theInformation Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009, in the case of a state government the Secretary in charge of the home department is the ‘Competent Authority’ to issue such orders and this competent authority may authorize an agency of the government to intercept, monitor or decrypt information. The Rules also provide for a review committee constituted under rule 419 A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. As per these rulesthe review committee to be constituted by a State Government shall consist of the following ; namely;

a) Chief Secretary. b) Secretary Law/ Legal Remembrance In charge, Legal Affairs,

c) Secretary to the State Government ( other than the Home Secretariat).

Thus, the state government’s draft regulation contradicts the rules issued by the central government. As theInformation Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009specifically provide for a competent authority in the case of a state government as well as procedure and safeguards to be followed in monitoring, the need for such a legislation by the state government itself is unclear. Moreover, when the rules have a specific provision for a review committee, there is no requirement for the draft regulation to have a provision for constituting an advisory board.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Addl. District Magistrate (rev.) v. Siri Ram,(2000) 5 SCC 451,thatthe conferment of rule making power by an act does not enable the rule making authority to make a rule which travels beyond the scope of the enabling act or which is inconsistent there with or repugnant thereto. The draft regulation goes beyond the scope of the parent Act as Section 87 (2)(y) empowers only the central government to make rules regarding theprocedure and safeguards for interception, monitoring and decryption of information.

2. The provision in section (sic) 6 which mentions installation of contempt (sic) control solution with respect to chat room indices on the internet is a clear violation of a person’s privacy because in the modern day chat is the quickest and one of the most effective medium of communication on which users share their personal and sensitive information and putting a tap on that is like tapping phones of each and every mobile phone user. Such a monitoring mechanism will be a clear violation of the right to privacy and against the Supreme Court’s dicta on monitoring telephone conversations in the PUCL case.

3. Section(sic) 7 of the draft regulation makes it lawful for the state government to install internet content monitoring system. This is a dangerous situation that empowers the state government to listen to any transaction on the internet. This is all the more scary on account of therecent reports in the mediaregarding wire tapping of the internet by governments.

The draft regulations show the attempt of the Delhi government to have an Internet monitoring system which could pose a grave danger to the fundamental rights of citizens. The draft could be unconstitutional as it affects the right to privacy of citizens and could also be ultra vires of the parent Information Technology Act, 2000. The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009 provides sufficient powers to state governments to monitor internet and these rules also have adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the citizens. The attempt of the Delhi Government to introduce these regulations is an unwarranted exercise and is an intrusion on citizens’ digital freedom .

SC judgment – Safeguards for shutdown, limited relief for Kashmir

SC judgment – Safeguards for shutdown, limited relief for Kashmir The Supreme Court pronounced judgment in Anuradha Bhasin v UoI ...

Our Statement on Delhi High Court’s Dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation Challenging Internet Shutdown in Delhi

Our Statement on Delhi High Court’s Dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation Challenging Internet Shutdown in Delhi On 24.12.2019, the ...

Report Launch: The Future of Intermediary Liability in India

Report Launch: The Future of Intermediary Liability in India SFLC.IN is releasing a report on Intermediary Liability titled “Future of ...

A Detailed Analysis of the Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Judgment

Statement: At SFLC.in we believe that ordering intermediary platforms to take down content globally, negatively impacts freedom of expression online, ...

Our Statement on the WhatsApp Surveillance Issue

Our Statement on the WhatsApp Surveillance Issue The use of sophisticated surveillance technology by governments violates basic human rights of ...

Del. HC Orders for Global Take Down of Content

Delhi High Court Approves Take Down of Content Globally Asks Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter to remove defamatory content from ...

CJEU rules that search engines cannot be asked to de-list information globally under EU right to be forgotten requests

CJEU rules that search engines cannot be asked to de-list information globally under EU right to be forgotten requests On ...

Any regulation of online speech in India must safeguard the rights to free speech and privacy

Unlike the US, free speech in India is not absolute. Our Constitution, while guaranteeing the freedom of speech and expression, ...

Google v. Visakha: Final Arguments

In 2009, Visakha Industries, a construction company involved in the manufacturing of asbestos cement sheets, filed a criminal defamation case ...

Submission on Surveillance Industry and Human Rights to the UN Special Rapporteur

UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression had invited comments ...