Namaste and greetings I Remora researcher at impr impact and policy Research Institute Prav ni anusandhan san extend my warmest welcome to you all to impr # web policy talk we are gathered today for a panel discussion on right to information RTI and privacy congruent or contradictory this discussion is
Organized by the # imp Center for ICT for development cicd as part of imp # web policy talk series I welcome all of you to this enlightening deliberation and thank you for tuning in to this discussion now let me introduce the team gathering for today our chair for the
Session is Professor vuti pel G visiting distinguished Professor impi we welcome you ma’am thank you the distinguished panelist for for the session are Shri shalesh Gandhi g RTI activist and former Central information commissioner Miss Anita gurum morti G founding member and executive director it for change bangaluru miss apar Mr apar gup G
Founding director internet Freedom Foundation if New Delhi Advocate Dr shalu Nigam G visiting senior fellow impri welcome to all we look forward to learning from my steam Gathering now without any further Ado let us start the program it is my honor and privilege to invite Professor vuti Patel G to start
The program with the chair’s opening remarks over to you ma’am thank you ramed first of all I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to Dr Arjun Kumar Dr s meta Dr raat Arora and whole impri team for organizing this panel discussion when people are in the Diwali F and this
Issue is so mindboggling and serious I think we have have got very good response uh welcome s shes Gandhi g Miss Anita gurum morti G she apar gup G and Dr Shalon Nigam G three all four stal wordss who have deliberated upon this issue tarali and examined pros and cons
And thereby demystified the term quote unquote privacy at CI as Citizens we understand that while RTI increases access to information the right to privacy protect instead the right to information is a fundamental right under article 191 of the Indian constitution in 1976 in the rad Naran versus state of
Utar Pradesh case the Supreme Court ruled that right to information will be treated as a fundamental right under Article 19 right to know is a basic in indivisible form of democratic poity and this right includes right to acquire information and disseminate it right to information is necessary for
Self-expression and it is an important means of Rec conscience and self-fulfillment on the other hand under article 149 and 21 of the Constitution right to privacy is a fundamental right like justice putas Swami versus suon of India case that challenge the Constitutional validity of AAR scheme as
A result of this case when revealing information under RTI government must guarantee that it doesn’t geop parize the individuals Liberty and dignity as per RTI act 2005 uh which accepts the right to privacy by restricting disclosure of the information which interferes with privacy of any individual unless it is required for a
Greater public good now the questions arise that what what questions cannot be asked under RTI on what ground RTI can be rejected on what are the limitations of RTI act in 2005 and which information cannot be given in RTI now the public uh release of chat GPT an AI powered chat
Board by open AI in November 2022 have brought in New Challenges after major public debates among think tanks tech companies politicians and Judiciary on 11th of August 2023 government of India introduced a codified law on subject of personal data protection I.E the digital personal data protection act 2023 uh
And it is known as a dpdp act and Provisions will come into Force like they have lot of debate have happened and a lot of questioning is also happening among the state and non-state actors now it is in this context that today’s panel discussion gains a major
Importance and my first question is to shales Gandhi g that what are your what is your response to right to information and privacy as the title of panel discussion says are they congruent or contradictory over to Shish B thank you ma’am thank you very much I’m inde thankful to imp for
Holding this discussion at all because this is a very important discussion which needs to happen it appears according to various sources that there’s a conflict between right to information and right to privacy I would submit that you can read them congruently and ensure that both rights
Are fully protected and and make a small presentation based on that who’s going to help you the presentation or do I share my presentation yeah yeah you can share we have started sharing okay fine it’s in a working mode fine right RTI act privacy Supreme Court rulings until 2010 and Constitution are
Congruent this is a peculiar situation until 2010 or 2005 perhaps Supreme Court rulings on right to information talk of one strain after 2010 the Supreme Court tune seems to have changed as far as right to information is concerned and privacy seems to be gaining great importance
Another thing I’d like to share with you at least I know three Indian languages reasonably Hindi marati and guti in all three languages I unable to find a word for privacy if any can find a word for privacy I’d be very happy to learn that now as Mrs Patel
Mentioned this is a fundamental right in article 191a protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech Etc all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression this covers freedom to speak and express and to publish and get information now once a right is given to
Me it can only be restricted to the Constitution even by passing a normal Law Without a constitutional amendment by right cannot be constrained permissible restrictions on rights under article 191a are given in 192 nothing in sub Clause a of clause one shall affect the operation of any
Existing law pre prevent the state from making any law in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exist size of the right conferred by the sub CLA in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India the security of the state trly relations foreign state public order decency of
Morality or in relation to contempt of court defition or incitement to an offense I would submit that privacy would be covered by only two words reeny of morality the rest of the words do not affect privacy is my contention and section 71 of the RTI categoric Ally stat that the only reason
For denial of information are given in sections 8 and N these are the only reasons based on which information can be denied and therefore my submission is privacy must be read into the law with reference to whether it violates decency of morality or not and we’ll take a look next slide
Please now section 81 J exempts information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the pi is satisfied that the r public interest justify the disclosure of such
Information provided that the information which cannot be denied to Parliament or state legisl shall not be denied to any person in reading section 81j all conditions will have to be looked at carefully which is not happening in many cases nowadays information would be denied if it was person information
But just being personal information it would not be denied Parliament was careful to understand that this would be too wide exemption and disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest or it is unwarranted invas of the privacy of the invol I would submit public records are the consequence of a public
Activity why does government have any information regarding me unless it’s regarding to a public activity it’s a private activity there in on record in fact one retired famous jurist of India asked me he said Mr Gandhi by this logic you are saying that you can ask what I ate in
Lunch today the answer to that very simple ITI is to do with records so if there’s a record in the government showing what you ate in the afternoon probably government paid for it and therefore it’s a public record alternately if you paid from your own pocket there is no chance of this being
On public record and therefore there is no issue of disclosure but what is privacy after the putas Swami judgment privacy has become a big facad if I put it like this and most people with power or the elite of the nation are more in terms of saying everything is private information
Regarding them should not be shared the put Swami judgment is a hug judgment over 550 Pages if I recall correctly it does not exactly specify what is privacy so how is a poor government officer to decide what is privacy this is the question that is becoming a conr for people practicing transparency and
Privacy however this may be given if larger public interest justifies this disclosure provided as information which cannot be denied to the parliament or state legislature should not be denied to any person in my opinion therefore a person who denies information under Section 81j must say this is personal
Information it has related to a public activity or and it is invasion of privacy of the individual and that he would not give it to Parliament or state legislature he would deny the information this has been put because if something violates privacy violates decency of morality it should not be given to Parliament
Because if you give it to Parliament it becomes absolute public knowledge therefore this Clause was very very carefully crafted by us when framing the ACT we wanted to safeguard the individual privacy and yet ensure that all personal information does not get B because otherwise that would be a
Huge problem there would be no transparency next SL please now the I mentioned Supreme Court judgments before 2000 before the RTI came into me and Mrs Patel mentioned the Justice Matthew judgment which is the first supreme court judgment that I aware of that spoke of private uh right to information for everything
Except things concerning National Security that was a very wide scope and subsequent judgments have narrowed the scope but have defined the scope K Singh said any right to privacy must Encompass and protect the persones of the home the family marriage Brotherhood propriation and childbearing so it gave some kind of boundary to what
Constitutes privacy Goin versus state of MP any right to privacy must Encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home the family marriage motherhood procreation and child he are goal I find is a very logical judgment given by the Supreme Court in which that ratio is defined as a summary to the all
The findings and this is how it is being specified a citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own his family marriage procreation mother childbearing and education amongst other none can publish anything concerning the above matter without his consent whether fruitful or otherwise latory
Or once a matter becomes a of public record the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media amongst others we are however of the opinion that in the interest of decency an exception must be CED out to this
Rule which is a female who is the victim of sexual assault kidnap abduction or like offense should not further be projected to subjected to the indignity of her name and the inent being publicized in press stroke media in the case of public officials it is obvious
Right to privacy or for that matter the reem for action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct next slide please all these judgments of the Supreme Court which were before the RTI Act was enacted fairly clearly laid down what would constitute the domains of privacy
Though we did not have a cified RTI act it recognized that citizens the default mode of right to information is all information belongs to Citizens and must be shared with them except a few exemptions which have to be in line with the Constitution is by submission now section 41b of the RTI
Act expects a lot of information to be published to a moto the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations so the salary of a public official must be suot published the manner of execution of subsidy programs including the amounts
Allocated in the the details of beneficiaries of such programs how much subsidy was given to somebody how much pension was given what are the beneficiaries of such programs particular of recipients of concessions permits or authorizations granted by dop office memorandum of 15 July 2013 said all transfer orders should be publicized
Through the website or in any other manner listed in section 4×4 and what is very peculiar some of you might be aware some of you may not be aware this is precisely what the supreme court judgment in Gish in RK J and canra bank has prohibited saying transfer orders shall not be
Shared with citizens which is very unfortunate next slide in Gish T Pand which is a landmark judgment in my opinion which is contradictory to the Constitution is now framing forming the golden rule for denying information in G judgment the aex code H that copies of all memos
Show cause Noti and Orders of punishment sensor assets income tax returns details of gifts received by a public servant our personal information has defined in Clause J of section 81 of the RT act then Exempted and cannot be furnished under RTI no reasoning was given as to how it falls under Section 81
The performance of an employee officer in an organization is primarily a matter of employee and the employer and normally these aspects are governed by the service rules which follow under the expression person information who is the employee and who is the employer the employer I would submit is
The citizens of India and therefore they have a right to know about all matters regarding the conduct of a public servant with respect to his job the details further the Judgment says the details disclosed by person’s income tax returns are personal information which stand Exempted from disclosure
Under Clause J of section 81 unless it involves a larger public interest and the public information officer is satisfied larg public interest justifies the disclosure of such information the very important provisor 2 a1j provide information that shall not be denied to Parliament or state shall not be denied to a person has
Not even mentioned in the Judgment it’s it is as if it’s forgotten no reasoning or explanation how the court came to thisis Improvement this judgment contradicts R Raj goal ratio at adrp UCL ADR PCL the Supreme Court rulle this again before the RTI Act was codified and came into
Existence that citizens had a right to know about the assets and criminal charges against those who want to become public servant that was the basis on which the ADR PCL judgment was made by the Supreme Court of India now we are told that those who are public servants citizens don’t have
Right to know about their assets and their salaries Etc which is very peculiar to me it is almost like saying if a boy and girl want to get married they must make certain disclosure about each other to each other so that both are aware about important matters but if they get
Married then they do not then they need not make the same disclosures to each other in their lives I find it very difficult to understand subsequent have treated this judgment as precedent can you take the slide slightly up in my opinion this G judgment should be considered per
Inum since it contradicts Raj goal ratio and ADR subsequent judgments nearly four or five subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court have without any argument without any discussion of the law taken recourse to se Gish Pand and said that this all personal information is exist which is certainly not the law
Certainly not as for the constitution of India and this violates the Constitution as well as the RTI act itself next slide please next slide now another way I look at this is does the government have the right to violate the individual citizens privacy routinely under extraordinary circumstances the answer would be yes but
Routinely in routine activity does the government have the right to violate the individual citizens Pride see routinely the obvious answer to me is no hence most information government takes in a routine manner must not be denied to Citizens if I apply for ration card it’s a public activity it’s a routine
Activity in which information that is sought should not be considered as invasion of my privacy if I apply for ration card apply for concession apply for pension all of these are routine activities I would go and stretch and say even income tax income tax filing is a routine activity if it is violating
Privacy it should not be allowed public records must be assumed to be not violating privacy the and this is the ratio of the r Raj goal judgment also if the government’s collecting the information routinely violat privacy it should be opposed if someone believes that the root collection of information about a
Citizen is violation of privacy this must not be allowed this has been reiterated by the r rajal judgment where it says once a matter becomes a matter of public record the right to privacy no longer subsist if in RTI one can only seek what is on record hence personal
Information collected routinely must be recognized as not viting privacy unless it vales decency of morality in which case it should not be shed with Parliament as well this is very important not a single supreme court judgment which accepts this refusal of information for a1j quots or deals with the provisor to
The law which is information that shall not be denied to Parliament or state legislature shall not be denied to any person next slide please now despite this because of the AR Raj goal judgment the kind of refusals are B I’m just giving a few do refused a request
For total number of annual performance appraisal reports of IAS officers pending presently for over one year two year 3 years and four years claiming exemption under Section 81j no name was sought the only thing that was sought was numbers and dop Pio very imaginatively said it is relating to persons therefore it’s
Personal information therefore shall be denied request for details of MLA fund was denied saying it was person information details of beneficiaries of PM amount spend on Amit Sha’s security and so on and so forth one of the major gains of the RTI movement was and the RTI Act was that it
Would help us to curb corruption our normal systems do not work many most countries abroad in the western democracies do not have vigilance departments in government departments we have vigilance Department in almost all government departments that doesn’t work so we have an anti-corruption Bureau that also doesn’t work so we have
A Central Bureau of Investigation so we impose a CBC a central vigilance commissioner that doesn’t work so we now have a Lal burning 20 to 30 CR rupees a year delivering nothing citizens are the best monitors of corruption and if you want to curb corruption we’ve got to interpret a1j correctly
Failing which it becomes an open-ended thing saying please go ahead with all your corruption and you will not be caught next slide please now what has happened is the digital personal data protection bill act has amended has sted of amending the rti1 thus and exempts information to personal information theyve removed all
The rest what I have put in read and had a strike through all this is removed they at least recognized that the judgments being given by Supreme Court and orders being given by commissions and pios were not as for the law now they are trying to make it as
For the law all personal information shall be Exempted that will make it a right to deny information and person is in the dpdp bill has been defined as HF Society company State almost everything can be covered under the region of personal information and can be denied will make it a right to deny
Information and RDI dpdp act must not override RTI act section 382 382 talks of overriding all existing laws if it overrides RTI act then also there is a serious problem because various things will have to be tested to see whether it is from part of dpdp or RTI act our submission is RTI
Act 81j must remain as it is must be properly interpreted and should not be overridden by the dbpi next slide please exempting all personal information violates citizens right to information beyond what article 192 permits and hence is unconstitutional section 382 and 443 constitute article 191a beyond what is permissible in the Constitution citizens
Must discuss this and ensure that their fundamental right is not constricted this will also severely limit citizens actions to curve corruption if citizens do not defend their fundamental rights they are failing in their duties as rulers of their democracy share this presentation with groups of FRS next slide
Please okay you close this thank you thank you very much yeah thank you Shish Gandhi g for very important presentation you made and mainly about the Fortified RTI act how does it curve the right information of the public and you also showed that how the state is denying important information in because
Of so many cases that you also cited they were very important now I would like to uh come to Mr apar Gupta and I would like to ask that your organization internet Freedom Foundation is committed to Advanced Liberty equality fraternity social justice in digital spaces what
Are your views on both the RTI act 2005 and dpdp act 2023 uh when ifff has filed over two dozen cases in Supreme Court of India as well as in the high courts of several states in India can you share some of the highlights of these cases and do
State and non-state actors need to adhere to Sops with regards to application of artificial intelligence and Robotics so these are the three questions uh you can just choose which one to answer first yeah thank you so much Professor P for inviting me for this panel discussion today uh I’m picking up from
Uh Mr Gandhi’s uh comments on the interplay between the RTI Act and the U right to privacy I think uh some of this draws from my own past work given that I was associated with if I’ve transitioned just a week back and I only there in a governance role but reflecting on that
Work it does provide me the experience to comment on the interplay between the right to information and the right to privacy but before I get into that I would just like to provide a wider perspective on where the RTI act stands today in terms of its implementation and
I think this is important for us to consider given that the RTI act I think a month back completed about 18 years of existence and if you look at a report which was published around this by the satar nagar San which has members who are part of the ncpr they indicated
There’s a wider uh there’s a wider lack of implementation as well as concerning distressing signals around how the ITI Act is indeed being implemented this stems from uh Mass vacancies where seven posts are vacant at the level of the central information commission where there are only four Commissioners who
Are working the credentials suitability of persons also appointed for the positions of Commissioners have also been called into questions on individual appointments there are about 3.21 lakh appeals spending with the commissioner at the current PA it’s estimated West Bengal will take about 24 years and a
Month to dispose of an appeal filed on July 1st of this year and with over 41,47 cases pending katica will take one year and 11 months to clear them and it’s stated that governments are not caring to appoint Commissioners to the cic and state information Commissions in
Time so why this is important and part of the uh present discussion is that I feel that it’s important to also recognize the wider challenge to accountability which is arising in India today because the RTI is a pioneering it’s a fundamental legislation which is there to ensure that people know why
Decisions are being taken by government what is the basis of that reasoning and quite often that is being obstructed by throwing a wrench in the very mechanism of providing accountability to the people under this act so there are wider problems which are emerging now in this context of the political economy of the
Day of today let me now come to what is the interplay between the RDI Act and the fundamental right to privacy so I was one of the lawyers who was involved in the Justice buas Swami litigation which emerged from the mandatory imposition of the biometric entitlement
Project at least at that time it was entitled project called adhar and one of the core principle uh objections to adhar was that you’re making it mandatory as a necessity for a person to identify themselves in a authenticated manner to Avail an entitlement which they guaranteed as per the very basis
For which the Indian Republic exists our society unequal everyone doesn’t come from the socioeconomic status that we are owning computers laptops being able to participate in Zoom meetings most of the people are poor illiterate and now you’re forcing a techn olical burden and a filter on them which will result in
Exclusion and privacy was one part of a larger challenge which included the absence of a law for Adar which was required in a way to provide accountability now you rolling out such a massive program and you don’t have a statute itself which defines the Contours which creates a organization
Which makes it accountable so it comes from that perspective and also there were petitions also alongside that which were on points of welfare entitlements so we need to view it from that perspective and here a technical plea was raised by the union of India that due to certain inconsistency in
Precedent where larger benches had at earlier decades around the 1950s and 60s not ex recognize the fundamental right to privacy because it was not expressly carved out and then subsequent cases were holding that the right right to privacy existed but were of smaller benches of the Supreme Court it needed
To be dealt by by the Supreme Court to resolve and iron out this um inconsistency in the Court’s precedent now numerically a higher judge bench decision is usually binding but it seemed like it would not be so in the case of the right to privacy what happened was in the Justice case putas
Swami judgment if you read at least the opinion of Justice chru there are repeated references to the right to Information Act in fact he says the right to Information Act has the protection of privacy so he’s drawing from the right to information act at certain places as a basis in statute for
The right to privacy to support his argument that the right to privacy is essential to a well functioning democracy to ensure there’s individual liberty and individuals at the heart of the Constitution of India for individuals also can make applications for the right to information you don’t
Need to convince others to make a right to information application you can do do it by yourself and in the same way the state can’t over over a certain threshold violate your privacy now informational privacy is only one facet of privacy privacy is a wider concept under the Justice Cas pami judgment I
Won’t get into that but it includes U facets of gender identity sexuality diet religion cast etc etc etc it’s a wider concept of autonomy personal freedom uh of uh dignity as the court has articulated it now based on this decision immediately there was a high amount of concern and it was foreseeable
Given the political economy as I’ve described it amongst activists who have worked on transparency the ncpr and people who were involved in the case around kwami judgment and also their relationships with these same networks of social activists came together and in fact organized a campaign which was called the save our
Privacy Campaign which is the online campaign to solicit signatures and also look at what are the compliments and also the points of friction which arise and there were joint statements there was a workshop which was made and I’ll read out from one joint statement actually which is endorsed by members of
The ncpr and Anita is here it’s great to see her it’s endorsed by it for change so this essentially stated when the Justice uh SRI Krishna committee was formed was an anxiety that you are going to use privacy to damage the right to information but both these rights are
Actually complement in ensuring there are higher levels of accountability on government and Democratic rights are maintained so I’m reading this out there were three there are four bullet points in this statement and it stated as as a statement of solidarity within the Civil Society amongst those promoting the
Rights to information and privacy the following resolutions were passed the citizen right to information and privacy are both fundamental rights under the constitution of India and the state must protect and promote and fulfill both these rights to further democratic values and protect constitutional freedoms there is a need for legislation
On privacy and data protection in order to adequately protect the privacy of citizens and the Protections in such law should be oriented on the rights of natural persons and extent against both state and non-state actors third This legal framework for giving effect to Citizens right to privacy should from a
Pre- legislative consultation process so that the relevant legislation incorporates concerns of a wide set of stakeholders that such law will inevitably affect neither the recognition of the right to privacy nor the legislation of a privacy and data Protection Law requires any amendments to the RTI act the legal framework for
Privacy and data protection should be complement the RTI act in no way undermine existing statutory framework that enables citizens to use transparency for holding power structures to account now subsequent to the statement this Justice SRI Krishna committee did come out with a draft data Protection Law And it to our
Disappointment did actually suggest amendments to the RTI law and to this there was another joint statement which stated and I’m reading out a short portion here after a legal analysis this short paragraph comes in conclusion neither the recognition of the right to privacy nor the enactment of data
Protection Law requires any Amendment to the existing RDI law we therefore reject the Amendments proposed to the right to Information Act 2005 in the data protection Bill 2018 drafted by the Justice SRI Krishna committee what this shows is that to a large extent there is a understanding amongst communities
Which in fact are not distinct I think quite often they are common of people who have worked on the right to information and the right to privacy and this understanding emerges from the political economy in the which there is a resistance by power structures in our society to avoid accountability and to
Make people who lack power in society not through statute and through institutional Frameworks be able to hold them to account okay now let me just end this by stating that what is the actual position which is there to the Digital Data protection act which has been passed by parliament it’s also been
Notified by uh uh it’s also been U published in the official gazet after the president’s Ascent but has not yet been notified by the central government and hence does not come into effect has indeed amended the RTI law which is under the right to Information Act 2005 specifically section 81j I’ll just read
Out section 81j explain it briefly and then explain the amendment which will not take me more than two minutes so I please uh so thank you so much for your patience I just reading it out so if you look at section one eight it starts with Section 81 and it says that not
Withstanding anything contained in in this act there shall be no obligation to give any citizen so it’s saying that you should not give any citizen anything related to the things which are mentioned in section 81 and then J says information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has
No relationship to any public activity or interest so this is purely personal information it does not have any relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the cpio the Central Public Information officer or the state public information officer or
The appet authority as the case may be is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information so what is this saying they is saying that you cannot give this information if it is unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual but you can still give it and it becomes
Warranted if it is to the satisfaction of the decision-making Authority that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information so it means it can invade a person’s privacy but it is Justified because it has met a public interest it further States in a provisor provided that the information
Which cannot be denied to the parliament or state legislature shall not be denied to any person so what does the Digital Data protection act do the Digital Data protection act replaces this completely by saying that simplicit information which relates to personal information now what this does is it removes this key ingredient of
Satisfaction of larger public interest or the specific it and the precedent which disappointingly may not always be positive but to some extent did provide certain information Commissioners the ability to require information which may have links to uh somebody’s priv personal information and theoretically now if any personal information is
Disclosed by RTI application such as the name of a contractor who has been awarded a contract let’s say for the construction of a overhead Bridge which has collapsed okay and it holds the name of the engineer who’s inspected that site okay now it can be argued in a
Perverse manner due to the language as it exists on statute today that such information cannot be provided which brings me back to where I started it is the political economy of today on which I’ve been writing much more frequently and have been arguing that our recent legislations around technology are
Essentially demonstrating that there is a shift and a danger to our democracy towards very visible forms of centralization of power and authoritarianism thank you so much thank you I think very important point that you told about the centralization state the state has been empowered the people
Are not but um how would you see the recent debate on artificial intelligence and the kind of uh encroachment to privacy that taking so uh it’s important for us to understand how artificial intelligence actually artificial intelligence is actually a label it’s kind of like a misnomer but we use it because it’s the
Representation of a number of different Technologies which are Vision recognition uh or it may be generative artificial intelligence which relates to when we put in certain input which gives us certain output which uh may be an answer maybe an image maybe a video it may also have other assisted qualities
Such as uh uh image correction enhancement Etc so that’s generative AI most of the debate which is emerged in India today is from generative AI but if you look at the wider field of artificial intelligence by itself how it relates to privacy and information I think uh work which should be done much
More uh which has been done already to a large extent has been the use of vision recogn in cities as a form of policing which is around facial recognition right does it actually satisfy the public policy goals for what it is rolled out are the implementation uh uh issues
Around that does it actually improve Safety and Security or it’s scarecrow how much money does it take as opposed to Street lighting and better policing which can be there uh in public spaces does it make people much more vulnerable because people who hold power in society
Get to leas those who do not hold power in society to methods of uh facial recognition does it lead to incomplete context which can lead to criminal prosecutions when there are uh disturbances which occur uh etc etc etc so I think uh the debate around AI by
Itself which relates to both right to information and right to privacy today in India at least is at a very very nent stage and it’s not only with respect to a debate I think it’s a complete absence of with of our lawmakers to legislate for instance the minister of State for
Um Information Technology who holds the portfolio under the business of allocation rules to possibly consider legislation around this has repeatedly voiced around U uh industry Summits uh kind of a reluctance to look at legislation or regulatory intervention or even consider it uh in terms of if
There is a need for it what what’s happening to a lot of uh um AI around AI conversation in India is uh people who will have access to those Technologies or even be collaborators in building around them will be the ones who will benefit more than the ones who
Will not and uh this will result in deepening gaps and inequality uh as it’s been noticeable even with earlier forms of technology absorption in India thank you and also the state’s role in for surveillance use applying this Technologies for surveillance we have seen hundreds of our students have
Suffered who took part in the Gateway of India uh demonstrations and all now to some of them have not received their results um and their degrees so that future is geop Paradise that that also we have seen um now I would like to ask
Uh thank you uh Mr aparup uh now I would like to ask Anita G uh how our digital Technologies contribute to Human Rights social justice and equity because many of your research projects and your activities have been around that also but at the same time when corporatist
And State’s Powers uh that are steping the internet and I think ample examples were given by the previous two speakers what can common masses do to make these spaces more egalitarian and free from violence how do you promote certain feminist approaches to uh women’s digital age citizenship from organ
Thank you Professor vuti Patel I think it’s an honor to be here and uh also for the very very Illuminating talks uh uh thank you Gandhi shes G or thank you also apar I really uh found it very rting uh and very informative and I’m
What I’m going to say is going to just compliment uh what has already been said but indeed uh from also being a u sociological Observer of uh you know technology and its traj Tory in the Indian context I really want to unpack this on lines that have already been
Done um but to also show exactly the thesis that apar laid out so well in terms of uh what’s really happening to democracy and uh uh in some sense you know Democratic Values U are very very pluralistic and you know no one thing can make democracy and so uh even uh
Seeing the right to information and the right to privacy um uh as uh you know values in Conflict May simply not be an a useful or a productive starting point at all so I think one thing that ties both these rights together is the principle of contextual Integrity of
Information uh itself and indeed you know information as a right uh and privacy as a right actually both uh are glued by the ideas of autonomy right the freedom that you seek cannot come to you without the freedom uh to express and the freedom to express contains the
Freedom to seek information so that your expression uh is relevant to public discourse and privacy indeed is not just uh a very limited right it it has many dimensions including a physical informational decisional autonomy so autonomy in that sense is very very useful to understand this and of course
The digital context is one uh really that complicates things theoretically speaking it’s possible to break out of the private domain and participate in the public space you know you might um a few years ago maybe a decade ago we uh did a research uh of uh immigrant
Domestic workers in Asia and we found actually that many of them in different countries uh meet in public parks because of the mobile phone in order to assert locally uh their right to organize so uh it’s it’s truly revolutionary right because you are uh in the private space of the home
Performing your public role as a worker but you’re fragmented and isolated and you really need a public park to actually come and assert your private right to Association right so very interesting and uh these contradictions start coming up uh in the Digital Society and so to seek information to
Share experience to deepen democracy through pluralism pluralistic uh views is uh I think possible or plausible in the Information Society unfortunately and uh also like AA described the political economy or the powers that be in the current context in the Arc of Digital Society U we really see that
Surveillance capitalism the state and the market under surveillance capitalism have really not allowed uh the potential of digital Technologies to turn out in the way in which your right to publicness and your right to privacy can materialize so uh I would not only be uh interested in the right to information
But I would in a larger sense uh also referring um to what you said Professor Patel about a feminist idea of right to publicness right you need to be visible you need your voice to be heard Etc so there is a bouquet of what might be
Termed as a loose set of rights which are a right to publicness so uh today unfortunately we have through the data sphere the Technologies of data the power to break down individual Behavior into um you know isolatable uh data which then in the form of aggregate data allows uh the
Centralization that both the speakers have spoken about which makes control possible right and um the traditional conceptions of privacy that focus in the right uh to be left alone you know in the sense of a zone of private action free from intrusion is not enough to uphold privacy rights in this context so
Which is why you know many many uh jurisdictions have in the past four to five years grappled with what we Now understand as the personal data Protection Law or a different sets of laws in different jurisdictions so the old dichotomy between public and private life no longer adequately describes the
Structural cultural conditions of digital subjects you know we are very different publicly and privately and simultaneously in public and private spaces at the same time through also our um you know data duplicate avatars that exist in many spaces and all of this is not really a matter of of frivolity but
I think these are extreme complexities that also will complicate the realm of the law as we know it what is public about us is not even known to us and this is relevant as uh the previous speakers rightly said not just for you and me but for people who really are so
Disenfranchised that they don’t even know where data about them and where realities and truths about them are being constructed for social control so that uh the fact that the wherewith all to determine your zone of privacy no longer exists with you no longer is available to you is really the scary
Part because if I could build my house build my room and sit in inside it or retire in the Himalayas it’s one thing but if I don’t even know who else is observing me at this point in time whether as uh you know as apar pointed
Out through u a remote sensing object or even in the form of aggregate data sets which is constructing realities about me that is unbe knowth to me then they talking about a very complex situation conversely the public participation of individuals is not really able to establish a pluralism we not really
Seeing a public or you know that’s public sphere that’s truly you know diverse where marginalized subjects are allowed to vocalize descent you know so in some ways the data fication process we are seeing is contaminating the public value of our information spaces and selectively managing visibility who
Can be visible when for what for spectacular you know the suly deals you know that is the sense of the publicness that is uh manipulated so the question here is then about enabling the public to remain a space of contested ideas and the private to remain a space which can
Allow us to hone our individuality for social participation we don’t want the Privacy so that we can actually do our own thing in our own ways because we’ll all turn insane you know being in that uh isolating privacy we need privacy that enriches right that empowers that
Enables us to be nourished enough to participate in society which is the Gateway of India metaphor that you used you know which then is a double-edged sword you know you’re out there but you’re able to be um uh let’s say uh you know treated in a manner in which the
State excess uh depreciates your right as a c citizen so now I just want to um uh EO what has been actually argued by both the three previous speakers but just uh in in a shorter way I just want to say that today in the context of
India at least I would say that there is incoherence in the way the law is articulating personal data sovereignty and the agenda of uh territorial data sovereignty so uh I really feel that there is an eagerness uh because of the market power um uh of uh you know uh
Being on the you know in the data market you know controlling the data market Market on account of which articulations of data sovereignty tend to really come from a status imagination rather than from a personal data sovereignty imagination uh yesterday the center uh you know uh news items covered the fact
That the center is considering a directive uh for big tech companies to mandatorily make data anonymized personal data in their position shared in uh government back databases uh I mean theoretically speaking the idea that um you know private sector should share information for public interest or
Public purposes I think is a very very valid claim you know I think uh it’s vital that uh The Entity or The Sovereign entity called the corporation cannot have uh more human rights than human beings but we live in an Epoch when that sovereignty is somehow transferred from individuals uh to
Corporations and therefore normatively the public underpinnings of the social data Commons have to be established that it’s public and it’s a social data common and it cannot be privately held uh for private profit alone but I think um we are going to actually have to contend with more than just uh the
Ownership and IP intellectual property rights of this nonp personal data because of how our digital personal data protection act is articulated so when uh privately Control Data becomes uh public then we actually have to see what are the guarantees we have and I think both the previous speakers have actually
Spoken extensively about what the risks are in the current articulation of the law and therefore uh without getting into the sections I thought I would read out I just wanted to say that even in the instance of uh the general data protection regulation of Europe everybody is crying about the way
Things have gone in the digital Marketplace because everyone says look you know you’re tweaking with the right to explanation you’re tweaking with uh you know um uh the dark patterns and the right to know and you’re tweaking with many things but you’re doing all of this so that the digital Marketplace can
Operate uh without any constraint so the idea is not for human rights to exist without constraints but the digital market place to operate uh you know uh what they call you know the exit barriers entry barriers you know of uh Market actors so we actually in one of
The pieces that my colleagues wrote they uh said beautifully that we have a uh uh privacy right that is a caveat tempter by a beware approach that that one is forced as a consumer To Be watchful and Vigilant firstly one is not given a right one is given some kind of
Privileges as a consumer the marketplace and even those privileges come only if you’re watchful and Vigilant so that you cannot question why your uh privacy was violated what all you can say is that well you know on things that are not at all trans or comprehensible uh you just have to uh
Relinquish your rights so uh just reading out one of these things that seems quite U uh absurd you know that the data fiduciary May process personal data of a data principle for any of the following uses a for the specified purpose for which the data principle has voluntarily provided her personal data
To the data fiduciary and please note what I’m going to read now and in respect of which she has not indicated to the data fiduciary that she does not consent to the use of her personal data which basically means that you have to really have some kind of uh I think
Divine ability to discern that my data may be put to use for these million different purposes and in anticipation you have to decline your consent I mean this is impossible when you know the data market operates in a way as to bring out what they call Innovations to
Seduce us to manipulate us Etc so we are in a situation where there is no defacto Baseline of privacy rather the law empowers the breach of privacy except where explicit consent is specified as not available so you have a very limited right you can say I don’t want this I
Don’t want this you can’t say I do not subscribe to this in totto you have to be very specific and I think this is a crisis not only for individual autonomy it’s a kind of a you know I would say it’s it’s a kind of a by Design uh structural inequality in Justice
Right it’s in the public Marketplace the marketplace should be a public and scrutinized space but it is actually a design to skew the public Marketplace to maximize private ownership of information and knowledge now I want to just briefly come to the right to information acts implementation which has been characterized uh by many
Of the scholars and writers whove also spoken before me uh you know in many ways you know one is that it it is suffering a slow strangulation right you know what apar said 18 years ago was the vision that powered that law and and the rights that were obtained and uh
Codified as a matter of articulation of people’s experiences one of the things I read recently was the Tamil Nadu government not accepting postal orders for fee payment in RTI application so they’ve just said like you know you know you can’t send postal orders to us uh and a
Poor person you know may not necessarily do Google pay and gpay and all of that and so if you actually and of course about uh um tardy appointments to information commissions and the backlog apar actually started with things that uh totally shook me so in some sense
That’s a problem um we also know one important thing uh in technology that it for changes studying is about open government data open government data is not implemented in ways uh that Aid citizen transparency usually even taking the example of the mg and rs which is really
Pivotal to the RTI movement we say that we see that algorithms and backend design of the Mis is not open source apis are not publicly available and nobody can ask us how the aggregate statistics are actually computed because we absolutely don’t have a data dictionary we don’t have the formula and
All of this then brings us to the question that um you know all of yourselves have actually asked so what are we doing all of this transparency for and for whom right and therefore the latest developments in the name of innovation right agre stack Health stack
All of this are supposed to have these technological um protocols which will allow for so-called Innovation but basically leading to a certain enclosure of the people’s data Commons and therefore I want to just conclude by talking about a couple of things I think we see a double
Wy uh it’s really not a question of congruence you know I think the congruence is desirable for democracy and as apar also stated you know to even start the debate uh for you know as a pical tool it’s useful to posit them as you know two separate things or
Sometimes things in Conflict but actually we’re talking about two sides of the coin actually you know so we are seeing an erosion of the public and a subversion of privacy and uh you know both are I think serious issues and I think we need many more of those
Movements towards Gateway of India but just to um talk about a couple of things and why I see this as a double bamy coming from the work of it for change is really that one of the things uh section 81j that uh apar spoke about and how several activists have come together
Really to talk about uh the transparency Paradox right when people in power and their information has to be in the public domain we are actually seeing a certain reversal of rules where the small person has to be completely visible at all times and summonable by a
P that te at all times right so your a real living a life on the edge whether you like it or not and the citizen in small letters has the duty to remain perpetually transparent this has been codified in the law the duty that you have to be perpetually transparent is
Being codified through the consent Provisions in the PDP which is um that just notice or just uh be uh you know uh aware that your consent is treated as blanket except for those small Provisions where you might actually seek to withdraw your consent right so this Perpetual transparency is a duty this is
Never what we signed up for in the social contract with the Constitution the citizen must be made visible to the powers whereas a right to scrutinize power is rendered illegitimate so I think uh in fact I want to also say something that disturbs me very much uh
In the law you actually in the you know the data fiduciary or the the board the data board which is supposed to deal with complaints you know there is a provision which says and it seems very very inous but it’s actually shocking for those of us who study political
Economy it says a data principle shall not register a false or frivolous grievance or complaint with the data fiduciary or the board the imagination that the citizen of the country will go and take up the time of the data board you know the you know because our complaints will be
Frivolous you know and the penalization uh by calling out this kind of thing is a public accountability Gap and they therefore what I really want to also emphasize and close with is to say that those uh powers in the market and state that are grandis in control of the
Public space we really have to watch out for and this I think uh is why privacy is important to uh information and why information is important to privacy is something I want to just conclude with so this is a democratic transition it requires a rearticulation of our rights
And it requires a new reading of constitutionalism case law is very important because our constitution is a living document the deepening of democracy and its Associated publicness which is the ability to speak truth to power is about the right to information but very ironically and beautifully it’s
Also about the right to privacy because the idea that you can in an era of tech mediated Community you can cultivate Association without fear so that’s why it’s important now conversely the deepening of the personal space we need the in viable space that we can Retreat into without intrusion you know which
Feminists have called A Room of One’s Own cannot materialize without a right to privacy that’s commensurate with the data economy but this is also about safeguarding the public an idea that concerns openness transparency coexistence debate in a manner that genuinely leads to democratization of information privacy cannot materialize
With the best of laws if we do not challenge the marketplace of digitalization in which both both uh state power and Market power are implicated thank you very much thank you I think you in from the point of view of feminist perspective it has been extremely enriching experience to listen
To you my other serious question is about the gender based violence and the recent debate on the Deep fakes and government of Ministry of Information Technology is also now uh passed a circular and they said that as per the uh technology act information technology 2020 section 66d uh the impersonating online is
Illegal and action so to what extent can we uh as Citizens curtail this uh use of technology and this which is used for for say perpetuating datab based violence and misog both yeah um I think that it’s notable that a bunch of people have already moved the Bombay High court
On this uh rule 3i 2C of the it Amendment rules um these developments if we talking about where um it’s possible uh to actually approach for the state to approach the intermediary and tell them to take down content because it has been deemed through a factchecking unit of
The state to be false or um you know fake right so the developments in the law are important because we’re not only talking about information here or the right to information but we talking about truth who can be PVE purveyors of the truth and whose truths count and in
That regard and also linked to the uh question that you had for apar about artificial intelligence I think deep fakes are uh you know one of those unfortunate Ways by which we are seeing the trajectory of Technologies take us into a space of U falsehood and the contamination of the public
Sphere uh the per perpetration of hate the presence of material uh that can ignite uh you know the kind of violence and violative uh actions that we see in the public sphere I think it’s a complex debate and I I do uh follow a little bit
The uh debates that uh are you know and contentious debates in Europe uh also misinformation related laws that are in uh process in countries like Brazil I think a careful uh uh approach is needed we need independent institutions um we certainly need the the intermediary to um you know
Self-regulate and be transparent about the ways by which uh they can you know put out metadata you know about things and certainly I think the role of the state and safeguarding I think um the rights of people not uh you know I mean my right to free speech cannot become
You know your unfreedom right because my right to express myself cannot violate your space and therefore I think deep FS present to us this kind of conundrum uh which have to through Investments by uh social media intermediaries uh result in I think uh advanced technology which will result in
Some kind of internal policies in the corporate realm uh that are also transparent put out the nature of those things put out I don’t think um you know uh content take down Downs or easy solutions like that should be resorted to and certainly not of the manner in
Which the intermediary liability uh law you know intended uh change of rules you know not in that direction at all but I do want to say that every change that is brought about by artif artificial intelligence or digital technologies that are indeed a larger bundle will require careful public deliberation I
Think we cannot rush but we do need to start the debate and we should have started it yesterday yeah only after Bollywood personalities were affected the debate has started while husbands and ex-boyfriends and uh living Partners have been using this technology to in a very very misogynous way just in 20
Seconds I wanted to give an example I recently spoke to the minister of uh digital of Taiwan audre tang and uh she is uh herself a feminist activist and she said that they’ve done a simple thing because of met you know the metaverse web 3.0 there’s a possibility that you can use different
Avatars uh you know Shah ruk Khan can come in and promote a product but if somebody says that Shah ruk Khan has been promoted by a company in order to actually do U let’s say anti-democratic things and the notice has been given to the coroporation to take down that
Particular Avatar then the owners is on the company to do so because if the company doesn’t do that then the law will certainly take down that content so in some ways we have to gear up for the metaverse and you know the New Frontiers of technology and I think a careful uh
Calibration to keep up the Democratic space is important I wanted to give this example that’s yeah my last question to you is that you have un consultative status for eoso uh so what are you doing at a global level to bring changes because these are most of the issues all
Of them are Global and yeah I think um more of us uh can do things uh at the global level I think it’s very exhausting we’re all I think holding the line pushing the line and we’re doing it in our own spaces every space is extraordinarily valuable the
University space that you have served for so long uh the official bureaucracy that uh Shri Gandhi has served for so long apar uh who has as you rightly pointed out so many cases and some of the advocacy that an organization like mine is doing at the global level I
Think in the coming two years the world Summit on the information society which was a soft law which came into being in 2003 is going to have its plus 20 review in the uh un right so in 2025 it’s going to come up for review because there’ll
Be 20 years um of this agreement among member states of the United Nations I think a kind of uh ground swell is needed for us to organize around it you know articulate what kind of society we seek because you’re very right Norms at the global level become extremely
Important important so that we not necessarily only developing Norms through the oecd the G7 you know these are clubs and usually uh the laws of these clubs then Prevail over the rest of uh you know the global democracy so I think it’s important for every country and the Civil Society of every country
To take part in these uh Global debates thank you very now my question to the Shalon neami who is a practicing lawyer and uh that can you discuss some of the landmark cases uh in the various courts Supreme Court and high courts uh right from 2005 till the
Day yeah thank you so much for giving me this opportunity and thank you for for organizing this this you know conference so I’ll just you know start by but the thing is that when you’re the last presenter already so many things have been said so maybe you know it may be a
Kind of repetition uh you know at some point uh some point of time but I’ll you know just to just bear with me so I’ll talk about RTI and data Protection Law a legal perspective and already it has been said that how RTI is a part of you know
Article 191a consti of the Constitution is being interpreted to you know to formulate right to Information Act and to provide for transparency and accountability and right to privacy we have you know we have heard you know all in all the three other presentations so um uh these are two important
Fundamental right and right to privacy allow people uh uh privacy in their personal issues and right to information allow citizens to hold various government departments accountable for important public affairs so you know but the conflict comes in when when you know these rights you know when there is a
Demand for exess to personal information held by the government bodies so um RTI act itself it has clearly defined you know some of the um uh information you know disclosure can be restricted under Section 8 and if if you you know you see section 81e it already talks about
Information available to person in his prary relationship uh you know um unless it satisfied the larger public interest uh such information cannot be disclosed article uh sorry section 81g it talks about disclosure uh that you know in in case if person’s life is endangered uh due to physical safety you know uh in
That case information can be disclosed in certain situations in terms of art article uh sorry section 81h the information about you know process of Investigation you know if in the cases in prosecution if it is required and um Section 8 Clause uh two it clearly says that a Public
Authority may allow access to information if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest and uh section 81 uh J we we are hearing about that and how data Protection Law Section 443 it over override this CLA so I’ll just you know skip this uh um you know
Reading this section again uh but yeah blanket ban is being imposed on personal information uh under the data Protection Law so um and it impos Hefty fines so you know but but if you uh see in the past Justice apsha report it came in 2012 and uh this uh report is very clear
About you know um uh it says you know that disclosure under RTI act should not be constituted as an infringement to privacy so I’ll just you know read three of the uh important sentences from this report uh it says the Privacy Act should clarify that publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic
Purpose in public interest use of personal information for household purpose and disclosure of information as required by right to Information Act should not constitute an infringement of privacy uh it says further that section 8 of the ACT lists specific type of information that are Exempted from public disclosure uh disclosure in order
To protect privacy in this way privacy is the narrow exception the right to information uh so when contested the information commissioner will use a public interest test to determine whether the individual’s right to privacy should be stumped by the public right to information uh it further says that when
Applied the Privacy Act should not circumscribe the right to Information Act and additionally RTI recipient should be uh should not be considered as a data controller so uh this and if you see the case laws the debate between right to privacy and right to information is not not new in cases
Pertaining to privacy of person in fiduciary relationship you know just as Doctor patient relationship in a lawyer and a client relationship a researcher and a subject relationship uh we all know that how ethics and conf confidentiality and other rules you know govern this kind of relationships but
The rule is very clear that privacy is a key component of individual autonomy but it is not an absolute right the provision of RTI act uh when property properly interpreted you know both are compatible privacy rights and RTI they both are compatible so you know if you go by readings theoretically reading the
Both the laws they are compatible RTI act generally does not require to or permit disclosure of personal information to the third parties unless and until circumstances are um unusual so the question that arises that what what is the meaning of term public interest who decide what information
Should be revealed what is to be revealed and how uh you know it it it has to be revealed and what constitute public interest so many of these questions are uh complex as this involves ethic and morality so um in one of the case uh you know the central
Information commission It app that the medical testing and the purpose of results should not be disclosed under the RTI law as personal details of medical records have no scope of public interest so if but in case if there is the individual is at risk if he’s you know suffering from a communicable
Disease then um the information could be made public it could be made known to the family uh but should it be made known to General Public so you know these are the questions you know which arise so um this court says that there is a medical code of ethics and we all know
That there’s a confidential confidentiality clause which is there which says that you know how there’s a need to maintain confidence confidence should be maintained between patient and doctors uh in another case um The Bombay High Court uh laid down uh the mechanism to be met before the information can be
Made known regarding the third party it says that information Falls within the exemption of RTI act uh it’s uh then it cannot be disclosed by the concerned authorities but you know if it serves larger public interest then only you can disclose this information then there there was a case
Which you know when somebody’s was asking for the record the public servant so um I know should the record of the public servant should be uh you know considered as a public interest or a private interest you know so there there a lot of cases like that and
Um uh there another case where appealant sought the copies of AC annual confidential report of the employee now it says that you know it it all depends on the Integrity of um the public servant so you know these are being in this information is being denied now in
2017 Supreme Court says you know that information sought uh you know about the employee of a bank uh that is outside the embit of RDI and uh because it will not serve larger public interest Girish ramachandra desand this case has been already been discussed by
Mr Gandhi so I will not go into that case uh details but then already um you know it talks about you know how the the employer employer relationship uh is being governed so um but the right to privacy again in in all judgments if you see
Right to privacy is not considered as an absolute right uh but it has to be um seen within the context of other rights uh depending on the facts and circumstances of the case so one of the case which came is you know uh in 2014 and um where the CBS sought the the
Adhar data base and the Supreme Court ruled against it and it says that no information can be transferred even by the government entities without the prior consent of the individual who are the owners of this information uh but in in another case uh it says that citizens have a right to
Know the names of willful defaulters and the details of non-performing assets of public sector Banks so you know it all depends on the case you know the facts and circumstances when the courts have said that you know how this right to privacy and right to information uh you know you
Can come to uh some kind of um U balance uh can be achieved uh Adar judgment again you know we have already discussed that but yeah again the dissenting judgment by Justice Chandra it says that you know allowing the private entities to use Adar numbers for lead to commercial exploitation of personal data
Of individuals and uh without their consent it could lead to individual profiling so uh Supreme Court in many cases it has held that you know the fundamental right to privacy cannot be construed as uh absolute but you know uh the public interest thing you know that becomes important so
Um uh in various cases the courts have said that uh you know um the public uh Authority Rec records could only be disclosed when there is a public interest which is being involved so uh the term public interest uh which is you know coming again and
Again and it has a huge scope and um you know how it it is balanced in terms of right to information and right to privacy you know these are the cases um you know which are saying uh in terms of Citizen surveillance and state accountability what we have seen is that
You know the P spy is being used uh you know in past few years uh how you know citizens citizens are being surveillance is being used so um in we have spoken about the facial recognition Technologies used by the Delhi police to investigate uh the riots cases and uh there is Criminal procedure
Identification act which was made in 2022 uh which talks about data colle ction as well as retention of biological and personal data again you know this has to be looked into uh you know again um the the digital ecosystem uh the earlier presenters have said that uh you know they’re talking about
Digitalization of personal data so again we have to see that how this data will be used um and the this case of how a particular Community is being targeted using fake online auction incident you know you know this case has to be again seen in the context of data
Security so uh what are the um um measures which have been used by the state for check and balances in case of Citizen surveillance um we have seen the citizenship Amendment Act and the protest which took place after that and in utar Pradesh Administration they have displayed banners in the city of plau
Talking about the details of the pr protesters and all kind of details are being made public the alabad high court has taken a uh the cognizance of this case and it says that you know this violate the right to privacy as in shined under article 21 of the
Constitution now this case is again pending before The Supreme Court but uh but in the public domain no discussion is being held on know this kind of uh arbitrary exercise of the use of state power and then I have some personal observation about the data data
Protection Law uh um as it is based on the concept of consent of the data principle to be obtained by data fiduciary now it assumes that all people are internet users and all people have access to Internet but it is not clear that how much practical it is when the
Term consent in itself is misinterpreted manipulated and twisted in cases pertaining to the to the bodily autonomy or even in insurance cases as the lawyer you know we all know that how um in the in the cases of rape the consent is being um manipulated and twisted over
Over the years even by the courts and in terms of insurance cases uh you know uh number of um cases are coming where people are just signing the insurance forms and then they come to the to claim the insurance uh the insurance companies use various reasons to say you know to
Deny the claims so you know these kind of things are going on so the experiences shows that in many cases the concept of consent is being battered shattered and mocked down every day in the courtrooms uh then in terms of access to to digital devices and internet when the
Internet usage is very low in this country uh so the law is silent on how one can take uh consent of people who are not using the internet but their information is there on the records like Nara and you know all those kind of things we have spoken about then again
The definition of consent is limited nothing is being said about a punishment to the that data fiduciary if he’s obtaining the consent by the use of force of fraud or misinterpretation so what is the way ahead uh what I see is that you know right to privacy and right to
Information both are fundamental rights and um the courts have you know somehow worked to um and even otherwise it should be you know we should be protecting the rights of the citizen and we should be making the State corporate sector and businesses more accountable so ensuring that there should be a
System of check and balance in cases relating to protection of citizens from arbitrary power that should be there we need to brainstorm on laws and policies on issues such as citizen surveillance data breach commercial exploitation of personal data on various business platforms again the awareness and sensitization about the citizen of the
Citizens about you know their personal data online and offline uh you know when when this um the data is being misused you know at various platforms e-commerce cryptocurrencies and all other things are coming I’m receiving WhatsApp messages every day about you know become a part of cryptocurrency and all which I
Really don’t want to but then they’re just forcing me you know these kind of what kind of protections can a person take in that kind of situation then um we need to take up more research on social legal dimensions of RTI data protection and information technology law because the concept of consent you
Need to understand the consent uh this concept is not uh very well being permeated we need lot of discussion and debate around this issue so um I will end this this presentation with this quote from you know one of the Judgment by the Supreme Court in anur Basin
Versus Union of India and uh it says that Liberty and security have always been at loger the question before us is do we need more Liberty or more security so uh but the meaningful answer is that every citizen has adequate uh security and sufficient Liberty and the Pendulum of preference should not swing
In either extreme Direction so that one preference should be compromised for the others uh so but um uh here we we are here to only to ensure that citizens are provided all the rights and Liberty to the high highest extent in a given situation while ensuring security at the
Same time so I’ll just stop here and maybe we can take more on on the yeah thank you Dr shalun nagam for giving so many important case studies and also the examples from the actual ground level and that also gives us hope that we can we as Citizens can also fight against
The such an overwhelming system and the structures and systems which are rooted in the political economy of inequality intersectional inequality that we are facing there are two responses first one is Mr Shukla say would you like to unmute and speak hello uh he has written in the chat
Box are you there Dr Shukla s are you there hello he has written his response in the chat box and the second person is Dr balev sidel uh he is from Nepal and and he has also responded on the this thing about the how Nepal is also getting
Into thanks for the invite I don’t have anything specific to tell beyond what I have already recorded thank you so much it’s written so would you would you read it or should I read in the chat box what you have written why don’t you read it
Okay so Shukla s says that what has to be in this context kept in mind is that both quote and quote private Y and quote unquote transparency have two sides I think that also came up in your presentation all four one the right weather transparency or privacy or of
Individual Visa the state and vice versa uh putus Swami had filed his case in yeah uh in the context of Adar Adar yeah uh Adar was apprehended uh would make individual unduly transparent to the state the individual Vis State aspect must be on the top of our Collective
Mind we have as a rule to strengthen the individual Vis State yeah that I think all four emphasized um whether in terms of right to know or right to privacy that has got to be bottom line even then conflict arises between interest of privileged individual and commoner then
It is a let let who must B for uh then he also says apar has shared a paper he has shared the link of the paper on open knowledge and uh after that I think Dr Bal Dr Bal would you like to speak about your experiences in Nepal are you there hello
Hello okay hello yeah please go ahead yeah yeah you know the program is is very interesting and you know the you know right to information must be you know from um con from you know Southern to people and that I mention you know sometime you know uh the media and the
Media personality you know they exagerate the thing you know what is going on at you know at the community level and if they exagerate the thing and uh if the track Destro then it would be difficult for the government and Community you know the control to control the very situation you know that
Is happening you know and how such a type of practice could should be listen you know that must be addressed in in certain law regulation you know that that is usually you know frequently usually find in you know most of the South Asian country I think you know
Yeah and in the name of you know uh right to Freedom the people should not you know uh move uh on either side you know uh crossing the you know I mean the norms and values you know that people have to you know think of it you know
This is my opinion thank you very much okay thank you very much uh would any of the panelists have would have would like to speak the in the final round tar B would you like to respond hello would you like to speak or should I give the concluding
Remark hello I think I think this discussion should be carried forward yeah okay okay yeah and um yeah I the way it is being positioned just now yeah the court are everybody concerned with power yeah is that the right to information is losing its power completely yeah that that I think I
Think a very concerning thing yeah and in the name of privacy right information is becoming a larger and larger territory Dr Shu say neam would you like to say give your comments finally what we can do as a democratic rights people civil liberty activist and concerned
Citizens yeah yeah I think we need to uh you know debate about this issue about the right to information and right to privacy both are important but then we have to talk from the citizens perspective and you know when we talk about citizens you know both the rights
Need to be protected so you know we have to obtain a balance between these two and basically we have to reach out to the citizens common citizens have to to understand you know what are you the implications because sometimes you know even the Google or what WhatsApp or Facebook they change their privacy
Policy sometimes you know we people also we don’t read you know through the entire terms and conditions so you know in that case if if we are talking going on the grounds how will you explain this you know policies you know how this privacy is going to affect you uh in
Different social media platforms so these how can we simplify this how can we know reach out to people so all these things need to be you know need to be discussed and debated and to be sorted out especially in the country like India when we have you know population which
Is which is you know U majority of population is you know somehow aw not talking about the global discussion yet but you know at the ground level we have to talk about all these issues and uh you know so that is something which is my concern which I want to raise right
Now and Mr apar Gupta what is your pro this action agenda or the way forward for the participants uh I I think um it’s uh what’s already been highlighted uh I’ll just like to uh emphasize why awareness public awareness is more important is that uh there has been a survey which
Has been done by uh common cause and uh Lo Niti csds from 10,000 respondents across 12 States and it’s come up with shocking findings uh that people support Mass surveillance people support uh uh at the same time people are scared two-thirds of Indians are scared about posting their social political and
Religious views online and yet at the same time they support unaccountable police pass in the digital RM most reminiscent of how hostages feel um when the captives are there so I think we need renewal of values which requires broader Mass mobilization I think the vehicle towards that will essentially be through the political
Parties of India and it sorry I don’t know why people don’t say it but that’s the primary vehicle for uh at least U ensuring that this popular Mass mobilization right historically that’s been the root even for the RTI movement there was some level of cooperation at the state level in Rajasthan in jhan
From people who are associated with political parties it’s so when we say Civil Society it includes that um that section of uh Society you know and we’ we’ve done our part to some extent also looking at trade unions farmer unions given that this is a broader conversation and here I think we can
Take lessons from people who have been working on environment people who have been working on gender delites over a period of time okay and also ensuring that the conversations we having here today are not only in English they’re in Hindi in other formats they are done much more popularly and they are much
More inclusive I think that’s also necessary to listen to people what are the impacts from technology it’s happening it’ll take time that’s but I I think mobilization organizing around these issues is important as of issue which is an electoral issue yeah yeah I think there is no other alternative and mobilization at a
Ground level think very important that’s I think now we would like to Tar would you like to say something or should I conclude hello hello hello T shes B would you like to say something oh thank you ma’am thank you okay yeah uh so now I would like to conclude and
Uh see that okay all four speakers they have had a very very important interventions in terms of uh what we uh are facing today that privacy acts which empowers the state and the ACT grants power to government to exempt itself and its agencies from most requirements of act on certain grounds such as
Sovereignty or Integrity of India or security of the state which are taken from constitution of India and are cited by Supreme Court of India as the grounds on which privacy rights of the state are institutionalized but what about people’s privacy does it Empower citizens as per the Privacy principles
That an individual’s personal data should only be collected and used with the consent and the I think Dr Shalon Nigam also brought in very important uh reality uh in which the the powerless person’s consent uh is never taken taken and or it is just construed as being
Taken but when that person is totally powerless under threat so defending right to information as well as digital rights demands multifaceted action towards laws and public policies engagement with our elected representatives in the legislative assemblies and Parliament litigation and Community engagement and mass digital literacy I think that is also very
Important because digital connectivity is also very important people are facing the consequences of digital technology when they themselves don’t have access to it so our panelist and their organizations are renowned for demistifying this complexities of implications of technology and empowering the people and uh the diligent advocacy for constitutional rights Free Speech net
Neutrality and privacy are extremely important for deepening of democracy that we have understood currently the discussion is about the dis deep fake which create misinformation spreading they are also coming up with the Corrupt Practices which are affected the elections that we saw even in the many European countries and even in in USA
The debate took place uh cyber terrorism digital and corporate frauds online obsin and pornography which is being discussed very hotly in uh India recently hate speeches fake news online defamation identity theft virtual forgery all these things are very important concerns of 21st century citizens not only in India but globally
And when it comes to when uh section 16 of dpdp act integrating Citizens Trust into the social contract of data is most important retired justice justice BN Krishna SRI Krishna had rightly caution and I quote uh the provisions granting exemption to the government and government bodies from from all sections
Of the law in the digital personal data protection act 2023 is a cause of great concern and I think that’s what uh all the four speakers uh they uh highlighted and I think it was a very enlightening discussion and I thank all four of them from the bottom on behalf of impri and
On behalf of myself now I request impri team to take over thank you ma’am um as we come to an end of today’s discussion I Remora researcher at inre impact and policy Research Institute would like to propose the formal vote of thanks on behalf of hash impr Center for ICT for
Development cicd I would like to thank all of you for attending today’s deliberation a panel discussion on right to information RTI and privacy congruent or contradictory we are grateful to our chair for the session Professor vuti Patel our esteemed panelist s shales Gandhi Mr Anita gurum morti Mr apar
Gupta and Advocate Dr shalu Nigam for taking part in the discussion and enlightening us we thank all our participants who have raised pertinent questions and actively participated in today’s deliberation we are grateful if you’re watching us later on on our YouTube channel or listening to us on our various podcasts or reading our
Publication you may also find more thematic events and book discussions under in web policy talk series we hope you continue to join in the future to our in PR web policy talk and web policy learning wishing you a good evening thank you thank thank you everyone thank thank you
source
