#FactCheck - Virat Kohli's Ganesh Chaturthi Video Falsely Linked to Ram Mandir Inauguration

Introduction

The government has announced that the new criminal laws will come into force on 1st July 2024. The Union Government notified that three recently enacted criminal laws, viz. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 will be effective from 1st July 2024.  The Indian Penal Code 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and Indian Evidence Act 1872 have been replaced by these new criminal laws.

On 23 February 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs Announced the Effective Date of new criminal laws as follows:

1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Effective from 1-7-2024, except Section 106(2).
2. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 Effective from 1-7-2024.
3. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 The provisions will come into force on 1-7-2024 except the provisions of the entry relating to section 106(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in the First Schedule.

Section 106(2) Will Not Be Enforced

Truckers protested against this provision, which provides 10 years imprisonment and fines for those who cause death by rash and negligent driving of a vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escape without reporting it to a police officer. As of now, the government has promised truckers and transporters that subsection 2 of Section 106 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) will not come into force. This subsection deals with fatal hit-and-run cases and prescribes higher penalties for not informing authorities immediately after an accident. 

Section 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read as follows;

106. Causing death by negligence.—

(2) Whoever causes death of any person by rash and negligent driving of vehicle not amounting to culpable homicide, and escapes without reporting it to a police officer or a Magistrate soon after the incident, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of aterm which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023

The Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 will replace the Indian Evidence Act 1872. The Act has undergone significant modification to maintain its fundamental principles for fair legal proceedings and adapt to technological advancements and changes in societal norms. This Act recognises electronic records as primary evidence under Section 57. It also allows the electronic presentation of oral evidence, enabling remote testimony and ensuring that electronic records will have the same legal effect as paper records.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 replaces the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, introducing certain modifications. This Act, under section 176, requires forensic investigation for crimes punished with seven years' imprisonment or more.  Section 530 of BNSS, 2023 is a newly inserted provision which envisages the use of electronic communication audio-video electronic means for trials, inquiries, proceedings, service and issuance of summons. Electronic mode is permitted for all trials, inquiries, and proceedings under section 173 of this Act. The concept of Zero FIR is also introduced under section 173(1) and mandates police stations to register the FIR, irrespective of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

India's new criminal laws are set to take effect on 1st July 2024. These laws modernise the country's legal framework, replacing outdated statutes and incorporating technological advancements. The concerns from stakeholders led to the withholding of enforcement of Section 106(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023. The new criminal laws aim to address contemporary society's complexities while upholding justice and fairness.

References

• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/video/new-criminal-laws-to-come-into-effect-from-july-1-2506664-2024-02-24
• https://www.lawrbit.com/article/ipc-crpc-evidence-act-replaced-by-new-criminal-laws/

‍

Introduction

In an era where digitalization is transforming every facet of life, ensuring that personal data is protected becomes crucial. The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) is a significant step that has been taken by the Indian Parliament which sets forth a comprehensive framework for Digital Personal Data. The Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 has recently been released for public consultation to supplement the Act and ensure its smooth implementation once finalised. Though noting certain positive aspects, there is still room for addressing certain gaps and multiple aspects under the draft rules that require attention. The DPDP Act, 2023 recognises the individual’s right to protect their personal data providing control over the processing of personal data for lawful purposes. This Act applies to data which is available in digital form as well as data which is not in digital form but is digitalised subsequently. While the Act is intended to offer wide control to the individuals (Data Principal) over their personal information, its impact on vulnerable groups such as ‘Persons with Disabilities’ requires closer scrutiny. 

Person with Disabilities as data principal

The term ‘data principal’ has been defined under the DPDP Act under Section 2(j) as a person to whom the personal data is related to, which also includes a person with a disability. A lawful guardian acting on behalf of such person with disability has also been included under the ambit of this definition of Data Principal. As a result, a lawful guardian acting on behalf of a person with disability will have the same rights and responsibilities as a data principal under the Act. 

• Section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 states that before processing the personal data of a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, the data fiduciary must obtain verifiable consent from that guardian, ensuring proper protection of the person with disability's data privacy.
• The data principal has the right to access information about personal data under Section 11 which is being processed by the data fiduciary.
• Section 12 provides the right to correction and erasure of personal data by making a request in a manner prescribed by the data fiduciary. 
• A right to grievance redressal must be provided to the data principal in respect of any act or omission of performance of obligations by the data fiduciary or the consent manager. 
• Under Section 14, the data principal has the right to nominate any other person to exercise the rights provided under the Act in case of death or incapacity. 

Provision of consent and its implication

The three key components of Consent that can be identified under the DPDP Act, are:

• Explicit and Informed Consent: Consent given for the processing of data by the data principal or a lawful guardian in case of persons with disabilities must be clear, free and informed as per section 6 of the Act. The data fiduciary must specify the itemised description of the personal data required along with the specified purpose and description of the goods or services that would be provided by such processing of data. (Rule 3 under Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules)

• Verifiable Consent: Section 9 of the DPDP Act provides that the data fiduciary needs to obtain verifiable consent of the lawful guardian before processing any personal data of such a person with a disability.  Rule 10 of the Draft Rules obligates the data fiduciary to adopt measures to ensure that the consent given by the lawful guardian is verifiable before the is processed. 
• Withdrawal of Consent: Data principal or such lawful guardian has the option to withdraw consent for the processing of data at any point by making a request to the data fiduciary.   

Although the Act includes certain provisions that focus on the inclusivity of persons with disability, the interpretation of such sections says otherwise. 

Concerns related to provisions for Persons with Disabilities under the DPDP Act:

• Lack of definition of ‘person with disabilities’: The DPDP Act or the Draft Rules does not define the term ‘persons with disabilities’. This will create confusion as to which categories of disability are included and up to what percentage.  The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 clearly defines ‘person with benchmark disability’, ‘person with disability’ and ‘person with disability having high support needs’. This categorisation is essential to determine up to what extent a person with disability needs a lawful guardian which is missing under the DPDP Act.   
• Lack of autonomy: Though the definition of data principal includes persons with disabilities however the decision-making authority has been given to the lawful guardian of such individuals. The section creates ambiguity for people who have a lower percentage of disability and are capable of making their own decisions and have no autonomy in making decisions related to the processing of their personal data because of the lack of clarity in the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’. 
• Safeguards for abuse of power by lawful guardian: The lawful guardian once verified by the data fiduciary can make decisions for the persons with disabilities. This raises concerns regarding the potential abuse of power by lawful guardians in relation to the handling of personal data. The DPDP Act does not provide any specific protection against such abuse.
• Difficulty in verification of consent: The consent obtained by the Data Fiduciary must be verified. The process that will be adopted for verification is at the discretion of the data fiduciary according to Rule 10 of the Draft Data Protection Rules. The authenticity of consent is difficult to determine as it is a complex process which lacks a standard format. Also, with the technological advancements, it would be challenging to identify whether the information given to verify the consent is actually true. 

CyberPeace Recommendations

The DPDP Act, 2023 is a major step towards making the data protection framework more comprehensive, however, the provisions related to persons with disabilities and powers given to lawful guardians acting on their behalf still need certain clarity and refinement within the DPDP Act framework. 

• Consonance of DPDP with Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016: The RPWD and DPDP Act should supplement each other and can be used to clear the existing ambiguities. Such as the definition of ‘persons with disabilities’ under the RPWD Act can be used in the context of the DPDP Act, 2023. 
• Also, there must be certain mechanisms and safeguards within the Act to prevent abuse of power by the lawful guardian. The affected individual in case of suspected abuse of power should have an option to file a complaint with the Data Protection Board and the Board can further take necessary actions to determine whether there is abuse of power or not. 
• Regulatory oversight and additional safeguards are required to ensure that consent is obtained in a manner that respects the rights of all individuals, including those with disabilities. 

References:

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf
• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/259889.pdf 
• https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15939/1/the_rights_of_persons_with_disabilities_act%2C_2016.pdf 
• https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/consent-disability-rights-and-data-protection-3143441
• https://www.pacta.in/digital-data-protection-consent-protocols-for-disability.pdf
• https://www.snrlaw.in/indias-new-data-protection-regime-tracking-updates-and-preparing-for-compliance/ 

‍

Introduction

Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.

As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

The Issue

In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.

On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.

Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.

Legality

Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.

Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.

Conclusion

The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”