JPC members record dissent towards parts of Personal Data Protection law

The Personal Data Protection Bill, in the making since 2018 and which could be tabled in Parliament on Tuesday, faces opposition from some members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), mostly because of the wide exemptions given to the government in the final draft of the proposed legislation.

The Congress’ Jairam Ramesh, Manish Tewari, Vivek Tankha, and Gaurav Gogoi, the Biju Janata Dal’s Amar Patnaik, and the Trinamool Congress’ Derek O’Brien and Mahua Moitra have sent dissent notes to the committee chairman P P Chaudhary.

Many Opposition members of the committee are concerned that the proposed Bill, in the guise of national security, may encroach on the powers of state governments. This is reflected in the objections flagged by parties like the Trinamool Congress and even the Biju Janata Dal.

While praising the “democratic, transparent and consultative” approach taken by the JPC, Ramesh has proposed that the government not be given sweeping powers by keeping it out of the purview of the proposed legislation, he said in his dissent note, which he tweeted about on Monday.

Gogoi has also raised the same issue, along with questioning the rationale for the removal of a clause that penalised companies for data breaches.

“Previously, the government had brought very high and strict penalties. It is only when penalties are high that technology companies are forced to comply with the regulations. That is what we have seen in Europe and other parts of the world,” said Gogoi. The removal of this clause at the last minute does not have the unanimity of the committee, he added.

Penalties in the earlier draft of the PDP Bill ranged from Rs 5 crore to Rs 15 crore, or 2-4 per cent of the worldwide turnover of the entity depending on the nature of the offence.

Gogoi also said in his dissent note that the committee should have undertaken more debate and consultation on the issue of surveillance, instead of giving the government powers in the name of national interest.

Ramesh, in his submission, has said the PDP Bill, 2019, “assumes that the constitutional right to privacy arises only where operations and activities of private companies are concerned. Governments and government agencies are treated as a separate privileged class whose operations and activities are always in the public interest and individual privacy considerations are secondary”.

The specific opposition made by the MP relates to Section 35 of the proposed legislation.

Ramesh in his dissent note stated that the said Section provides “unbridled power” to the Central government to exempt any government agency from the entire Act. He instead proposed that the government seek Parliamentary approval for exempting any government agencies from the Act.

The other section referenced in the note is Section 12(a)(i) which creates exceptions for government and government agencies from the provisions of consent. Ramesh said he had suggested these exemptions be made less sweeping and less automatic.