Kolkata: The Union government on Thursday (August 3) tabled the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Bill, 2023, in the Lok Sabha as opposition members demanded that the Bill be sent to a parliamentary committee.The Bill states that the legislation is being brought to “provide for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognises both the right of individuals to protect their personal data and the need to process such personal data for lawful purposes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw tabled the Bill in the Lok Sabha through a voice vote after concerns were raised by opposition members about the violation of the right to privacy in the legislation, as well as dangers it poses to the Right to Information (RTI) Act.Also read: Personal Data Protection Bill Will ‘Severely Restrict Scope of RTI Act’: Activists Write to MPsOpposing the introduction of the Bill, All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) MP Asaduddin Owaisi said that the Bill is in violation of the right to privacy and Article 19 of the Indian constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of speech.“It allows the government to access people’s private data and is likely to create a surveillance state. The Bill is also anti-women, as only one in three women in India use the internet,” he said and asked for a division of votes on whether the Bill should be introduced.Deputy leader of the house and Congress MP, Gaurav Gogoi, said that the Bill should be sent back to a standing committee.“Send the Bill to the standing committee as it infringes upon the fundamental rights of privacy as per [the] Puttaswamy judgment of [the] right to privacy,” he said.In 2017, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously delivered its judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and held that privacy is a constitutionally protected right.The court ruled that the right to privacy not only emerges from the guarantee of life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the constitution, but also arises in varying contexts from the other facets of freedom and dignity recognised and guaranteed by the fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Indian constitution.Echoing the demand to send the Bill back to the standing committee, Trinamool Congress MP Saugata Roy said that the new Bill is “cumbersome”.“This is a cumbersome Bill and very different from the original Bill which was sent to the standing committee. The chairman of the standing committee has changed the Bill altogether. I want this Bill to be again sent to the standing committee,” he said.Opposition MPs who are members of the department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology had earlier told The Wire that the committee had adopted a report titled ‘Citizen’s data security and privacy’ on July 26. The report examines the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill and contains the committee’s recommendations on the same.However, opposition members in the committee said they do not approve of the report, mainly because, according to them, the report was prepared by the committee by bypassing parliamentary procedure, which requires a Bill to be first introduced in either a House of the parliament, before it can be referred to a standing committee.Opposition members also alleged that they have not seen the final Bill and had very little time with the report as well.Congress MP Manish Tewari, while demanding that the Bill be sent to a joint parliamentary committee, said that the legislation cannot be introduced as a finance Bill.“A Bill, which was considered by the JPC [joint parliamentary committee], sent back to the House, and then withdrawn cannot be introduced as a finance Bill,” he said.aEarlier on Thursday morning, Tewari had said that the Modi government was planning to introduce the Bill as a finance Bill, which would allow it to not seek the approval of the Rajya Sabha.“It is a Bill which requires serious reconsideration by a joint parliamentary committee for the simple reason that it is in complete contradiction to [the] fundamental right to privacy upheld by the [Supreme Court] in the Puttaswamy judgment,” he said in parliament.“This Bill cleaves the digital universe into two parts – the Bill will apply with full force on all non-governmental organisations, and the entire government universe is going to be exempt from it,” he added.Also read: Why the Personal Data Protection Bill Won’t Stop Data Proliferation in Digital India‘Different versions of the Bill do not match’While the Bill was tabled on Thursday after the cabinet gave its approval on July 5, the legislation has been in the works for several years.The Union government first constituted a Committee of Experts on Data Protection chaired by Justice B.N. Srikrishna to examine issues relating to data protection in 2017.The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2019 on the basis of the recommendations of the committee report, which was submitted in July 2018.The Bill was then referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, which submitted its report in December 2021. The following August, the Bill was withdrawn from parliament.In November 2022, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, for public feedback.Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said that since the Bill has been modified several times, it needs to be sent back to the standing committee.“It is a matter of disappointment that to the best of my knowledge the committee has not been asked to study this Bill, which has been repeatedly modified and is being brought in its third reiteration. I urge the Bill be sent to the standing comm as a new Bill because the three different versions do not match and they have been brought without consulting the committee whose mandate it is,” he said.Revolutionary Socialist Party MP N.K. Premachandran said that the Bill does not take into account the recommendations of the standing committee report.“The standing committee submitted a report on the floor of the House (August 1). There are so many recommendations. Without looking at the recommendations, they have come up with a new Bill which is not fair,” he said.‘Penalty but no compensation for data theft victims’Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Nationalist Congress Party MP Supriya Sule also raised concerns about the lack of compensation for victims of data theft in the Bill and the amendments made to the RTI Act.“The Bill allows excessive centralisation of all data, and it is a complete insult to the federal structure, and it dilutes the RTI Act,” said Sule.The Wire reported earlier on concerns raised by activists who said that the Bill poses a threat to the RTI Act by severely restricting its scope.Sule added that while there is a penalty for data theft, the victim is not protected.“There is a penalty but no compensation. What about a victim?” she asked.Chowdhury said that the Bill will usher in a new era of corruption by amending the RTI Act.“Through this Bill, the government will trample upon the RTI Act and right to privacy,” he said.“We are vehemently opposing this sinister motive by the government as by amending the RTI, the government wants to introduce a new era of corruption where personal data like assets and liabilities, educational qualifications of corrupt government officials cannot be asked under RTI,” he said.“The Bill does not provide compensation to individuals whose personal data has been compromised or [those who] suffered losses due to personal data theft,” he added.“The present Bill does not restrict the government from storing and using personal data. l suggest the government put out the Bill for further deliberation and wide discussion among all sections of the population, send it to the standing committee or a joint parliamentary committee or any other forum,” he added.While introducing the Bill, Vaishnaw, however, said that contrary to concerns about the government bringing the legislation as a finance Bill, the legislation is an ordinary one.“(Opposition) members have not raised any questions on whether there is legislative competence to bring this Bill. Instead they have asked whether this is a general Bill or a finance Bill or a money Bill. I want to clarify that this is a general Bill and not a money Bill,” he said.“All [the] points raised by [the] members on Puttaswamy, compensation, or any other objections, we are ready for a detailed debate on each issue,” he said.
