List of Current Affairs

Why in News?

• In Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4169/202 the Supreme Court has stated that an accused cannot be made to remain behind the bars for an indefinite period under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 just because the law requires a court’s satisfaction that the person is not guilty.

Background

• In the present case, the Apex Court was considering the bail plea of a man, jailed in Odisha under charges of possessing commercial quantities of narcotics.
• He was facing a minimum of 10 years in jail.
• The accused has already spent three and a half years behind bars and the trial court has recorded the statement of just one witness out of 19 in this time duration.
• The Orissa High Court declined to release him on bail citing the stringent provisions under the NDPS Act.

Court’s Observations

• A bench comprising of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta has held that liberty of an individual will take precedence over the statutory embargo under the NDPS Act depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
• The bench further observed that prolonged incarceration hinders the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created by the NDPS Act.
• The Court enlarged the undertrial prisoner on bail.

Legal Provisions

• Undertrial Prisoners - An accused person who is kept in judicial custody during the time their case is being heard in court.

Constitutional and Criminal Law Aspect

• The purpose of the criminal justice system in any country is to protect not only the rights of the victims but also of the convicts, prisoners and undertrials.
• All the persons detained in prison have a right to trial within a reasonable time.
• Prolonged detention and delay in trial cases not only violates the right to liberty guaranteed to people, but also amounts to denial of human rights of the undertrials.
• An undertrial may be warranted in prison on the following grounds:
  • In case of a very grave offence;
  • If the person arrested is likely to interfere with witnesses or impede the course of justice;
  • If the person arrested is likely to commit the same or any other offence;
  • If he may fail to appear for trial.
• The Constitution of India guarantees right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty —No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Case Law

Sharifbai v. Abdul Razak (1961)

• The Supreme Court in the case of held that if the accused person is not produced before the magistrate within the stipulated time, then such detention will be wrongful.

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)

• The Supreme Court gave broader meaning to Article 21 and stated that everyone has the right to a prompt trial.
• The Court held that a procedure which does not make legal services available to an accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would have to go through the trial without legal assistance cannot be regarded as reasonable, fair and just under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

• The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is a Central legislation to regulate production, consumption and transportation of such harmful substances as specified under the Act.
• The Narcotics Control Bureau was set up under the act with effect from March 1986.
• The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) is an Indian central law enforcement and intelligence agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
• Criminal law follows the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea which means that a man shall not be held guilty without guilty intention.
• NDPS Act also requires proven intention or knowledge. In every trial, it is to be looked, whether the alleged offender had the knowledge or intention to commit the offence.

Case Law

• In the case of A.N.Patel v. State of Gujarat (2003) the court stressed upon the fact that NDPS Act cases should be tried as early as possible as in such cases normally accused is not released on bail.

Why in News?

• The Data Protection Bill, 2022 could empower the Centre to lower the age of consent for accessing Internet services without parental oversight to below 18.
• The change is in line with data protection regulations in the European Union and the United States.

Background

• The government introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 in the Lok Sabha in 2019.
• However, the bill was withdrawn in August 2022 citing the inadequacy of the provisions in meeting global standards regarding data privacy.
• The Data Protection Bill has been introduced 3 months (in November) after the withdrawal of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019.
• The proposed bill would provide predictability of law and enable the companies to align their policies in consonance with the proposed legislation.
• The Union Cabinet approved the draft data protection bill on 5th July 2023.
• The approval paved the way for its introduction in the Monsoon session of Parliament.
• If passed, the law will become India’s core data governance framework, six years after the Supreme Court declared privacy as a fundamental right in matter of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018).

Changing Definition of a Child

• Justice BN Srikrishna Committee Report, 2017

The Report relied on the definition of majority under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and recommended that for individuals under 18 years of age, entities seek parental consent.

• Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019

This Bill defined a child as an individual under the age of 18 years.

• Joint Committee of Parliament, 2019

It proposed that the definition of children should be restricted to 13/14/16 years of age.

• Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022

Under this, children were defined as those under 18 years of age.

• Final Change (Data Protection Bill 2022)

Under the Bill that received the cabinet’s nod earlier this month, the definition of a child is understood to have been changed to an “individual who has not completed the age of 18 years or such lower age as the Central Government may notify”.

Legal Provisions

Data Protection Bill, 2022

• The Bill is a key pillar of an overarching framework of technology regulations the Centre is building which also includes the Digital India Bill — the proposed successor to the Information Technology Act, 2000; Indian Telecommunication Bill, 2022; and a policy for non-personal data governance.
• Data Protection Board: The new bill seeks to establish a Data Protection Board (DPB) with the purpose of adjudicating on the matter of data protection.
• Data Protection Officers: It also seeks to establish Data Protection Officers or independent data auditors by companies of large size with the objective of verifying the compliance of the law by the institutions concerned.
• Data Principals:
  • The data principals were given additional rights with respect to their personal data.
  • The data principals can ask the companies concerned to erase or delete their data.
  • Data Principal means the individual to whom the personal data relates and where such individual is a child it includes the parents or lawful guardian of such a child.
• Obligation on Companies: This bill laid an additional layer of obligation or duty on the companies with respect to data and the companies will not be obligated to keep user data that no longer serves a business purpose.
• Security:
  • The new data protection law came out with the intention to provide an additional layer of security for the personal data of the citizens.
  • Companies should not process personal data that could harm minors (children under 18 years of age).
• Cross-Border Data Flow: The new bill also relaxes the norms related to cross-border data flow as this was a matter of concern for big tech companies.
• Provisions for Breach:
  • The bill also enumerates the conditions under which proposed legislation can be breached by the government agencies in case of exigencies like:
    • Sovereignty and integrity of India
    • Security of the state
    • Friendly relations with foreign states
    • Maintenance of public order or preventing incitement to any cognizable offence.
• For the benefit of end users, a sort of deterrent has been provided for data leakages by imposing high penalties in case of a breach.
• Right of Data Portability not included:
  • The right to data portability that was provided in the previous version has been done away with.
  • Right to data portability allows individuals to obtain and reuse their personal data for their own purposes across different services.
• Consent:
  • The ‘deemed consent’ has been introduced to cover non-consent-based grounds for processing data.
  • There is also a provision of consent for data sharing and only when the permission is given by the end user, the data can be written.
• Recognition of ADR: There is recognition of alternate dispute resolution processes like arbitration.
• Hardware certification and algorithmic accountability are also eliminated in the new proposal, and it also eases compliance requirements for start-ups.

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018)

In this case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that Indians have a constitutionally protected fundamental right to privacy that is an intrinsic part of life and liberty under Article 21.