Government Withdrew the Personal Data Protection Bill 2021

Why in the News?

• It would now be replaced by “a new bill that fits into the comprehensive legal framework”.

Key Points:

Data Protection Bill: Timeline

• 2017: In the backdrop of the Puttaswamy judgment (right to privacy), The Justice Srikrishna panel was set up in 2017 to draw up a data protection framework for the country.
  • Puttaswamy judgment stated that the right to privacy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal freedom guaranteed by the Indian constitution.
• 2018: In July 2018, the committee submitted a draft data protection Bill to the Ministry of Electronics and IT.
• 2019: In December 2019, the Bill was referred to the JCP (Joint Committee of Parliament).
• 2021: In December 2021, the JCP tabled its report in Parliament, which Justice Srikrishna said was heavily in favour of the government.
• 2022: The government withdrew the Personal Data Protection Bill from Parliament as it considers a “comprehensive legal framework” to regulate the online space.

Why the Govt withdrew the Personal Data Protection Bill:

• Compliance Intensive: It was seen as being too “compliance intensive” by startups of the country.
• Too many amendments by JCP: Considering the report of the JCP, a comprehensive legal framework is required.
  • It proposed 81 amendments and 12 recommendations.
• Pushback from stakeholders: It faced major pushback from a wide range of stakeholders including large tech companies such as Facebook and Google and civil society activists.

Committee and Judiciary signal urgency for a data protection law and surveillance reforms:

• (Justice) A P Shah Committee report on privacy
• Puttaswamy judgment (right to privacy) and
• (Justice B N) Srikrishna Committee’s report

Key Challenges with the provision of the Bill:

• Data Localisation: Under this, it would have been mandatory for companies to store a copy of certain sensitive personal data within India.
  • The export of undefined “critical” personal data from the country would be prohibited.
• Contentious clause 35: This provision allows government agencies to ignore provisions of the law citing “sovereignty”,“public order”, “friendly relations with foreign states” and “security of the state”.
  • It allows the Government to keep any of its agencies outside the purview of the law.
• Opposed by Social Media Companies: It sought social media companies to move them from the status of online intermediaries to content publishers, thus making them accountable for the posts they host.

Conclusion:

• The Government has to averred that a new draft will be in sync with the principles of privacy, in line with Supreme Court guidelines on privacy.
• The new Bill could also do away with classification of personal data from the perspective of data localisation.