Team  SoOLEGAL

Notice Issued By SC: Challenge Against Section 69 Of IT Act And MHA Notification On Monitoring Computers

Team SoOLEGAL 14 Jan 2019 3:30pm

Notice Issued By SC: Challenge Against Section 69 Of IT Act And MHA Notification On Monitoring Computers

The SC issued a notice on a string of PILs opposing the Ministry of Home Affairs order authorizing ten Security and Intelligence agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt "any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer."

Noted by the virtue of section 69 (1) of the Information Technology Act, the Central Government can permit any agency to state directions to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource, if it is believed necessary or expedient to do so in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence.

Section 69 was introduced and amended in 2009. Question was asked by Ranjan Gogoi that after the amendment what else is done. Senior Counsel K. V. Vishwanathan pointed out the 2018 judgment of the five-judge bench of the apex court where Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act, permitting the disclosure of sensitive biometric and demographic data upon an order of the District Judge, was study down to allow an opportunity of being listened to the concerned individual and the Disclosure of information in the significance of national security, made pursuant to a direction of an officer not lower in rank than the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, under section 33(2) was held to be unconstitutional for avoiding judicial scrutiny.

Clarification by the Ministry: The new order "does not confer any new powers" to any security or law enforcement agency, the Information Technology Rules having been framed during the UPA regime in 2009.

However, the bench also comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. K. Kaul who declined to stay the operation of the order in the interim. The Petition filed by Internet Freedom Foundation [IFF] was filed the petition viewing the stated prayers;

A. Issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaration, or order to declare Section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1) (a), 19(1) (d), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

B. Issue of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaration, or order to declare The Information Technology Rules, 2009 as ultra vires Articles 14, 19(1) (a), 19(1) (d), and 21 of the Constitution of India.

 C. Issue of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or directions to quash the Impugned Notification dated 20.12.2018 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of powers under Section 69(1) read with Rule 4 of the IT Act and Rules there under as illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1) (a), 20, and 21 of the Constitution of India.


Tagged: SC   PIL   SECTION 69   RANJAN GOGOI   CENTRAL GOVT.   IT ACT  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Send
Featured Members view all

New Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.