‘Personal Information’ of a Mobile Subscriber is outside the purview of RTI Act

In an important decision, Delhi High Court (“High Court”) has allowed a writ petition filed by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (“TRAI”) against the order of Central Information Commission (“CIC”). In the impugned order of CIC, TRAI was ordered to seek information of a mobile subscriber from the concerned service provider. [Telecom Regulatory Authority of India v. Yash Pal, judgment Dated 25^th October, 2013]

(Image Source: rationallibertariancorner.com)

Facts: The respondent, Yash Pal, had applied to the CPIO of TRAI seeking call and SMS details of certain mobile numbers. When his application was rejected by both the CPIO and the appellate authority, the respondent filed a second appeal before the CIC. By its order, CIC directed the TRAI to call for the requisite information subject to its availability with the  Service  Provider  and  pass  on  the  same  to  the  respondent. TRAI was required to do this by exercising its power under section 12(1) of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (“TRAI Act”). Against this order, TRAI filed the present petition before the High Court.

Relevant Legislations: Right to Information Act, 2005; Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997]

Bench: Single Judge [Justice V.K. Jain]

Right to Privacy and Online Social Networking Space: What Indian Law can do?

With a tremendous increase in the usage of social networking website, an equally proportionate concern has also arisen regarding the issue of privacy. Though there are a number of judicial precedents dealing with issue of privacy in relation to telephone interception, surveillance etc, hardly are there any precedents which can sufficiently enlighten one to realise the scope of right to privacy in social networking space. Is there a crucial difference between the privacy in physical and online space? I argue that though there provisions, such as Section 72A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”), make one criminally liable for negligently sharing personal data information, they are not sufficient for the purpose of online social networking.

In this issue of online space, the primary hurdle arises when seeks to identify the data which requires protection. Not every data can be given protection, for example, data which is already available in public domain. Also since the nature of online space is different, the measure of protection should be different. For instance, it is not as easy to locate a particular data in physical space as one can locate it online using ‘google.com’; hence, data is more vulnerable in online space than in physical space. This problem ultimately directs one to identify the nature of “privacy right” which one enjoys.

If one looks at the dictionary meaning of privacy, there is a possibility of getting an unclear and uncertain definition: ‘a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people’.[1]And, if one sees definition of right to privacy provided by the Supreme Court, then there is a possibility of getting a very broad definition. 

Clause 3 of the Draft National Privacy Bill, 2011 confers on every individual a right to privacy. Though a specific definition is not given, the clause contains a list of information which will be covered under the privacy right of an individual. Though there are a number of shortcomings in the (an exhaustive discussion on data protection and Privacy Bill will be done in one of the next posts). I herein discuss the existing legislations and legal principles which deal with the issue of data protection in online networking space.