The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under Prasad has been repeatedly refusing to divulge information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the issue of data protection and working of this committee.
Over 150 concerned citizens – including former top bureaucrats and civil rights activists – have expressed concern regarding the Srikrishna Committee on data protection. In a letter to Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad, they said the committee of experts, chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Srikrishna, to deliberate on a data protection framework is neither diverse nor transparent.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under Prasad has been repeatedly refusing to divulge information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act on the issue of data protection and working of this committee.
"Requests have been made for information including a version of a data protection bill drafted by the ministry prior to the constitution of this committee and feedback received by the Committee to the white paper shared by it. This information should have all been proactively disclosed by the government as per the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy adopted by the Government of India in Feb 2014," said civil rights activist Aruna Roy.
They also expressed concern at the lack of diversity in the composition of the committee and expressed disappointment that the chairperson did not exercise his right to co-opt other members to make it more balanced. "We fundamentally disagree with the Committee's mandate as being to ensure growth of the digital economy while keeping personal data of citizens secure and protected. We strongly believe that individual rights and public interest (as opposed to "growth of the digital economy") should be at the center of any legislation being considered with respect to data protection, especially after the landmark judgment of the nine judge bench of the Supreme Court upholding the Fundamental Right to Privacy," the letter said.
They said the mandate of the Committee should perhaps have been to "ensure the protection of citizenship rights and public interest, while protecting the personal and privacy rights of the individual, but it has extended its brief."
Their Objection
We strongly believe that individual rights and public interest (as opposed to ‘growth of the digital economy’) should be at the centre of any legislation on data protection, said the letter.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Ravi Shankar Prasad")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}