Top court admits a batch of PILs against MHA order, gives Centre 6 weeks time to respond
The blanket permission by the Centre giving security and probe agencies a legal handle to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system came under judicial scanner on Monday. The Supreme Court admitted a batch of PILs challenging the December 20 order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and sought the Centre's response within six weeks.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Ashok Bhushan and SK Kaul on a PIL filed by advocate ML Sharma and several others who found the notification to be violative of individual's right to privacy.
One of the petitioners, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, demanded stay of the notification on an apprehension that the notification does not specify what kind of information is to be monitored. But the bench kept the issue of staying the notification for the next date.
The MHA notification specifies 10 central agencies for computer interception and surveillance. These are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Signal Intelligence (in service areas of J&K, Northeast and Assam) and Delhi Police Commissioner.
The petition by Sharma alleged that the order is abuse of power by the Centre as it virtually puts any citizen under the thumb of the state giving access to every communication, computer and mobile equipment. Such a decision could also be used to suppress political and independent views expressed by citizens in the country, it added.
The notification has been introduced under Section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act in a utter disregard of the fundamental rights of citizens, the petitioners alleged. Arguments were raised before the apex court by petitioners that the executive itself has designated officers at the level of Secretary or Joint Secretary for granting permissions for surveillance, They said that even while upholding the Aadhaar Act, the Supreme Court held that with regard to national security concerns, linking of Aadhaar cards should require a statutory backing and not an executive fiat.
Arguments Posed By Petitioners
- One of the petitioners demanded stay of the notification on an apprehension that the notification does not specify what kind of information is to be monitored.
- Another petition alleged that the MHA order is abuse of power by the Centre as it virtually puts any citizen under the thumb of the state giving access to every communication.
){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}
){kind=small}
 "snooping")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}