What's New

Telecoms bill makes 2024 look like 1984

Relevance:

GS 2 – Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation.

Why in the News?

• Numerous bills were hastily passed during the recent winter session of parliament.
• These legislative actions occurred following the suspension of 146 opposition MPs.
• Several crucial issues meriting thorough deliberation were overshadowed.
  • These included post office reform, telecommunications, revisions to colonial-era criminal laws, and the appointment of election commissioners.
• A democratic government would typically prioritize open and meaningful debates on important matters. The current government, however, demonstrated a disregard for parliamentary institutions and conventions.
• The government’s failure to address the opposition’s reasonable request for a statement by the home minister on the Lok Sabha security breach reflected a lack of commitment to open dialogue.
• The tweet by the telecoms minister about “Bharat moving on” prompts a reflection on the direction of progress.
  • The question arises as to whether the movement is towards a futuristic and inclusive society of 2024 or a dystopian scenario reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984.
• Telecommunications Bill of 2023
  • It is intended to replace colonial laws that granted excessive state control over communications during the Raj. Despite the changes, the new law is considered a draconian revival of a colonial-era framework.
  • It has been updated for the 21st century, incorporating Hindi terms to convey a semblance of post-coloniality.

Highlights of the Telecoms Bill:

• The Bill aims to replace the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933.
• Authorization from the central government will be necessary to establish and operate telecommunications networks, provide telecommunications services, or possess radio equipment.
• Spectrum allocation will primarily occur through auctions, with specified entities and purposes assigned administratively.
• Telecommunication may be intercepted based on specific grounds, including concerns related to the security of the state, public order, or prevention of offenses.
• Telecom services can be suspended under similar grounds.
• Right of Way Mechanism: The Bill introduces a mechanism to exercise the right of way for laying telecom infrastructure in both public and private properties.
• User Protection Measures: The central government has the authority to implement measures safeguarding users.
  • Such measures may include requiring prior consent to receive specified messages and the establishment of a do-not-disturb register.

Concerns related to the Bill

• Mandatory Biometric Verification in the Bill:
  • The bill includes a provision mandating biometric verification for every social media user by the telecommunication services provider.
  • This requirement establishes an identity-linked internet telecommunication service, eliminating online anonymity.
  • Online platforms that have traditionally allowed users to maintain a level of privacy may be significantly impacted.
• Kafkaesque Search-and-Seizure Proviso
  • The bill introduces a search-and-seizure provision that is described as Kafkaesque in nature.
  • According to this provision, any government officer is granted the authority to search premises or vehicles if they have reason to believe that unauthorized telecommunication equipment, including personal phones, or networks used to commit an offense, are present.
  • The absence of clear guidelines raises concerns about the arbitrary exercise of this power.
• Ambiguity in Legal Grounds
  • The Data Protection Bill reflects the government’s tendency to exploit ambiguous legal grounds to encroach upon citizens’ freedoms.
  • Similarly, the Telecoms Bill allows for interception, monitoring, or blocking of messages on vague grounds such as the security of the state, friendly relations with other countries, public order, or prevention of incitement of offenses.
• Lack of Definition for “National Security”
  • The absence of a clear definition raises concerns about the potential expansiveness of the term and its implications for citizens’ rights.
• Suspension of Telecoms and Internet Services
  • The Telecoms Bill extends the authority to suspend telecoms and internet services based on grounds similar to message interception.
  • This provision further underscores the need for precise definitions and limitations to prevent misuse of such powers.
• Vagueness in the Definition of “Message”
  • The Telecoms Bill deliberately maintains vagueness in defining a “message,” encompassing signs, signals, writing, text, image, sound, video, data stream, intelligence, or information sent through telecommunication.
  • This broad definition raises concerns about its potential implications for various communication platforms, including Over-The-Top (OTT) services like WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.
  • The users of these platforms may question the security and confidentiality of their communications if subjected to broader regulatory oversight.
• Shift in Power Dynamics The law signifies a shift in power dynamics, with an emphasis on empowering the government rather than safeguarding citizens’ rights.
  • Instead of ensuring complete freedom for citizens, it grants the government extensive authority for surveillance and internet suspensions.
• Erosion of Right to Information
  • There is a parallel concern regarding the erosion of citizens’ Right to Information.
  • The government’s actions, particularly in the context of this law, raise questions about its commitment to transparency and open governance.
• Government’s Right to Snoop
  • A striking feature of the law is its provision for the government’s right to conduct surveillance on citizens’ information.
  • This move is perceived as an attempt to arrogate to the government a Right to Snoop on citizens’ private data.
• Implications for Citizens’ Privacy
  • The implications of the Telecommunications Bill extend to citizens’ privacy and the potential infringement on their personal information.
  • The balance between national security and individual privacy rights becomes a crucial point of contention under this legislation.
• Lack of Safeguards in Government-Driven Spectrum Allocation
  • The law does not appear to address potential issues like illegal allocations, favoritism, or scams that may arise in cases of administrative spectrum assignments.

Supreme Court’s Position

• Historical Context (1996)
  • In 1996, the Supreme Court highlighted concerns regarding the State’s powers to intercept communication.
  • It recognized the potential violation of fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of speech, and expression in the absence of established safeguards.
• In 2020, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of internet shutdowns.
  • The court emphasized that any restrictions on fundamental rights, including freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of trade and business, must adhere to the principle of proportionality.
• Safeguards Recommended by the Court
  • The court proposed various safeguards for intercepting communication, including the establishment of necessity, limited purposes for using intercepted material, time limits, sunset clauses for interception orders, and issuance of orders only by high-ranked officials like the home secretary.
  • Additionally, the court suggested mandatory reviews by an internal oversight committee to ensure accountability. 

Safeguards to the concerns in the bill

• Need to under the Sensitivity of Biometric Information:
  • It is categorised as sensitive personal data. The collection and use of such information are protected by the fundamental right to privacy.
    • Citizens have the right to safeguard sensitive personal data, and any infringement on this right requires careful scrutiny.
  • The bill should provide justification for resorting to biometrics, especially when less intrusive methods are available.
    • The fundamental question arises: why opt for biometrics when less intrusive means exist for identity verification?
    • Existing methods for establishing identity, such as through SIM cards, PAN cards, and voter IDs, may be considered less invasive alternatives.
  • The potential risks to privacy and the necessity for such an approach should be thoroughly evaluated and communicated to the public.
• Need for checks and Balances
  • The bill should ideally include checks and balances to prevent unwarranted or disproportionate invasions of privacy during search-and-seizure operations.
• Need for Clarity and Oversight
  • There is a critical need for the bill to outline clear procedures and safeguards for the search-and-seizure provision.
  • The government’s power to summon information should also be subject to well-defined limitations and oversight mechanisms to prevent arbitrary use and protect citizens’ rights.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights
  • The inclusion of procedures and safeguards in the bill itself would have been instrumental in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens.
  • The omission of these critical details in the initial legislation raises concerns about the government’s commitment to transparency and citizens’ rights.
• Need for Transparency
  • Citizens have the right to know and understand the criteria and processes that impact their privacy and freedom, and these details should be explicitly outlined in the legislation itself.
• Need for Clear Regulatory Guidelines
  • The absence of clear guidelines regarding the regulatory scope for OTT messaging platforms creates ambiguity.
  • It is crucial for the government to provide explicit and transparent regulatory frameworks to address concerns related to user privacy and data security.
• Need for Accountability Measures
  • It is essential to have checks and balances to prevent any potential misuse of powers in spectrum allocations, ensuring fairness, and maintaining public trust.

Source: https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2024/jan/12/telecoms-bill-makes-2024-look-like-1984-2650132.html

Mains question

Does Telecommunications Bill 2023 balance digital inclusion and innovation with national interest? Analyze. (250 words)