Is Information & Broadcasting Ministry interfering in our Privacy?

Executive Apr 19, 2018 Ailya Abbas 0 Shares

Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right which is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is a cherished constitutional value, and it is crucial that human beings be allowed domains of freedom that are free of public scrutiny unless they act in an unlawful manner.

Also Read - SC Gives Judgement in Suo Moto Case for Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 OF N.I. Act 1881 [READ ORDER]

On August 24, 2017, the Supreme Court of India in a historic judgment declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected under the Indian Constitution. In declaring that this right stems from the fundamental right to life and liberty, the Court's decision has far-reaching consequences. A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Puttuswamy v. Union of Indiahad declared that the right to privacy is a fundamental right protected under Part III of the Constitution of India. While primarily focused on the individual's right against the State for violations of their privacy, this landmark judgment will have repercussions across both State and non-State actors and will likely result in the enactment of a comprehensive law on privacy.

A shocking statement has come from the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting in which they have proposed of installing a chip in the new set-top boxes used by digital satellite service providers to know what viewers are watching on TV.

Also Read - Fictional Convenience of One Party Cannot be a Ground to Transfer Cases U/S 25 Of CPC: SC [READ ORDER]

In this regard, the I & B ministry feels that viewership figures for every channel will be more authentic through the method of tracking viewership through the chip, and this will help advertisers as well as Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP) to spend their advertising expenditure wisely, and only those channels which are mostly watched will get promoted.

At a time where the judiciary is extremely concerned about maintaining the individual privacy of the people of India. It is an undesired and unsolicited interference in the personal lives/choices of the citizens by way of peeping through their television viewing. It is nobody's domain to keep a track on ones viewing choices.

A person, who doesn't want to be named raising his concern said that whatever may be the reason given by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, the fact remains that any such interference, scrutiny, research or peeping on the activities amounts to impinging upon the privacy domain of a citizen which is unjustified and arbitrary by all means. Any such move on the part of the government is most likely to be challenged in the court of law, and the Hon'ble court may also be pleased to strike down the impugned order.

SC Gives Judgement in Suo Moto Case for Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 OF N.I. Act 1881 [READ ORDER]

Judiciary Apr 19, 2021 Mathews Savio ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 8 Shares

A five-member bench of the Supreme Court gave its judgement in a Suo Moto case relating to the expeditious trial of cases relating to dishonoured cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The bench which heard the matter included Chief Justice S. A. Bobde along with Justices L. Nageswara Rao, B. R. Gavai, A. S. Bopanna and S. Ravindra Bhat.In 2016 while considering a matter related to the dishonour of two cheques which were pending before the courts for 16...

Read full post

Fictional Convenience of One Party Cannot be a Ground to Transfer Cases U/S 25 Of CPC: SC [READ ORDER]

Judiciary Apr 19, 2021 Mathews Savio ( Editor: Ekta Joshi ) 7 Shares

While deciding a transfer petition concerning a commercial dispute (M/S Fumo Chem Pvt. Ltd. V. M/S Raj Process Equipments And Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.) the Supreme Court observed that mere convenience of one of the parties is not a ground to transfer cases under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The matter was decided by a Single-Judge Bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose through Video Conferencing.The commercial dispute was about the supply of certain items. The...

Read full post