White paper on data protection

Amritananda Chakravorty Mihir Samson

i. However, the State refused to give sanction for prosecuting Adityanath in May this year. This refusal was challenged in the High Court by the petitioners.During the hearing, the Court reiterated its warning against publishing misleading content and after going through various media reports, the Court agreed with the AAG and ordered a media gag on proceedings pertaining to the case. [Parvez Parwaz v State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Miscellaneos Writ Petition No. 21733 of 2008, dated 07.11.2017
ii. CJAR’s plea for SIT probe in Medical College Admission scam dismissed –The Supreme Court has rejected the writ petition filed by the NGO Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) seeking a probe by the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) into the allegations of criminal conspiracy and illegal gratification of sitting Supreme Court judges to procure a favourable judgment in the Lucknow scam. The Court, in fact, imposed a cost of Rs 25 lakh on CJAR to be used as funds for SCBA. [Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India Writ Petition (Criminal) 169 of 2017, dated 01.12.2017)
iii. Correctness of guidelines on Section 498A questioned – The Supreme Court had issued guidelines on checking bogus 498A complaints (Rajesh Sharma v Union of India). As a response, a PIL filed by an NGO Nyayadhar sought the inclusion two women in the Committee, which has prompted the Court to express doubts over the correctness of the judgment. The bench pointed out that since an IPC provision exists, issuing guidelines for its implementation was not necessary. The matter has been listed for hearing in the third week of January. (Social Action Forum v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73/2015, dated 29.11.2017)
iv. Wire’s appeal against trial court order dismissed - The Gujarat High Court refused to entertain the appeal filed by The Wire and its journalists against the ex- parte injunction order passed by an Ahmadabad trial court. The counsel for Wire claimed that the trial court order was passed without issuing notice to the defendants, and that the facts did not warrant any ex parte order. Counsel representing Jay Shah, on the other hand, contended that the appellants were reluctant to appear before the court. The High Court held that that the appellants could have approached the trial court to set aside/modify the injunction passed by it which they did not do. Hence, the appeal was liable to be dismissed. (Rohini Singh v Jay Amitbhai Shah, Appeal from Orders Nos. 329 and 330 of 2017, dated 28.11.2017)
v. BCCI fined for abuse of dominance - The Competition Commission of India imposed a penalty of Rs. 52.24 crore on the BCCI for abusing its dominant position. The CCI found that the BCCI had violated the Competition Act, 2002 by assuring broadcasters of Indian Premier League (IPL) that BCCI shall not organize, sanction, recognize, or support another professional domestic Indian T20 competition that is competitive to IPL, for a sustained period of ten years. The CCI rejected BCCI’s claim that it was not an “enterprise” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. It then found that the BCCI is dominant in the market for organization of private professional cricket leagues/events in India. (In re: Surinder Singh Biyani (informant) and The Board of Control for Cricket in India, Case No. 61/2010, dated 29.11.2017)
vi. Republic TV allowed to air stories on death of Shashi Tharoor’s Wife – The Delhi High Court refused to restrainArnab Goswami and Republic TV from airing the news items or debates relating to the death of Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s wife. The only qualifier was that Republic TV would have to seek Mr. Tharoor’s version of the story before airing it. The stories aired should be sensitive to the fact that a criminal investigation has been going on in the matter and the stories should not in any way affect the outcome of such investigations. (Dr. Shashi Tharoor v Arnab Goswami, CS (OS) 253/2017, dated 01.12.2017)
vii. Tamil Nadu Government ordered to stop all sand mining and quarrying activities within 6 months – The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to stop all sand mining and quarrying activities within 6 months and prohibited it from opening any new quarries in the future. The Court issued the order in the light of the fact that illegal mining in the state was rampant to the extent that the excess quantity of the sand and minerals mined cannot even be accessed and the declining state of the environment. The Government has also been ordered to set up check points to prevent illegal transport of sand. (MRM Ramaiya Enterprises Private Limited v District Collector, Thoothukudi, WMP(MD) 20020 of 2017, dated 29.11.2017) (IPA/Concluded)

Monday, 11 December, 2017