A recent Home Ministry order detailing 10 agencies that can intercept
information on any computer has led to a political back-and-forth about
which government had originally instituted the law. The roots of
India’s present laws for monitoring shared or stored information lie in
the postal and telegraph era. A look at how it has evolved in many
reincarnations over the last 130-odd years:
1885: The Indian Telegraph Act remains one of the major laws regulating government monitoring of information today, along with the Information Technology Act, 2000. The British-era law allowed the Raj to control and restrain telegraph communications during their rule. Section 5 of the Act allows both central and state governments to intercept messages 1) in “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety” and 2) in interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and prevention of incitement to the commission of offence. It also creates a Review Committee to oversee interception orders.
1898: The Indian Post Office Act allows the Centre and state to intercept postal articles in public emergencies or in the interest of public safety or tranquillity.
1933: The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act criminalises unauthorised wireless communications networks for interception.
1962: In Kharak Singh vs UP, the Supreme Court strikes down certain UP Police Regulations that allowed for home visits to “habitual criminals” or those who were likely to become habitual criminals.
1967: The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act allows the information that was intercepted in the Telegraph Act to be used as evidence.
1968: The Law Commission of India’s 38th report recommends curtailing the interception provisions; these provisions remain.
1973: CrPC sections 91 and 92 together lay out how courts, police, and district magistrates can summon any document or “thing” from any person, postal or telegraph authority for investigations, inquiries, and trials.
1996: In the landmark People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, the Supreme Court gives guidelines for interception of telecommunications, specifying who can issue interception orders, on other alternatives, on the duration of the order, and on the specific nature of the order.
2000: The Information Technology Act. It is one of the primary laws regulating interception, monitoring, decryption, and collection of digital communications and information. Its most significant aspects would come about with amendments later.
2007: Rule 419 (A) is added to the Indian Telegraph Rules under the Telegraph Act. It outlines the sanctioning authority, the review process, the duration of the order, and other process rules. A secretary of the Union Home Ministry or a state’s Home Department can issue interception orders. In unavoidable circumstances, central and state joint secretaries and officials of higher rank can also do so if authorised by the Union or State home secretary
2008: In the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, the Information Technology Act is amended to include section 69, one of its most significant ones. Mirroring section 5 of the Telegraph Act, it allows for seven years imprisonment or a fine for any person or intermediary who fails to assist with the interception. While many aspects mirror the Telegraph Act, it is distinct because it eliminates the prerequisite of “public emergency” or “public safety”. This section also adds to the government’s grounds to intercept by adding “condition of prevention of incitement of only cognisable offences, defence of India and the addition of investigation of any offence”.
Section 69B governs the interception of metadata for cybersecurity. This refers not to interception of the content but interception of information about the message, such as time, sender, receiver, location.
2009: The “IT Interception Rules” outlines who can issue orders, how these orders must be executed, the order’s duration and retention rules, disclosure of the data, and similar execution rules. It mirrors, for information technology, similar rules in the Telegraph Act.
2009: The Centre announces the Central Monitoring System (CMS) to centrally automate direct interception.
2013: Telecom licences are amended to mandate direct channels for government interception.
2013: In a battle that had been on since 2008, the Indian government gains access to Blackbery emails.
2013: The Information Ministry’s New Media Wing begins monitoring of online media.
2017: A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court lays down the right to privacy.
1885: The Indian Telegraph Act remains one of the major laws regulating government monitoring of information today, along with the Information Technology Act, 2000. The British-era law allowed the Raj to control and restrain telegraph communications during their rule. Section 5 of the Act allows both central and state governments to intercept messages 1) in “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety” and 2) in interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and prevention of incitement to the commission of offence. It also creates a Review Committee to oversee interception orders.
1898: The Indian Post Office Act allows the Centre and state to intercept postal articles in public emergencies or in the interest of public safety or tranquillity.
1933: The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act criminalises unauthorised wireless communications networks for interception.
1962: In Kharak Singh vs UP, the Supreme Court strikes down certain UP Police Regulations that allowed for home visits to “habitual criminals” or those who were likely to become habitual criminals.
1967: The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act allows the information that was intercepted in the Telegraph Act to be used as evidence.
1968: The Law Commission of India’s 38th report recommends curtailing the interception provisions; these provisions remain.
1973: CrPC sections 91 and 92 together lay out how courts, police, and district magistrates can summon any document or “thing” from any person, postal or telegraph authority for investigations, inquiries, and trials.
1996: In the landmark People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India, the Supreme Court gives guidelines for interception of telecommunications, specifying who can issue interception orders, on other alternatives, on the duration of the order, and on the specific nature of the order.
2000: The Information Technology Act. It is one of the primary laws regulating interception, monitoring, decryption, and collection of digital communications and information. Its most significant aspects would come about with amendments later.
2007: Rule 419 (A) is added to the Indian Telegraph Rules under the Telegraph Act. It outlines the sanctioning authority, the review process, the duration of the order, and other process rules. A secretary of the Union Home Ministry or a state’s Home Department can issue interception orders. In unavoidable circumstances, central and state joint secretaries and officials of higher rank can also do so if authorised by the Union or State home secretary
2008: In the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks, the Information Technology Act is amended to include section 69, one of its most significant ones. Mirroring section 5 of the Telegraph Act, it allows for seven years imprisonment or a fine for any person or intermediary who fails to assist with the interception. While many aspects mirror the Telegraph Act, it is distinct because it eliminates the prerequisite of “public emergency” or “public safety”. This section also adds to the government’s grounds to intercept by adding “condition of prevention of incitement of only cognisable offences, defence of India and the addition of investigation of any offence”.
Section 69B governs the interception of metadata for cybersecurity. This refers not to interception of the content but interception of information about the message, such as time, sender, receiver, location.
2009: The “IT Interception Rules” outlines who can issue orders, how these orders must be executed, the order’s duration and retention rules, disclosure of the data, and similar execution rules. It mirrors, for information technology, similar rules in the Telegraph Act.
2009: The Centre announces the Central Monitoring System (CMS) to centrally automate direct interception.
2013: Telecom licences are amended to mandate direct channels for government interception.
2013: In a battle that had been on since 2008, the Indian government gains access to Blackbery emails.
2013: The Information Ministry’s New Media Wing begins monitoring of online media.
2017: A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court lays down the right to privacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment