Centre for Internet and Society

White Paper on RTI and Privacy V1.2

vipul — 2014-11-09T02:53:51Z

This white paper explores the relationship between privacy and transparency in the context of the right to information in India. Analysing pertinent case law and legislation - the paper highlights how the courts and the law in India address questions of transparency vs. privacy.

Introduction

Although the right to information is not specifically spelt out in the Constitution of India, 1950, it has been read into Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) through cases such as Bennet Coleman v. Union of India,[1] Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd.,[2] etc. The same Articles of the Constitution were also interpreted in Kharak Singh v.State of U.P.,[3] Govind v. State of M.P., [4] and a number of other cases, to include within their scope a right to privacy. At the very outset it appears that a right to receive information -though achieving greater transparency in public life - could impinge on the right to privacy of certain people. The presumed tension between the right to privacy and the right to information has been widely recognized and a framework towards balancing the two rights, has been widely discussed across jurisdictions. In India, nowhere is this conflict and the attempt to balance it more evident than under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the "RTI Act").

Supporting the constitutional right to information enjoyed by the citizens, is the statutorily recognized right to information granted under the RTI Act. Any potential infringement of the right to privacy by the provisions of the RTI Act are sought to be balanced by section 8 which provides that no information should be disclosed if it creates an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual. This exception states that there is no obligation to disclose information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. [5] The Act further goes on to say that where any information relating to or supplied by a third party and treated by that party as confidential, is to be disclosed, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer has to give written notice to that party within five days of receiving such a request inviting such third party (within ten days) to make its case as to whether such information should or should not be disclosed.[6]

A plain reading of section 11 suggests that for the section to apply the following three conditions have to be satisfied, i.e. (i) if the PIO is considering disclosing the information (ii) the information relates to the third party or was given to a Public Authority by the third party in confidence; and (iii) the third party treated the information to be a confidential. It has been held that in order to satisfy the third part of the test stated above, the third party has to be consulted and therefore a notice has to be sent to the third party. Even if the third party claims confidentiality, the proviso to the section provides that the information cannot be withheld if the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the possible harm or injury that may be caused to the third party, except in cases of trade or commercial secrets.[7] The Courts have also held that section 11 should be read keeping in mind the exceptions contained in section 8 (discussed in detail later) and the exceptions contained therein. [8]

This principle of non disclosure of private information can be found across a number of common law jurisdictions. The United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act, 2000 exempts the disclosure of information where it would violate the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act, 1998 or constitute an actionable breach of confidence.[9] The Australian Freedom of Information Act, 1982 categorizes documents involving unreasonable disclosure of personal information as conditionally exempt i.e. allows for their disclosure unless such disclosure would be contrary to public interest.[10] The Canadian Access to Information Act also has a provision which allows the authorities to refuse to disclose personal information except in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Privacy Act. [11]

An overview of the RTI Act, especially sections 6 to 8 seems to give the impression that the legislature has tried to balance and harmonize conflicting public and private rights and interests by building sufficient safeguards and exceptions to the general principles of disclosure under the Act. [12] This is why it is generally suggested that section 8, when applied, should be given a strict interpretation as it is a fetter on not only a statutory right granted under the RTI Act but also a pre-existing constitutional right. [13] Logical as this argument may seem and appropriate in some circumstances, it does present a problem when dealing with the privacy exception contained in section 8(1)(j). That is because the right to privacy envisaged in this section is also a pre-existing constitutional right which has been traced to the same provisions of the Constitution from which the constitutional right of freedom of information emanates.[14] Therefore there is an ambiguity regarding the treatment and priority given to the privacy exception vs. the disclosure mandate in the RTI Act, as it requires the balancing of not only two competing statutory rights but also two constitutional rights.

The Privacy Exception

As discussed earlier, the purpose of the RTI Act is to increase transparency and ensure that people have access to as much public information as possible. Such a right is critical in a democratic country as it allows for accountability of the State and allows individuals to seek out information and make informed decisions. However, it seems from the language of the RTI Act that at the time of its drafting the legislature did realize that there would be a conflict between the endeavor to provide information and the right to privacy of individuals over the information kept with public authorities, which is why a privacy exception was carved into section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The Act does not only protect the privacy of the third party who's information is at risk of being disclosed, but also the privacy of the applicant. In fact it has now been held that a private respondent need not give his/her ID or address as long as the information provided by him/her is sufficient to contact him/her.[15]

It is interesting to note that although the RTI Act gives every citizen a right to information, it does not limit this right with a stipulation as to how the information shall be used by the applicant or the reason for which the applicant wants such information. [16] This lack of a purpose limitation in the Act may have privacy implications as non sensitive personal information could be sought from different sources and processed by any person so as to convert such non-sensitive or anonymous information into identifiable information which could directly impact the privacy of individuals.

The exception in S. 8(1)(j) prohibits the disclosure of personal information for two reasons (i) its disclosure does not relate to any public activity or interest or (ii) it would be an unwarranted invasion into privacy. The above two conditions however get trumped if a larger public interest is satisfied by the disclosure of such information.

One interesting thing about the exception contained in section 8(1)(j) is that this exception itself has an exception to it in the form of a proviso. The proviso says that any information which cannot be denied to the central or state legislature shall not be denied to any person. Since the proviso has been placed at the end of sub-section 8(1) which is also the end of clause 8(1)(j), one might be tempted to ask whether this proviso applies only to the privacy exception i.e. clause 8(1)(j) or to the entire sub-section 8(1) (which includes other exceptions such as national interest, etc.). This issue was put to rest by the Bombay High Court when it held that since the proviso has been put only after clause 8(1)(j) and not before each and every clause, it would not apply to the entire sub-section 8(1) but only to clause 8(1)(j), thus ensuring that the exceptions to disclosure other than the right to privacy are not restricted by this proviso.[17]

Scope of Proviso to section 8(1)(j)
Though the courts have agreed that the proviso is applicable only to section 8(1)(j), the import of the proviso to section 8(1)(j) is a little more ambiguous and there are conflicting decisions by different High Courts on this point. Whereas the Bombay High Court has laid emphasis on the letter of the proviso and derived strength from the objects and overall scheme of the Act to water down the provisions of section 8(1)(j), [18] the Delhi High Court has disagreed with such an approach which gives "undue, even overwhelming deference" to Parliamentary privilege in seeking information. Such an approach would render the protection under section 8(1)j) meaningless, and the basic safeguard bereft of content.[19] In the words of the Delhi High Court:

" The proviso has to be only as confined to what it enacts, to the class of information that Parliament can ordinarily seek; if it were held that all information relating to all public servants, even private information, can be accessed by Parliament, Section 8(1)(j) would be devoid of any substance, because the provision makes no distinction between public and private information. Moreover there is no law which enables Parliament to demand all such information; it has to be necessarily in the context of some matter, or investigation. If the reasoning of the Bombay High Court were to be accepted, there would be nothing left of the right to privacy, elevated to the status of a fundamental right, by several judgments of the Supreme Court. "

The interpretation given by the Delhi High Court thus ensures that section 8(1)(j) still has some effect, as otherwise the privacy exception would have gotten steamrolled by parliamentary privilege and all sorts of information such as Income Tax Returns, etc. of both private and public individuals would have been liable to disclosure under the RTI Act.

Unfortunately, the RTI Act does not describe the terms "personal information" or "larger public interest" used in section 8(1)(j), which leaves some amount of ambiguity in interpreting the privacy exception to the RTI Act. Therefore the only option for anyone to understand these terms in greater depth is to discuss and analyse the case laws developed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts which have tried to throw some light on this issue.

We shall discuss some of these landmark judgments to understand the interpretations given to these terms and then move on to specific instances where (applying these principles) information has been disclosed or denied.

Personal Information
The RTI Act defines the term information but does not define the term "personal information". Therefore one has to rely on judicial pronouncements to understand the term a more clearly. Looking at the common understanding and dictionary meaning of "personal" as well as the definition of "information" contained in the RTI Act it could be said that personal information would be information, information that pertains to a person and as such it takes into its fold possibly every kind of information relating to the person. Now, such personal information of the person may, or may not, have relation to any public activity, or to public interest. At the same time, such personal information may, or may not, be private to the person. [20]

The Delhi High Court has tried to draw a distinction between the term "private information" which encompasses the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, child rearing and of the like nature and "personal information" which would be any information that pertains to an individual. This would logically imply that all private information would be part of personal information but not the other way round. [21] The term 'personal information' has in other cases, been variously described as "identity particulars of public servants, i.e. details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers",[22] and as including tax returns, medical records etc.[23] It is worth noting that just because the term used is "personal information" does not mean that the information always has to relate to an actual person, but may even be a juristic entity such as a trust or corporation, etc.[24]

Larger Public Interest
The term larger public interest has not been discussed or defined in the RTI Act, however the Courts have developed some tests to determine if in a given situation, personal information should be disclosed in the larger public interest.

Whenever a Public Information Officer is asked for personal information about any person, it has to balance the competing claims of the privacy of the third party on the one hand and claim of public interest on the other and determine whether the public interest in such a disclosure satisfies violating a person's privacy. The expression "public interest" is not capable of a precise definition and does not have a rigid meaning. It is therefore an elastic term and takes its colors from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and the state of the society and its needs. This seems to be the reason why the legislature and even the Courts have shied away from a precise definition of "public interest". However, the term public interest does not mean something that is merely interesting or satisfies the curiosity or love of information or amusement; but something in which a class of the community have some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected.[25]

There have been suggestions that the use of the word "larger" before the term "public interest" denotes that the public interest involved should serve a large section of the society and not just a small section of it, i.e. if the information has a bearing on the economy, the moral values in the society; the environment; national safety, or the like, the same would qualify as "larger public interest".[26] However this is not a very well supported theory and the usage of the term "larger public interest" cannot be given such a narrow meaning, for example what if the disclosure of the information could save the lives of only 10 people or even just 5 children? Would the information not be released just because it violates one person's right to privacy and there is not a significant number of lives at stake? This does not seem to be what all the cases on the right to privacy, right from Kharak Singh[27] all the way to Naz Foundation, [28] seem to suggest. Infact, in the very same judgment where the above interpretation has been suggested, the Court undermines this argument by giving the example of a person with a previous crime of sexual assault being employed in an orphanage and says that the interest of the small group of children in the orphanage would outweigh the privacy concerns of the individual thus requiring disclosure of all information regarding the employee's past.

In light of the above understanding of section 8(1)(j), there seem to be two different tests that have been proposed by the Courts, which seem to connote the same principle although in different words:

1. The test laid down by Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain:

(i) The information sought must relate to „Personal information‟ as understood above of a third party. Therefore, if the information sought does not qualify as personal information, the exemption would not apply;

(ii) Such personal information should relate to a third person, i.e., a person other than the information seeker or the public authority; AND

(iii) (a) The information sought should not have a relation to any public activity qua such third person, or to public interest. If the information sought relates to public activity of the third party, i.e. to his activities falling within the public domain, the exemption would not apply. Similarly, if the disclosure of the personal information is found justified in public interest, the exemption would be lifted, otherwise not; OR (b) The disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and that there is no larger public interest involved in such disclosure. [29]

2. The other test was laid down in Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, but in the specific circumstances of disclosure of personal information relating to a public official:

(i) whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual's private details, unrelated to his position in the organization;

(ii) whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public servant in any specific case; and

(iii) whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability or transparency in the use of public resources. [30]

Constitutional Restrictions
Since there is not extensive academic discussion on the meaning of the term "larger public interest" or "public interest" as provided in section 8(1)(j), one is forced to turn to other sources to get a better idea of these terms. One such source is constitutional law, since the right to privacy, as contained in section 8(1)(j) has its origins in Articles 14,[31] 19(1)(a) [32] and 21[33] of the Constitution of India. The constitutional right to privacy in India is also not an absolute right and various cases have carved out a number of exceptions to privacy, a perusal of which may give some indication as to what may be considered as 'larger public interest', these restrictions are:

a) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to privacy in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; ^{^[34]}

b) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon the right to privacy either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe;^{^[35]}

c) The right to privacy can be restricted by procedure established by law which procedure would have to satisfy the test laid down in the Maneka Gandhi case.^{^[36]}

d) The right can be restricted if there is an important countervailing interest which is superior; ^{^[37]}

e) It can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served by doing so; ^{^[38]}

f) It can be restricted in case there is a compelling public interest to be served by doing so; ^{^[39]}

g) The Rajagopal tests - This case lays down three exceptions to the rule that a person's private information cannot be published, viz. i) person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily raises or invites a controversy, ii) if publication is based on public records other than for sexual assault, kidnap and abduction, iii) there is no right to privacy for public officials with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. It must be noted that although the Court talks about public records, it does not use the term 'public domain' and thus it is possible that even if a document has been leaked in the public domain and is freely available, if it is not a matter of public record, the right to privacy can still be claimed in regard to it.^{^[40]}

Section 8(1)(j) in Practice

The discussion in the previous chapter regarding the interpretation of section 8(1)(j), though (hopefully) helpful still seems a little abstract without specific instances and illustrations to drive home the point. In this chapter we shall endeavor to briefly discuss some specific cases regarding information disclosure where the issue of violation of privacy of a third party was raised.

Private Information of Public Officials
Some of the most common problems regarding section 8(1)(j) come up when discussing information (personal or otherwise) regarding public officers. The issue comes up because an argument can be made that certain information such as income tax details, financial details, medical records, etc. of public officials should be disclosed since it has a bearing on their public activities and disclosure of such information in case of crooked officers would serve the interests of transparency and cleaner government (hence serving a larger public interest). Although section 8(1)(j) does not make any distinction between a private person and a public servant, a distinction in the way their personal information is treated does appear in reality due to the inherent nature of a public servant. Infact it has sometimes been argued that public servants must waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency.[41] However this argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Courts, [42] just because a person assumes public office does not mean that he/she would automatically lose their right to privacy in favour of transparency.

If personal information regarding a public servant is asked for, then a distinction must be made between the information that is inherently personal to the person and that which has a connection with his/her public functions. The information exempted under section 8(1)(j) is personal information which is so intimately private in nature that the disclosure of the same would not benefit any other person, but would result in the invasion of the privacy of the third party.[43] In short, the Courts have concluded that there can be no blanket rule regarding what information can and cannot be disclosed when it comes to a public servant, and the disclosure (or lack of it) would depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Although the earlier thinking of the CIC as well as various High Courts of the country was that information regarding disciplinary proceedings and service records of public officials is to be treated as public information in order to boost transparency,[44] however this line of thinking took almost a U-turn in 2012 after the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner,[45] and now the prevailing principle is that such information is personal information and should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest is would be served by the disclosure.

It would also be helpful to look at a list of the type of information regarding public servants which has been disclosed in the past, gleaned from various cases, to get a better understanding of the prevailing trends in such cases:

(i) Details of postings of public servants at various points of time, since this was not considered as personal information; [46]

(ii) Copies of posting/ transfer orders of public servants, since it was not considered personal information; [47]

(iii) Information regarding transfers of colleagues cannot be exempted from disclosure, since disclosure would not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy and non disclosure would defeat the object of the RTI Act;[48]

(iv) Information regarding the criteria adopted and the marks allotted to various academic qualifications, experience and interview in selection process for government posts by the state Public Service Commission;[49]

(v) Information regarding marks obtained in written test, interview, annual confidential reports of the applicant as well as the marks in the written test and interview of the last candidate selected, since this information was not considered as personal information; [50]

(vi) Information relating to the appointment and educational certificates of teachers in an educational institution (which satisfies the requirements of being a public authority) was disclosed since this was considered as relevant to them performing their functions. [51]

The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. To understand this better below is a brief list of the type of information that has been considered by the Courts as personal information which is liable to be exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j):

(i) (a) Salary details, (b) show cause notice, memo and censure, (c) return of assets and liabilities, (d) details of investment and other related details, (e) details of gifts accepted, (f) complete enquiry proceedings, (g) details of income tax returns;[52]

(ii) All memos issued, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are personal information. Cannot be revealed unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure;[53]

(iii) Disciplinary information of an employee is personal information and is exempt under section 8(1)(j); [54]

(iv) Medical records cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j) as they come under "personal information", unless a larger public interest can be shown meriting such disclosure;[55]

(v) Copy of personnel records and service book (containing Annual Confidential Reports, etc.) of a public servant is personal information and cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j);[56]

(vi) Information regarding sexual disorder, DNA test between an officer and his surrogate mother, name of his biological father and step father, name of his mother and surrogate step mother and such other aspects were denied by the Courts as such information was considered beyond the perception of decency and was an invasion into another man's privacy.[57]

It is not just the issue of disclosure of personal details of public officials that raises complicated questions regarding the right to information, but the opposite is equally true, i.e. what about seemingly "public" details of private individuals. A very complicated question arose with regard to information relating to the passport details of private individuals.

Passport Information of Private Individuals
The disclosure of passport details of private individuals is complicated because for a long time there was some confusion because of the treatment to be given to passport details, i.e. would its disclosure cause an invasion of privacy since it contains personally identifying information, specially because photocopies of the passport are regularly given for various purposes such as travelling, getting a new phone connection, etc. The Central Information Commission used a somewhat convoluted logic that since a person providing information relating to his residence and identity while applying for a passport was engaging in a public activity therefore such information relates to a public activity and should be disclosed. This view was rejected by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hardev Singh,[58] and the view taken inHardev Singh was later endorsed and relied upon in Union of India v. Rajesh Bhatia, [59] while hearing a number of petitions to decide what details of a third party's passport should be disclosed and what should be exempt from disclosure.

A list of the Courts conclusions is given below:

Information that can be revealed:

(i) Name of passport holder;

(ii) Whether a visa was issued to a third party or not;

(iii) Details of the passport including dates of first issue, subsequent renewals, dates of application for renewals, numbers of the new passports and date of expiry;

(iv) Nature of documents submitted as proof;

(v) Name of police station from where verification for passport was done;

(vi) Whether any report was called for from the jurisdictional police;

(vii) Whether passport was renewed through an agent or through a foreign embassy;

(viii) Whether it was renewed in India or any foreign country;

(ix) Whether tatkal facility was availed by the passport holder;

Information that cannot be revealed:

(i) Contents of the documents submitted with the passport application;

(ii) Marital status and name and address of husband;

(iii) Whether person's name figures as mother/guardian in the passport of any minor;

(iv) Copy of passport application form;

(v) Residential address of passport holder;

(vi) Details of cases filed/pending against passport holder;

(vii) Copy of old passport;

(viii) Report of the police and CID for issuing the passport;

(ix) Copy of the Verification Certificate, if any such Verification Certificate was relied upon for the issue of the passport.

Other Instances

Apart from the above two broad categories of information that has been the subject of intense judicial discussion, certain other situations have also arisen where the Courts have had to decide the issue of disclosure under section 8(1)(j), a brief summary of such situations is given below:

(i) names and details of people who received money as donations from the President out of public funds was considered as information which has a definite link to public activities and was therefore liable to be disclosed;[60]

(ii) information regarding the religion practiced by a person, who is alleged to be a public figure, collected by the Census authorities was not disclosed since it was held that the quest to obtain the information about the religion professed or not professed by a citizen cannot be in any event; [61]

(iii) information regarding all FIRs against a person was not protected under section 8(1)(j) since it was already a matter of public record and Court record and could not be said to be an invasion of the person's privacy;[62]

(iv) information regarding the income tax returns of a public charitable trust was held not to be exempt under section 8(1)(j), since the trust involved was a public charitable trust functioning under a Scheme formulated by the District Court and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as such due to its character and activities its tax returns would be in relation to public interest or activities.[63]

Conclusion

A discussion of the provisions of section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act as well as the case laws under it reveals that the legislature was aware of the dangers posed to the privacy of individuals from such a powerful transparency law. However, it did not want the exceptions carved out to protect the privacy of individuals to nullify the objects of the RTI Act and therefore drafted the legislation to incorporate the principle that although the RTI Act should not be used to violate the privacy of individuals, such an exception will not be applicable if a larger public interest is to be served by the disclosure. This principle is in line with other common law jurisdictions such as the U.K, Austalia, Canada, etc. which have similar exceptions based on privacy or confidentiality.

However it is disappointing to note that the legislature has only left the legislation at the stage of the principle which has left the language of the exception very wide and open to varied interpretations. It is understandable that the legislature would try to keep specifics out of the scope of the section to make it future proof. It is obvious that it would be impossible for the legislature or the courts to imagine every single circumstance that could arise where the right to information and the right to privacy would be at loggerheads. However, such wide and ambiguous drafting has led to cases where the Courts and the Central Information Commission have taken opposing views, with the views of the Court obviously prevailing in the end. This was illustrated by the issue of disclosure of passport details of private individuals with a large number of CIC cases taking different views till the High Court of Delhi gave categorical findings on the issue in the Hardev Singh and Rajesh Bhatia cases. Similar was the issue of service details of public officials since before the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande in 2012 the prevailing thinking of the CIC was that details of disciplinary proceedings against public officials are not covered by section 8(1)(j), however this thinking has now taken a U-turn as the Supreme Court's understanding of the right to privacy has taken stronger roots and such information is now outside the scope of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest in the disclosure can be shown.

The ambiguity that arises in application when trying to balance the right to privacy against the right to information is a drawback in incorporating only a principle and leaving the language ambiguous in any legislation. This paper does not advocate that the legislature try to list out all the instances of this problem that are possibly imaginable, this would be too time consuming and may even be counterproductive. However, it is possible for the legislature to adopt an accepted practice of legislative drafting and list certain instances where there is an obvious balancing required between the two rights and put them as "Illustrations" to the section. This device has been utilised to great effect by some of the most fundamental legislations in India such as the Contract Act, 1872 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. An alternative to this approach could be to utilize the approach taken in the Australian Freedom of Information Act, where the Act itself gives certain factors which should be considered to determine whether access to a particular document would be in the public interest or not.

List of References

Primary Sources

1. Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.

2. Bennet Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.

3. Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).

4. Calcutta High Court, WP (W) No. 33290 of 2013, dated 20-11-2013.

5. Canadian Access to Information Act.

6. Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667

7. Constitution of India, 1950.

8. Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

9. Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.

10. Jamia Millia Islamia v. Sh. Ikramuddin, Delhi High Court, WP(C) 5677 of 2011 dated 22-11-2011.

11. Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (66) AIC 685 (All).

12. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 129.

13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, WP No. 231 of 1977, dated 25-01-1978.

14. Naz Foundation Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.7455/2001 dated 02-07-2009.

15. P.C. Wadhwa v. Central Information Commission, Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA No. 1252 of 2009 dated 29-11-2010.

16. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82.

17. President's Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3382 of 2012, dated 14-06-2012.

18. Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP).

19. R. Rajagopal v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, dated 7-10-1994.

20. Rajendra Vasantlal Shah v. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2011 Guj 70.

21. Rajinder Jaina v. Central Information Commission, 2010 (86) AIC 510 (Del. H.C.).

22. Right to Information Act, 2005

23. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

24. Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.

25. Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 2009 Alld. 106.

26. Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom).

27. Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139.

28. U.K. Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

29. UCO Bank v. Central Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (79) AIC 545 (P&H).

30. Union Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, AIR 2010 Ker. 151

31. Union of India v. Hardev Singh WP(C) 3444 of 2012 dated 23-08-2013.

32. Union of India v. Rajesh Bhatia WP(C) 2232/2012 dated 17-09-2013.

33. Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

34. Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

Secondary Sources

1. "Country Report for U.K.", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/united-kingdom.

2. "Country Report for Australia", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/australia.

3. "Country Report for Canada", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/canada.

[1] AIR 1973 SC 106. This case held that the freedom of the press embodies in itself the right of the people to read.

[2] (1995) 5 SCC 139.

[3] AIR 1963 SC 129.

[4] Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[5] Section 8(1) in its entirety states as follows:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

[6] Section 11 of the RTI Act.

[7] The Registrar General v. A. Kanagaraj, (Madras High Court, 14 June 2013, available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/36226888/.

[8] Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, (Delhi High Court, 30 September 2011, available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1923225/.

[9] Sections 40 and 41 of the U.K. Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

[10] Section 11A read with section 47-F of the Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.

[11] Section 19 of the Canadian Access to Information Act.

[12] Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP).

[13] Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).

[14] Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[15] Calcutta High Court, WP(W) No. 33290 of 2013, dated 20-11-2013.

[16] Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (66) AIC 685 (All).

[17] Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom).

[18] Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom), para 14. Where the Court held that since the medical records of a convict cannot be denied to Parliament or State legislature therefore they cannot be exempted from disclosure under the Act.

[19] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[20] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[21] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[22] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[23] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

[24] Jamia Millia Islamia v. Sh. Ikramuddin , Delhi High Court, WP(C) 5677 of 2011 dated 22-11-2011.

[25] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[26] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[27] AIR 1963 SC 129.

[28] Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.7455/2001 dated 02-07-2009.

[29] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 (for stay), dated 13-07-2012. This ruling was overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court relying upon a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, however, it could be argued that the Division Bench did not per se disagree with the discussion and the principles laid down in this case, but only the way they were applied.

[30] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[31] Right to equality.

[32] Freedom of speech and expression.

[33] Right to life.

[34] Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[35] Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[36] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, WP No. 231 of 1977, dated 25-01-1978. The test laid down in this case is universally considered to be that the procedure established by law which restricts the fundamental right should be just, fair and reasonable.

[37] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[38] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[39] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975. However the Court later used phrases such as "reasonable restriction in public interest" and "reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State" interchangeably which seems to suggest that the terms "compelling public interest" and "compelling state interest" used by the Court are being used synonymously and the Court does not draw any distinction between them. It is also important to note that the wider phrase "countervailing interest is shown to be superior" seems to suggest that it is possible, atleast in theory, to have other interests apart from public interest or state interest also which could trump the right to privacy.

[40] R. Rajagopal v. Union of India , Supreme Court of India, dated 7-10-1994. These tests have been listed as one group since they are all applicable in the specific context of publication of private information.

[41] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[42] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010. Also see Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[43] Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667. This case also held that information cannot be denied on the ground that it would be too voluminous.

[44] Union Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, AIR 2010 Ker. 151; Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 (for stay), dated 13-07-2012

[45] 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[46] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[47] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[48] Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667.

[49] Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.

[50] UCO Bank v. Central Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (79) AIC 545 (P&H).

[51] Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 2009 Alld. 106.

[52] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[53] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[54] R.K. Jain v. Union Public Service Commission, Delhi High Court, LPA No. 618 of 2012, dated 12-11-2012.

[55] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

[56] Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.

[57] Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82. It must be mentioned that this case was not exactly under the procedure prescribed under the RTI Act but was a public interest litigation although the courts relied upon the provisions of the RTI Act.

[58] WP(C) 3444 of 2012 dated 23-08-2013.

[59] WP(C) 2232/2012 dated 17-09-2013.

[60] President's Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3382 of 2012, dated 14-06-2012.

[61] P.C. Wadhwa v. Central Information Commission, Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA No. 1252 of 2009 dated 29-11-2010.

[62] Rajinder Jaina v. Central Information Commission, 2010 (86) AIC 510 (Del. H.C.).

[63] Rajendra Vasantlal Shah v. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2011 Guj 70.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/white-paper-on-rti-and-privacy-v-1.2

Regulating Bitcoin in India

vipul — 2017-04-20T13:17:37Z

The article discusses the possible contours of future bitcoin regulation in India. Bitcoin, often considered a ‘notorious’ virtual currency limited only to techies or speculators, is currently fighting a battle to become a bona fide mainstream means of exchange.

While most currencies in the real world have the backing of a central authority of some kind (such as a sovereign or a Central Bank) infusing them with an air of legitimacy, Bitcoin has no such central authority which issues or controls it. Additionally, the distributed and decentralised nature of the Bitcoin network makes regulation a tricky issue. This article seeks to touch upon the issue of Bitcoin regulation and makes certain broad suggestions for the future. It is a follow-up to a previous article by this author discussing the legal treatment of Bitcoin under Indian law, available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/bitcoin-legal-regulation-india.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has not exactly been shy in recognising and even regulating technological advances in the financial sector as is evident from their detailed guidelines on Internet Banking,[1] Prepaid Payment Instruments[2] Account Aggregator Regulations,[3] and the consultation paper on proposed regulations for P2P lending platforms,[4] etc. However, though the RBI has acknowledged the existence of Bitcoin (it issued a note cautioning the public against dealing in virtual currencies including Bitcoin way back in 2013[5] and again in 2017[6]), there have been no clear guidelines regarding the same. Nevertheless, Bitcoin has come a long way since its inception and a consensus is emerging amongst the more technically inclined individuals that Bitcoin is infact here to stay.

Even if a sceptical view is taken that Bitcoin may not last for a long time, that does not mean that regulation is useless as there is already a large amount of money invested in Bitcoin entities in India and Bitcoin exchanges seem to be betting big on this sector really taking off - especially in the backdrop of the government’s recent push towards a more digital and less cash dependent economy.

While the Indian government is trying to hard sell the idea of digital payments, primarily using existing banking channels as well as the relatively new National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and the various applications that are cropping up around the NPCI’s UPI platform, one must note that going digital could involve high administrative costs. These costs are typically charged by banks and intermediary merchants, and may not be palatable to all stakeholders, as was evident in the recent fracas between petrol pump owners and banks over proposed transactional charges on card payments.[7]

It is this vacuum that alternatives such as prepaid payment instruments and virtual currencies can fill while addressing the concern of high administrative charges, which is likely to be a major hurdle in going digital. Administrative charges for most of these instruments are significantly lower than what existing payment channels charge for digital transactions.[8]

Legality of Bitcoin and the need for Regulation

Bitcoin technology is being widely embraced all over the world, including neighbouring China which has become one of the biggest markets for the uniquely decentralised currency. However the biggest hurdle that Bitcoin enthusiasts see in mainstreaming this technology is the fact that most countries are treading too cautiously around Bitcoin and therefore do not have regulation governing them.

The creation and transfer of Bitcoin is based on an open source cryptographic protocol and is not managed by any central authority.[9] It is the decentralized nature of this virtual currency that makes regulation a major challenge. This does not mean that regulators are not capable of regulating Bitcoin, in fact attempts have been made in several jurisdictions but these are mostly in the discussion stage, for eg. the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) introduced a bill in December, 2016 which proposes amendments to certain portions of the Washington Uniform Money Services Act and includes provisions specific to digital currencies;[10] the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has in a decision in September, 2016 taken the view that Bitcoin is money under the plain meaning of Section 1960, the federal money transmission statute.[11]

This article does not intend to undertake a discussion on how Bitcoin is dealt with in various jurisdictions, but instead is aimed at suggesting a possible way forward for Indian regulators to regulate Bitcoin in a manner that satisfies the regulatory zeal towards security as well as ensures that the technology does not get stifled through overregulation. It is important that the regulators create a balanced regulation because an impractical ecosystem for Bitcoin exchanges and their users, may lead to traders seeking alternative methods of purchasing Bitcoin such as P2P trading, over-the-counter (OTC) markets and underground trading platforms, which are significantly more difficult to regulate.[12]

Suggestions for Regulation

Since Bitcoin is a decentralised cryptocurrency, it is impossible to regulate it through one single centralised point for all transactions. Neither is it feasible to regulate each and every Bitcoin user. A pragmatic compromise between these two extremes could be to regulate the points at which fiat currency or valuable goods enter the Bitcoin system, i.e. the Bitcoin exchanges where people may buy and sell Bitcoin for actual real world money, or websites which offer Bitcoin as a means of payment. Such an approach would reduce the number of points of supervision and lead to effective enforcement of the regulations. The regulations may require any entity providing services such as buying and selling of Bitcoin for actual money, trading in Bitcoin (such as non-cash exchanges) or providing other Bitcoin related services (such as Bitcoin wallets, merchant gateways, remittance facilities, etc.) to be registered with a central government agency, preferably the Reserve Bank of India.

One legal issue regarding the regulation of companies transacting in Bitcoin is whether the RBI has the authority or jurisdiction to regulate Bitcoin in the first place. Without getting into the arguments regarding whether it is a dangerous trend or not, an easy way in which the RBI could ensure it has the authority to regulate Bitcoin would be to follow the path that the RBI adopted while regulating Account Aggregators under the Non-Banking Financial Company - Account Aggregator (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 wherein the RBI declared Account Aggregators as Non Banking Finance Companies under section 45-I(f)(iii) thereby getting the authority to regulate and supervise them under section 45JA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

The Regulations, once issued by the Reserve Bank of India, can prescribe mandatory registration, capital adequacy provisions, corporate governance conditions, minimum security protocols, Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements and most importantly provide for regular and ongoing reporting requirements as well as supervision of the Reserve Bank of India over the activities of Bitcoin companies.

Any proposed Bitcoin regulatory framework would seek to address certain issues; for the purposes of this article, we will assume that the following three issues are the ones that must necessarily be addressed by a regulatory framework:

Security of the consumer’s property and prevention of fraud on the consumer. In the technology sector this translates into specific emphasis on increased security (against hacking) for accounts that the consumers maintain with the service provider.
India has robust exchange control laws and the inherently decentralised and digital nature of Bitcoin can enable transfer of value from one jurisdiction to another without any oversight by a central agency, potentially violating the exchange control laws of India.
Bitcoin has for long been associated with criminal and nefarious activities, infact many believe that the famous black market website “Silk Road” played a big role in making Bitcoin famous[13] and therefore preventing Bitcoin from being used for illegal activities (or creating a mechanism to ensure a digital trail to help investigations post facto) would be a major issue that the regulations would seek to tackle.

Given the above assumptions, let us examine whether the Regulations suggested above can satisfactorily address the concerns of security of consumers, exchange control, and keeping a tab on criminal activities.

If the regulations provide for minimum capital adequacy requirements as well as registration by the RBI or some other central agency, then the chances of consumers being duped by “fly-by-night” operators would be significantly reduced. The Regulations can also provide for minimum security protocols to be maintained by the companies, which protocols can themselves be developed in concert with Bitcoin experts. Critics may point to the hacking of various Bitcoin exchanges in the recent past, including that of MtGox, in which Bitcoin worth millions of dollars were siphoned off, and argue that the security protocols may not be enough to prevent future instances of hacking. But that is true even for the current security protocols for online banking; and that has not prevented a large number of banks from providing online banking facilities and the RBI regulating the same. The other vital issue that legally mandated security protocols would address (and potentially solve) is the issue of liability in case of hackings. Regulations may provide clarity on this issue and protect innocent customers from negligent companies while at the same time protecting entrepreneurs by defining and limiting the liability for bona fide and vigilant companies.

The other issue that may be of major concern to the authorities is exchange control. India has extremely specific exchange control laws, and if any person in India wants to transfer any amount to any person overseas, the only legal way to do so is through a bank transfer, which requires filling paperwork giving the reason for the transfer (although the RBI and banks usually don’t ask for any proof for small amounts upto a few lakhs). This means that all transfers outside India are done through proper banking channels and are therefore under the supervision of the RBI. However the decentralised nature of Bitcoin enables individuals to transfer money outside the borders of India without going through any banking channels and hence stay completely outside the purview of the RBI’s supervision. Such a system which lets users transfer money beyond national borders outside legal banking channels could be easily misused by nefarious actors and this is exactly what happened as international drug cartels turned to Bitcoin and other digital currencies to move their ill gotten wealth beyond the borders of various countries.[14] Regulating the entities which provide Bitcoin wallets and Bitcoin exchanges will ensure that the RBI can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over Bitcoin transactions of individual customers even though these transactions do not go through the regular banking channels. The Regulations could impose an obligation on the companies to provide information on any suspicious activities or provide greater information about accounts which see very high volumes, etc. to ensure that Bitcoin is not used to finance organised crime. Thus, the regulations could have provisions that would require the companies providing the Bitcoin wallets or exchanges to flag and monitor customers whose trading accounts or Bitcoin wallets have transactions of an amount greater than a specified limit. This would provide the RBI with the ability to enquire as to the reasons for such high volumes and weed out illegal transactions while at the same time allowing bona fide transactions to continue.

Very closely linked to the issue of exchange control and supervision of transactions is the issue of checking the furtherance of criminal activities using the apparent anonymity offered by Bitcoin. However if the RBI has regulatory oversight over all the Bitcoin companies that are operating in India, then it would be possible for it to keep an eye on most Bitcoin transactions in India as long as the wallet that originates or terminates the transaction has been provided by a Bitcoin service provider located in India. An argument may be made that a criminal may use the services of Bitcoin wallet services provided by companies outside India and therefore outside the purview of the RBI and its regulations. However this argument may not be as plausible as it may seem at first look; if we assume that for any criminal activity the ultimate goal is to get the money in the form of recognizable legal tender (preferably cash or money in a bank account) then it stands to reason that the Bitcoin in the wallet would be exchanged for currency at some point or the other in the chain, which can only be done through a Bitcoin exchange if the transaction is of a fairly high value (which most criminal transactions are) and these exchanges as well as the accounts maintained by them will be under the purview of the RBI, thus providing the law enforcement agencies with the final link in the chain of transactions. Further, the public nature of the blockchain (the ledger where each Bitcoin trade is registered and verified) also makes it possible for the enforcement agencies to follow the trail of money for each and every Bitcoin or part thereof.

Conclusion

From the discussion above, we see that the major arguments that have been given by sceptics regarding Bitcoin and its attractiveness to criminals due to its decentralised nature are actually not very viable on a closer look. Bitcoin and the blockchain technology are extremely important steps in the direction of better and more efficient financial transactions in the global economy, which is why a number of mainstream banks are also showing a keen interest in the blockchain technology.[15] Regulations governing Bitcoin or virtual currencies would clear the air regarding their legal status so that consumers as well as entrepreneurs and investors can invest more money in this technology which could potentially change the way financial transactions are carried out across jurisdictions.

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=414&Mode=0

[2] https://rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=10799&Mode=0

[3] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=10598

[4] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/CPERR280416.pdf

[5] https://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=30247

[6] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=39435

[7] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/petrol-pumps-wont-accept-cards-from-monday-to-protest-banks-transaction-fee/articleshow/56402253.cms

[8] For example, currently the network fee for a person to person Bitcoin transfer is 0.0001 Bitcoin, which comes to roughly Rs. 6 per transaction irrespective of the amount involved.

[9] The processing of Bitcoin transactions is secured by servers called Bitcoin “miners”. These servers communicate over an internet-based network and confirm transactions by adding them to a ledger which is updated and archived periodically using peer-to-peer filesharing technology, also known as the “blockchain”. The integrity and chronological order of the blockchain is enforced with cryptography. In addition to archiving transactions, each new ledger update creates some newly-minted Bitcoins.

[10] https://www.virtualcurrencyreport.com/2017/01/washington-department-of-financial-institutions-proposes-virtual-currency-regulation/

[11] https://www.virtualcurrencyreport.com/2016/09/sdny-opinion-re-bitcoin/. For a discussion on how different States and agencies in the United States deal with Bitcoin, please see Misha Tsukerman, “THE BLOCK IS HOT: A SURVEY OF THE STATE OF BITCOIN REGULATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 30:385, 2015, p. 1127, available at http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2084&context=btlj .

[12] http://themerkle.com/why-china-isnt-interested-in-banning-bitcoin-importance-of-regulation/

[13] See generally, Nathaniel Popper, “Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money”, Harper Collins, 2015.

[14] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-11-18/are-bitcoins-the-criminal-s-best-friend-

[15] http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/big-banks-try-to-harness-blockchain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulating-bitcoin-in-india

RBI Ban on Cryptocurrencies not backed by any data or statistics

vipul — 2020-03-05T18:35:48Z

In March 2020, the Supreme Court of India quashed the RBI order passed in 2018 that banned financial services firms from trading in virtual currency or cryptocurrency. Keeping this policy window in mind, the Centre for Internet & Society will be releasing a series of blog posts and policy briefs on cryptocurrency regulation in India

On April 6, 2018 the RBI issued a circular preventing all Commercial and Co-operative Banks, Payments Banks, Small Finance Banks, NBFCs, and Payment System Providers not only from dealing in virtual currencies themselves but also directing them to stop providing services to all entities which deal with virtual currencies. The RBI had issued a Press Release cautioning the public against dealing in virtual currencies including Bitcoin in 2013. However, the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies and its adoption by large numbers of Indian users, may have been the reason which forced the RBI to issue another Press Release in February 2017 reiterating its earlier concerns regarding cryptocurrencies raised in its earlier circular of 2013. In December 2017 both the RBI as well as the Ministry of Finance issued Press Releases cautioning the general public about the dangers and risks associated with cryptocurrencies, finally culminating in the circular dated April 6, 2018 banning financial institutions from dealing with cryptocurrency traders. As a result of this circular the operations of cryptocurrency exchanges took a severe hit and the number of transactions on these exchanges reduced substantially. The cryptocurrency market in India all but disappeared with only a few extremely determined enthusiasts still dealing in cryptocurrencies, at the risk of potentially depriving themselves of banking services altogether.

The RBI circular was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Internet and Mobile Association of India; final arguments in the case were concluded only in the last week of January, 2020 with the judgment of the Supreme Court being awaited. Generally speaking, whenever such policy decisions of the executive branch are challenged in the courts, a well accepted defense for the executive authorities, specifically in highly complicated fields such as finance, etc. is that the decision was taken by an expert body using its expertise in the field. The basic rationale underlying this argument is that the authority has relied on verifiable data and used its expertise to analyse the same in order to arrive at its decision.

However, it appears from the response by the RBI to an RTI query by Centre for Internet and Society, that requested the RBI for a copy of all reports, papers, opinions and advice that was relied upon for issuing the April 6, 2018 circular, that the RBI has not relied upon any such data to come to a conclusion that banking services should be denied to all those entities dealing in cryptocurrencies. It appears from the response to the RTI query that it was the RBI’s own previous circulars and press releases which formed the basis for the April 6, 2018 circular. This response completely undermines the argument that the decision by the RBI was taken after an analysis of all the facts and statistics concerned with cryptocurrency trading.

Not only does the RTI response weaken the commonly accepted defense of an expert body making a well-reasoned decision, but it also strengthens another legal ground for challenging the decision of the RBI, viz. arbitrariness. One of the grounds on which executive decisions can be challenged is that the decision was made without taking into account relevant material and without the application of mind. The admission by the RBI in its RTI response that there is no material relied upon by the RBI, except its own previous Press Releases, only strengthens the argument that the decision was made in an arbitrary manner.

Such an admission by the RBI regarding the process followed before issuing the April 6, 2018 circular reduces the credibility of the decision itself. However it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court of India agrees with the arguments of the petitioners challenging the April 6, 2018 circular, even though the petitioners may not have been able to produce this RTI response from the RBI to further bolster their case.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rbi-ban-on-cryptocurrencies-not-backed-by-any-data-or-statistics

DNA Database for Missing Persons and Unidentified Dead Bodies

vipul — 2014-11-04T15:46:29Z

This blog discusses the possible implications of the public interest litigation that has been placed before the Supreme Court petitioning for the establishment of a DNA database in respect to unidentified bodies.

In the year 2012 Lokniti, a Non Governmental Organization filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court of India asking the government to establish a DNA database in respect of unidentified dead bodies as well as for those individuals for whom missing persons reports have been filed so that DNA of unidentified dead bodies can be matched against missing persons - arguing that the right to be identified is a part of the right to dignity, and that such systems have been adopted across the globe. The case has come up a few times since 2012 and parties have been given time to file their replies in these instances. Prior to the 2012 Public Interest Litigation filed by Lokniti, in 2009 a Public Interest Litigation was filed by a Haryana based doctor. The PIL petitioned for the DNA profiling of unidentified bodies to be made mandatory - arguing that thousands of individuals die with their identity being unknown. During the hearing the Bench asked a number of questions including why the Ministry of Health was not brought into the case, given the fact that a number of labs that conduct DNA profiling function under the ministry.

While the case is still pending, the Supreme Court on 22^nd September 2014 gave another interim order which was a little more detailed. On this date the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Government of India, through the Department of Biotechnology stated that they are piloting a DNA profiling Bill that would establish a DNA Profiling Board and a National DNA Data Bank. The National DNA Data Bank is envisaged to maintain the following indices for various categories of data:

I. a crime scene index;

II. a suspects' index;

III. an offenders' index;

IV. a missing persons' index;

V. unknown deceased persons' index

VI. a volunteers' index; and

VII. such other DNA indices as may be specified by regulations made by the Board.

One of the Ministry's plans under this Bill is to create DNA profiles of individuals whose relatives have gone missing, on a voluntary basis to help the relatives identify missing persons and unidentified dead bodies. They also stated that cross-matching of DNA profiling data in the database would require specialized software and the CDFB, Hyderabad is in the process of acquiring the same from the Federal Bureau of investigation, USA.

The advocate for Lokniti responded to this saying that the DNA profiling Bill has been pending for a long time and has not seen the light of day for the last seven years. To this the response of the government was that it was a complex Bill involving a number of issues which take a long time to resolve.

At this point the Supreme Court, without going into the details of the Bill asked the advocate for the Union of India to obtain instructions regarding the following two aspects:

(1) Whether pending the Bill coming into force the concerned Department can constitute a Data Bank in respect of dead persons who are not identifiable; and

(2) when there are missing reports in respect of persons to collect the DNA from the permissible sources like siblings or others so that in case any unidentified dead body is found to match the DNA to arrive at the conclusion about the missing persons who are dead; or as an ancillary the missing person who is a victim of the crime of kidnapping or where any child, who is not able to find out his parents, can be in a position to find out through the DNA.

Thus it seems that the Supreme Court, recognizing its limitations in directing the legislature to pass a law and the fact that the passing of the DNA profiling Bill may take a long time to become law, has tried to find a way out in which the concerns of the petitioner regarding a DNA Databank for missing persons and unidentified dead bodies could be addressed without the passage of the DNA profiling Bill. However since the case is still pending in the Supreme Court no final directions have been given in this regard. Thus, the Court has left the government with the responsibility to address the question of whether a DNA Databank can be established without the passing of a legislation providing legal basis for the collection, profiling, databasing, and use of DNA samples.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sc-wants-centre-to-create-dna-data-bank/#sthash.7zqU0Ill.dpuf

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/sc-seeks-govt-response-on-making-dna-profiling-mandatory/

The order dated September 22, 2014 can be found at http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/wc%2049112p.txt

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-database-for-missing-persons-and-unidentified-dead-bodies

Summary of the Public Consultation by Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad

vipul — 2016-01-28T15:22:56Z

On December 22nd and 23rd a public consultation was organized by the Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad at the GB Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad to discuss the issues related to making Allahabad into a Smart City under the Smart On December 22nd and 23rd a public consultation was organized by the Vigyan Foundation, Oxfam India and G.B. Pant Institute, Allahabad at the GB Pant Social Science Institute, Allahabad to discuss the issues related to making Allahabad into a Smart City under the Smart City scheme of the Central Government. An agenda for the same is attached herewith. City scheme of the Central Government.

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (CIS) is researching the 100 Smart City Scheme from the perspective of Big Data and is seeking to understand the role of Big Data in smart cities in India as well as the impact of the generation and use of the same. CIS is also examining whether the current legal framework is adequate to deal with these new technologies. It was in this background that CIS attended a part of the workshop.

At the outset the organizers had noted that there will be no discussion on technology and its adoption in this particular workshop.. The format involved a speaker providing his/her viewpoint on the topic concerned and the discussion revolved mainly around problems relating to traffic, parking, roads, drainage, etc. and there was no discussion of technology or how to utilise it to solve these problems. From the discussions CIS has had with certain people who are quite involved with these public consultations, the impression that we have is that the solutions to these problems were not very complicated and required only some intent and execution, and if that was achieved it would go a long way in improving the infrastructure of the city. This perspective raises the question of whether or not India needs 'Smart Cities' to improve the life of residents or if basic urban solutions are adequate and are in fact needed to lay the foundation for any potential smart city that might be established in the future.

It is quite interesting to see the difference in the levels at which the debate on smart cities is happening, in that when the central government talks about smart cities they try to highlight technology and other aspects such as smart meters, smart grids, etc. while the discussion on the ground in the actual cities is currently at a much more basic stage. For example the government website for the smart city project, while describing a smart city, mentions a number of “smart solutions” such as “electronic service delivery”, “smart meters” for water, “smart meters” for electricity, “smart parking”, Intelligent Traffic Management”, “Tele-medicine”, etc. Even in all the major public service announcements on the smart city project, the government effort seems to be to focus on these “smart solutions”, projecting technology as the answer to urban problems. However those in the cities themselves appear to be more concerned with adequate parking, adequate water supply, proper roads, waste disposal, etc. This difference in approach is only representative of the yawning gap between the mindspace of those who conceive these schemes and market them on the one hand and those who are tasked with implementing the schemes on the other hand as well as the realities of what cities in India need to address problems related to infrastructure and functioning. However the silver lining in this scenario, atleast on a personal level, is that the people on the ground, are not blindly turning to technology to solve their problems but actually trying to look for the best solutions regardless of whether it is a technology based solution or not.

Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/summary-of-the-public-consultation-by-vigyan-foundation-oxfam-india-and-g-b-pant-institute-allahabad

Comments by the Centre for Internet and Society on the Report of the Committee on Medium Term Path on Financial Inclusion

vipul — 2016-03-01T13:53:38Z

Apart from item-specific suggestions, CIS would like to make one broad comment with regard to the suggestions dealing with linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts. Aadhaar is increasingly being used by the government in various departments as a means to prevent fraud, however there is a serious dearth of evidence to suggest that Aadhaar linkage actually prevents leakages in government schemes. The same argument would be applicable when Aadhaar numbers are sought to be utilized to prevent leakages in the banking sector.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-governmental organization which undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives.

In the course of its work CIS has also extensively researched and witten about the Aadhaar Scheme of the Government of India, specially from a privacy and technical point of view. CIS was part of the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah Committee and was instrumental in drafting a major part of the report of the Group. In this background CIS would like to mention that it is neither an expert on banking policy in general nor wishes to comment upon the purely banking related recommendations of the Committee. We would like to limit our recommendations to the areas in which we have some expertise and would therefore be commenting only on certain Recommendations of the Committee.

Before giving our individual comments on the relevant recommendations, CIS would like to make one broad comment with regard to the suggestions dealing with linking of Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts. Aadhaar is increasingly being used by the government in various departments as a means to prevent fraud, however there is a serious dearth of evidence to suggest that Aadhaar linkage actually prevents leakages in government schemes. The same argument would be applicable when Aadhaar numbers are sought to be utilized to prevent leakages in the banking sector.

Another problem with linking bank accounts with Aadhaar numbers, even if it is not mandatory, is that when the RBI issues an advisory to (optionally) link Aadhaar numbers with bank accounts, a number of banks may implement the advisory too strictly and refuse service to customers (especially marginal customers) whose bank accounts are not linked to their Aadhaar numbers, perhaps due to technical problems in the registration procedure, thereby denying those individuals access to the banking sector, which is contrary to the aims and objectives of the Committee and the stated policy of the RBI to improve access to banking.

Individual Comments

Recommendation 1.4 - Given the predominance of individual account holdings, the Committee recommends that a unique biometric identifier such as Aadhaar should be linked to each individual credit account and the information shared with credit information companies. This will not only be useful in identifying multiple accounts, but will also help in mitigating the overall indebtedness of individuals who are often lured into multiple borrowings without being aware of its consequences.

CIS Comment: The discussion of the committee before making this recommendation revolves around the total incidence of indebtedness in rural areas and their Debt-to-Asset ratio representing payment capacity. However, the committee has not discussed any evidence which indicates that borrowing from multiple banks leads to greater indebtedness for individual account holders in the rural sector. Without identifying the problem through evidence the Committee has suggested linking bank accounts with Aadhaar numbers as a solution.

Recommendation 2.2 - On the basis of cross-country evidence and our own experience, the Committee is of the view that to translate financial access into enhanced convenience and usage, there is a need for better utilization of the mobile banking facility and the maximum possible G2P payments, which would necessitate greater engagement by the government in the financial inclusion drive.

CIS Comment: The drafting of the recommendation suggests that RBI is batting for the DBT rather than the subsidy model. However an examination of the discussion in the report suggests that all that the Committee has not discussed or examined the subsidy model vis-à-vis the direct benefit transfer (DBT) model here (though it does recommend DBT in the chapter on G-2-P payments), but only is trying to say is that where government to people money transfer has to take place, it should take place using mobile banking, payment wallets or other such technologies, which have been known to be successful in various countries across the world.

Recommendation 3.1 - The Committee recommends that in order to increase formal credit supply to all agrarian segments, the digitization of land records should be taken up by the states on a priority basis.

Recommendation 3.2 - In order to ensure actual credit supply to the agricultural sector, the Committee recommends the introduction of Aadhaar-linked mechanism for Credit Eligibility Certificates. For example, in Andhra Pradesh, the revenue authorities issue Credit Eligibility Certificates to Tenant Farmers (under ‘Andhra Pradesh Land Licensed Cultivators Act No 18 of 2011'). Such tenancy /lease certificates, while protecting the owner’s rights, would enable landless cultivators to obtain loans. The Reserve Bank may accordingly modify its regulatory guidelines to banks to directly lend to tenants / lessees against such credit eligibility certificates.

CIS Comment: The Committee in its discussion before the recommendation 3.2 has discussed the problems faced by landless farmers, however there is no discussion or evidence which suggests that an Aadhaar linked Credit Eligibility Certificate is the best solution, or even a solution to the problem. The concern being expressed here is not with the system of a Credit Eligibility Certificate, but with the insistence on linking it to an Aadhaar number, and whether the system can be put in place without linking the same to an Aadhaar number.

Recommendation 6.11 - Keeping in view the indebtedness and rising delinquency, the Committee is of the view that the credit history of all SHG members would need to be created, linking it to individual Aadhaar numbers. This will ensure credit discipline and will also provide comfort to banks.

CIS Comment: There is no discussion in the Report on the reasons for increase in indebtedness of SHGs. While the recommendation of creating credit histories for SHGs is laudable and very welcome, however there is no logical reason that has been brought out in the Report as to why the same needs to be linked to individual Aadhaar numbers and how such linkage will solve any problems.

Recommendation 6.13 - The Committee recommends that bank credit to MFIs should be encouraged. The MFIs must provide credit information on their borrowers to credit bureaus through Aadhaar-linked unique identification of individual borrowers.

CIS Comment: Since the discussion before this recommendation clearly indicates multiple lending practices as one of the problems in the Microfinance sector and also suggests better credit information of borrowers as a possible solution, therefore this recommendation per se, seems sound. However, we would still like to point out that the RBI may think of alternative means to get borrower credit history rather than relying upon just the Aadhaar numbers.

Recommendation 7.3 - Considering the widespread availability of mobile phones across the country, the Committee recommends the use of application-based mobiles as PoS for creating necessary infrastructure to support the large number of new accounts and cards issued under the PMJDY. Initially, the FIF can be used to subsidize the associated costs. This will also help to address the issue of low availability of PoS compared to the number of merchant outlets in the country. Banks should encourage merchants across geographies to adopt such applicationbased mobile as a PoS through some focused education and PoS deployment drives.

Recommendation 7.5 - The Committee recommends that the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) should ensure faster development of a multi-lingual mobile application for customers who use non-smart phones, especially for users of NUUP; this will address the issue of linguistic diversity and thereby promote its popularization and quick adoption.

Recommendation 7.8 - The Committee recommends that pre-paid payment instrument (PPI) interoperability may be allowed for non-banks to facilitate ease of access to customers and promote wider spread of PPIs across the country. It should however require non-bank PPI operators to enhance their customer grievance redressal mechanism to deal with any issues thereof.

Recommendation 7.9 - The Committee is of the view that for non-bank PPIs, a small-value cashout may be permitted to incentivize usage with the necessary safeguards including adequate KYC and velocity checks.

CIS Comments: While CIS supports the effort to use technology and mobile phones to increase banking penetration and improve access to the formal financial sector for rural and semi-rural areas, sufficient security mechanisms should be put in place while rolling out these services keeping in mind the low levels of education and technical sophistication that are prevalent in rural and semi-rural areas.

Recommendation 8.1 - The Committee recommends that the deposit accounts of beneficiaries of government social payments, preferably all deposits accounts across banks, including the ‘inprinciple’ licensed payments banks and small finance banks, be seeded with Aadhaar in a timebound manner so as to create the necessary eco-system for cash transfer. This could be complemented with the necessary changes in the business correspondent (BC) system (see Chapter 6 for details) and increased adoption of mobile wallets to bridge the ‘last mile’ of service delivery in a cost-efficient manner at the convenience of the common person. This would also result in significant cost reductions for the government besides promoting financial inclusion.

CIS Comment: While the report of the Committee has already given several examples of how cash transfer directly into the bank accounts (rather than requiring the beneficiaries to be at a particular place at a particular time) could be more efficient as well as economical, the Committee is making the same point again here under the chapter that deals specifically with government to person payments. However even before this recommendation, there has been no discussion as to the need for linking or “seeding” the deposit accounts of the beneficiaries with Aadhaar numbers, let alone a discussion of how it would solve any problems.

Recommendation 10.6 - Given the focus on technology and the increasing number of customer complaints relating to debit/credit cards, the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) may be invited to SLBC meetings. They may particularly take up issues of Aadhaar-linkage in bank and payment accounts.

CIS Comment: There is no discussion on why this recommendation has been made, more particularly; there is no discussion at all on why issues of Aadhaar linkage in bank and payment accounts need to be taken up at all.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-on-the-report-of-the-committee-on-medium-term-path-on-financial-inclusion

Analysis of the RBI’s Draft Framework on Regulatory Sandbox for Fintech

vipul — 2019-05-08T13:56:18Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/analysis-of-the-rbi2019s-draft-framework-on-regulatory-sandbox-for-fintech

Relationship Between Privacy and Confidentiality

vipul — 2014-12-30T14:27:02Z

The laws of breach of confidentiality and breach of privacy at first glance seem very similar to each other. If a doctor releases health information relating to a patient that s/he is treating then such an act would give rise to a claim both under the law of privacy as well as under the law of confidentiality.

Similar is the case with financial information released by a bank, etc. This makes one wonder exactly where and how it is that the law of breach of privacy intersects with that of the law of confidentiality. An enquiry into such a complex question of law requires a deeper appreciation of the relationship between these two different principles of law which require a better understanding of the origins and evolutions of these principles.

In this paper we shall try to explore the origins of both the law of privacy as well as confidentiality as they have evolved in the field of tort law in India. Although our primary focus is Indian law, however in order to understand the evolution of these principles it is necessary to discuss their evolution in three common law jurisdictions, viz. the United States of America, the United Kingdom and India. The reason for an analysis of these three jurisdictions will become clear as the reader goes further into this paper, however for ease of reference it would be better if the reason is clarified here itself. The concept of a right against breach of confidentiality has existed in English common law for a very long time, however the concept of a claim for breach of privacy originated only in American law, other than some statutory protection granted in the last couple of decades, has still not been granted recognition in English common law.

After a discussion of the evolution of these principles in both American and English law, we will then discuss these principles as they exist in Indian law. This discussion will (or should) at once become easier to understand and digest because of the deeper understanding of the interplay between these two principles gained from a reading of the first two chapters.

Privacy Torts: American Origins

Looking at the origins of privacy law it has been argued by many academics that the law of privacy in common law has its origins in an article published by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies in the Harvard Law Review in 1890.[1] Warren and Brandeis suggested that one could generalise certain cases on defamation, breach of copyright in unpublished letters, trade secrets and breach of confidence as all based upon the protection of a common value which they called privacy.[2] The authors relied upon the existing body of cases relating to the law of confidentiality and interpreted it in a way so as to create a "right to privacy" which has evolved into a right quite different from the common understanding of confidentiality.

Although there are certain criticisms of the article by Warren and Brandeis, the background in which the article was written and the lacuna that these two scholars were trying to fill in the law of confidentiality as it existed at that time gives some context to the reasons why they felt the need to move away from the existing principles and propose a new principle of law. Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies were both worried about the invasion of personal space by the advent of the news and print media which was experiencing a boom during the late 19^th century. [3] Warren and Brandeis were worried that although the existing body of law on confidentiality would protect a person from having their picture put on a postcard by their photographer without their consent,[4] however if there was no relationship between the two persons there would be no remedy available to the aggrieved party. [5]

One of the criticisms of Warren and Brandeis' article is that to propose the existence of a right to privacy they relied heavily on the English case of Prince Albert v. Strange[6]. It has been proposed by some academics that this was a case which dealt with confidentiality and literary property which was characterized by Warren and Brandeis as a privacy case. [7] In this case Prince Albert sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works which were made by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from the private printer to whom these etchings were given and came into the possession of one Mr. Strange who wanted to print and sell the etchings. The case specifically rejected the existence of a right to privacy in the following words:

"The case is not put by the Plaintiff on any principle of trust or contract, but on property; there is nothing to show contract or confidence. It cannot be maintained that privacy constitutes property, or that the Court will interfere to protect the owner in the enjoyment of it; Chadler v. Thompson (3 Camp. 80). In William Aldred's case (9 Rep. 58 b.), Wray C. J. said, "The law does not give an action for such things of delight"."

Infact the case mentioned the term "privacy" only once, but that statement was made in the context of whether a delay in granting an injunction in such cases would defeat the entire purpose of the suit and was not preceeded or followed by any discussion on a distinct right to privacy:

"In the present case, where privacy is the right invaded, postponing the injunction would be equivalent to denying it altogether. The interposition of this Court in these cases does not depend upon any legal right, and to be effectual, it must be immediate."

However, Warren and Brandeis interpreted this case in a different manner and came to the conclusion that the "principle which protects personal writings and all other personal productions, not against theft and physical appropriation, but against publication in any form, is in reality not the principle of private property, but that of an inviolate personality".[8]

The article further incorporated the language of Judge Cooley's treatise (Cooley on Torts)[9] which used the phrase "the right to be let alone". They said that identifying this common element should enable the courts to declare the existence of a general principle which protected a person's appearance, sayings, acts and personal relations from being exposed in public. [10] However it has been argued by some scholars that this phrase was not used by Judge Cooley with as much import as has been given by Warren and Brandeis in their article. The phrase was used by Judge Cooley in mere passing while discussing why tort law protected against not only batteries but also assaults with no physical contact, and had no connection with privacy rights. [11]

Warren and Brandeis' article started getting almost immediate attention and some amount of recognition from various quarters,[12] though it cannot be said that it was universally well received. [13] However over time this tort of privacy slowly started getting recognized by various Courts throughout the United States and got a huge boost when it was recognized in a brief section in the First Restatement of Torts published in 1939. The right to privacy in American jurisprudence got another boost and became fully entrenched later on specially with the endorsement of Dr. William Prosser who discussed privacy in his treatise on the law of torts, the subsequent editions of which had a more and more elaborate discussion of the tort of privacy. This development of the law was further enhanced by Dr. Prosser's position as a reporter of the Second Restatement of Torts, which imported a four part taxonomy of the privacy tort which had been suggested by Dr. Prosser in his previous works.[14]

Thus we see how, beginning with the article by Warren and Brandeis in 1890, the privacy tort in American jurisprudence developed over the years and became further entrenched due to the influence of William Prosser and his works on the tort of privacy.

Privacy Torts in England: An Elaborate Principle of Confidentiality

The law of confidentiality in English law, as applied in certain specific contexts such as attorney client privileges, [15] doctor patient confidentiality,[16] etc. has been applied since hundreds and even though cases relating to the breach of confidentiality had already existed, however the case of Prince Albert v. Strange,[17] be it due to the interesting facts or the fame of the parties involved, is still considered as the clearest and most well established precedent for the tort of breach of confidence.[18] Similar cases relying upon this tort kept being decided by the English Courts but the tort of confidentiality was further cemented in English common law by the case of Saltman Engineering Co. v. Campbell Engineering Co.,[19] which expanded the application of the principle by holding that the obligation to respect confidence is not limited to only instances where parties have a contractual relationship.

The seminal case on the tort of breach of confidentiality in English law was that of Coco v. A.N Clark (Engineers) Ltd., [20] where an inventor enjoined a moped manufacturer from using design ideas communicated by the inventor during failed contractual negotiations with the manufacturer.[21] In this case Megarry J., held that a case of breach of confidence normally requires three elements to succeed, apart from contract, (i) the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it, (ii) that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and (iii) there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

Relying on the principles enunciated in the above cases and developed by subsequent decisions, English law relating to the tort of breach of confidentiality developed into a robust and flexible body of law protecting personal and commercial information from disclosure. Infact by the late 1990s, English law was very broad and gradually expanding in its scope of the tort of breach of confidentiality and Courts had stretched the idea of an obligation of confidence so as to include cases where there was not even any communication between the parties, such as secret photography and wiretapping. Further since third parties had already been reposed with an obligation of confidence when they knowingly received confidential material even if they did not have any relationship with the plaintiff, therefore the law of confidence could be extended to parties outside the relationship in which the confidence was initially made. This, although was not as broad and overarching as the American privacy tort, still had the ability to cover a wide range of cases. [22]

While English Courts on the one hand kept trying to expand the scope of the confidentiality tort, they also categorically rejected the existence of a privacy tort on the lines developed under American jurisprudence. The suggestion of the existence of such a privacy tort in English law was most recently rejected by the House of Lords in the case of Wainwright v. Home Office,[23] by Lord Bingham in the following words:

"What the courts have so far refused to do is to formulate a general principle of "invasion of privacy" (I use the quotation marks to signify doubt about what in such a context the expression would mean) from which the conditions of liability in the particular case can be deduced."

In this case the plaintiffs made a claim against the prison authorities for strip searching them before they went to meet an inmate and since the incident occurred before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, 1998 of the UK had not yet come into force, so the plaintiffs also argued that there was an existing tortuous remedy based on a breach of privacy in common law. While discussing whether English Courts were amenable to or had ever recognized such a common law tort of privacy, the House of Lords cited decisions such as Malone v Metropolitan Police Comr, [24] and R v Khan (Sultan),[25] in both of which the courts refused to recognize a general right to privacy in the context of tapping of telephones.

The absence of any general cause of action for invasion of privacy was also acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in the context of a newspaper reporter and photographer invading into a patient's hospital bedroom in an effort to purportedly interview him and taking photographs, in the case of Kaye v Robertson.[26]

Thus relying on the above line of cases the House of Lords concluded that a general right to privacy does not exist in English common law:

"All three judgments are flat against a judicial power to declare the existence of a high-level right to privacy and I do not think that they suggest that the courts should do so. The members of the Court of Appeal certainly thought that it would be desirable if there was legislation to confer a right to protect the privacy of a person in the position of Mr Kaye against the kind of intrusion which he suffered, but they did not advocate any wider principle."

Thus it is clear that English Courts have time and again denied the existence of an American style right to privacy as emanating from common law. The Courts have instead tried to expand and widen the scope of the tort of confidentiality so as to cover various situations which may arise due to the pervasiveness of technology and which the traditional interpretation of the law of confidentiality was not equipped to deal with.

Therefore it is now a little clearer that the reason for the existence of the confusion between the torts of privacy and confidentiality is that the right to privacy had its origins in the common law precedents but the right to privacy developed as a distinct and separate right in America, primarily due to the influence of Warren and Brandeis's article as well as the works of William Prosser, whereas the Courts in England did not adopt this principle of privacy and instead favored a much more elaborate right to confidentiality. In the Indian context, this has led to some amount of confusion because, Indian case laws, as will be seen in the following chapter, borrowed heavily from American jurisprudence when discussing the right to privacy and not all cases have been able to clearly bring out the difference between the principles of privacy and confidentiality.

Indian Law

Tort of Breach of Privacy

Any analysis of the right to privacy in India, be it in the realm of constitutional law or tort law almost always includes within its ambit a discussion of the two celebrated cases of Kharak Singh v. Union of India[27] and Govind v. State of M.P.,[28] which elevated the right to privacy to the pedestal of a fundamental right under Indian law. However, an unintended consequence of this has been that pretty much every commentator on Indian law includes a discussion of these two cases when discussing the right to privacy, be it under constitutional law or under tort law. However, there is one problem with such an analysis of the right to privacy, viz. these two cases were dealing with a pure constitutional law question and relied upon American case laws to read into Article 21 an inbuilt right to privacy. However from a strictly tort law perspective, these cases are not relevant at all, and the seminal case for the tort of breach of privacy would have to be the Apex Court decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, [29] which specifically recognized this distinction and stated that the right to privacy has two different aspects, (i) the constitutional right to privacy, and (ii) the common law right to privacy.

The facts of the R. Rajagopal case revolve around the publishing of the autobiography written by the prisoner Auto Shankar, who had been placed in jail for committing multiple murders. The autobiography contained proof of involvement of many IAS, IPS officers in his crimes. Although Shankar had initially requested that the magazine print his autobiography, he later requested that his story not be published. The publishers held that it was their right to publish the autobiography while the IPS and IAS officers on the other hand claimed that Auto Shankar was trying to defame them and wanted to ban its publication. The Supreme Court in this case, implicitly accepts the existence of a right to privacy under Indian tort law when

"21.The question is how far the principles emerging from the United States and English decisions are relevant under our constitutional system. So far as the freedom of press is concerned, it flows from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). But the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions placed thereon by an existing law or a law made after the commencement of the Constitution in the interests of or in relation to the several matters set out therein. Decency and defamation are two of the grounds mentioned in clause (2). Law of torts providing for damages for invasion of the right to privacy and defamation and Sections 499/500 IPC are the existing laws saved under clause (2). "

Discussing the distinction between the two aspects of the right to privacy, the Court held:

"The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field of Tort law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from unlawful invasion of privacy was recognized. This right has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin (1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and (2) the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion. The first aspect of this right must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person's name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising or non-advertising purposes or for that matter, his life story is written whether laudatory or otherwise and published without his consent as explained hereinafter. In recent times, however, this right has acquired a constitutional status."

After a discussion of the various arguments presented by the parties (a number of which are not relevant for the purposes of this paper), the Supreme Court laid down the following principles regarding freedom of the press and the right to privacy:

(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.

(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.

(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above - indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule."

The above principles have ruled the roost on the issue of privacy and freedom of the press under Indian law, with certain minimal additions. It has been held by the Delhi High Court that even though a claim for damages may be made under tort law for breach of privacy, the Court may even grant a pre-publication injunction to prevent a breach of privacy.[30] The principles laid down inR. Rajagopal were further clarified in the case of Indu Jain v. Forbes Incorporated, [31] where a case was filed by Indu Jain in the Delhi High Court to stop Forbes magazine from featuring her family in the Forbes List of Indian Billionaires. After a discussion of the various authorities and cases on the issue the Court summarized the principles relating to privacy and freedom of the press and applying those principles rejected the claim of the plaintiff. However for the purposes of our discussion these principles are extremely useful, and have been listed below:

"(V) Public or general interest in the matter published has to be more than mere idle curiosity.

(VI) Public figures like public officials play an influential role in ordering society. They have access to mass media communication both to influence the policy and to counter-criticism of their views and activities. The citizen has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of such persons and the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events. (Ref. (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others Para 18).

(VII) Right to privacy that rests in an individual may be waived by him by express or implied consent or lost by a course of conduct which estops its assertions. Such implication may be deduced from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.

(VIII) A public person or personage is one who by his standing, accomplishment, fame, mode of life or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs and character has so become a public figure and thereby relinquishes at least a part of his privacy.

(IX) The standard to be adopted for assessing as to whether the published material infracts the right to privacy of any individual is that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not an out of ordinary or hyper-sensitive man. (Ref. (2007) 1 SCC 143 Ajay Goswami v. UOI & Ors.).

(X) Even though in this country, the freedom of press does not have presumptive priority as in some other jurisdictions including the United States of America, however the importance of a free media of communication to a healthy democracy has to receive sufficient importance and emphasis.

(XI) In evaluating a relief to be granted in respect of a complaint against infraction of the right to privacy, the court has to balance the rights of the persons complaining of infraction of right to privacy against freedom of press and the right of public to disclosure of newsworthy information. Such consideration may entail the interest of the community and the court has to balance the proportionality of interfering with one right against the proportionality of impact by infraction of the other.

(XII) The publication has to be judged as a whole and news items, advertisements and published matter cannot be read without the accompanying message that is purported to be conveyed to public. Pre-publication censorship may not be countenanced in the scheme of the constitutional framework unless it is established that the publication has been made with reckless disregard for truth, publication shall not be normally prohibited. (Ref.: (2007) 1 SCC 143 Ajay Goswami Vs. UOI & Ors.; (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others and AIR 2002 Delhi 58 Khushwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Maneka Gandhi)."

Thus we see that the right to privacy in Indian law, even in the realm of tort law has had an inextricable connection with constitutional principles and constitutional cases have had a very huge impact on the development of this right in India. However a perusal of these cases shows that the right to privacy is available only insofar as information which is personal in nature, however in situations where the information is non-personal in nature the right to privacy may not be as useful and this is where, as we shall see below, the tort of breach of confidentiality comes in to fill the void.

Tort of Breach of Confidentiality

While there have been a number of landmark cases in India on the issue of breach of confidence in a contractual or a statutory setting, these cases are not very relevant for a discussion on the tort of breach of confidentiality. This is not to say that the tort of breach of confidentiality is non-existent in Indian law, the Courts here have time and again accepted that there does exist such a tortuous remedy in certain situations. We shall now try to examine the contours of this principle of torts by discussing some of the landmark cases on the topic.

In the case of Petronet LNG Ltd. v. Indian Petro Group and Another, ^{^[32]} the Delhi High Court considered a claim by a corporation seeking to prevent a news and media group from reporting its confidential negotiations and contracts with counterparties. The claim was based upon both the right to privacy as well as the right to confidentiality but in this case the court, looking at the fact that the plaintiff was a corporation and also the type of information involved denied the claim on the right to privacy. However, it did allow the injunction claimed by the corporation based on the right to confidentiality. Summarizing its discussion of the right to confidentiality, the Court stated thus:

"49. It may be seen from the above discussion, that originally, the law recognized relationships- either through status (marriage) or arising from contract (such as employment, contract for services etc) as imposing duties of confidentiality. The decision in Coco (1969) marked a shift, though imperceptibly, to a possibly wider area or zone. Douglas noted the paradigm shift in the perception, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act; even before that, in Attorney General (2) (also called the Spycatcher case, or the Guardian case) the Court acknowledged that there could be situations -where a third party (likened to a passerby, coming across sensitive information, wafting from the top of a building, below) being obliged to maintain confidentiality, having regard to the nature and sensitivity of the information….."

While discussing the factors that the Court would have to consider while deciding a claim based on the breach of confidentiality, the Delhi High Court relied upon and quoted from English judgments as follows:

"50. Even while recognizing the wider nature of duty - in the light of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention, it was cautioned that the court, in each case, where breach of confidentiality, is complained, and even found- has to engage in a balancing process; the factors to be weighed while doing so, were reflected in A v. B Plc [2003] QB 195; the latest judgment in H.R.H. Prince of Wales indicates that the court would look at the kind of information, the nature of relationship, etc, and also consider proportionality, while weighing whether relief could be given:

"The court will need to consider whether, having regard to the nature of the information and all the relevant circumstances, it is legitimate for the owner of the information to seek to keep it confidential or whether it is in the public interest that the information should be made public….

..In applying the test of proportionality, the nature of the relationship that gives rise to the duty of confidentiality may be important."

Holding that the principles discussed in the English cases given in the context of individual rights of confidentiality would also hold good in the case of corporations, the Court held that:

"51. Though the reported cases, discussed above, all dealt with individual right, to confidentiality of private information (Duchess of Argyll;Frazer; Douglas; Campbell and H.R.H. Prince of Wales) yet, the formulations consciously approved in the Guardian, and Campbell, embrace a wider zone of confidentiality, that can possibly be asserted. For instance, professional records of doctors regarding treatment of patients, ailments of individuals, particulars, statements of witnesses deposing in investigations into certain types of crimes, particulars of even accused who are facing investigative processes, details victims of heinous assaults and crimes, etc, may, be construed as confidential information, which, if revealed, may have untoward consequences, casting a corresponding duty on the person who gets such information - either through effort, or unwittingly, not to reveal it. Similarly, in the cases of corporations and businesses, there could be legitimate concerns about its internal processes and trade secrets, marketing strategies which are in their nascent stages, pricing policies and so on, which, if prematurely made public, could result in irreversible, and unknown commercial consequences. However, what should be the approach of the court when the aggrieved party approaches it for relief, would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the information, the corresponding content of the duty, and the balancing exercise to be carried out. It is held, therefore, that even though the plaintiff cannot rely on privacy, its suit is maintainable, as it can assert confidentiality in its information."

Apart from privacy, the law of confidentiality has been used in cases where there has been a definite harm to one side but none of the other laws provide for any relief. This was the situation in the case of Zee Telefilms Limited v. Sundial Communications Pvt Ltd, [33] where a company which developed television and media programming had discussed their concept of a new show with a network during negotiations which could not be finalized. The network however subsequently tried to start a new show which was based on the same concept and idea as the one presented by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff sued the network, inter alia on a claim for breach of confidential information and asked that the network be prevented from airing its show. In this case the plaintiff's claim based on copyright was rejected because copyright only subsists on the expression of an idea and not the idea itself, therefore the tort of breach of confidentiality had to be resorted to in order to give relief to the plaintiffs. Discussing the difference between confidentiality and copyright, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held:

"10. The law of the confidence is different from law of copyright. In paragraph 21.2 (page 721), [of Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright (13th Edn.)] the learned author has pointed out that right to restrain publication of work upon the grounds, that to do so would be breach of trust of confidence, is a broader right than proprietary right of copyright. There can be no copyright of ideas or information and it is not infringement of copyright to adopt or appropriate ideas of another or to publish information received from another, provided there is no substantial copying of the form in which those ideas have, or that information has, been previously embodied. But if the ideas or information have been acquired by a person under such circumstances that it would be a breach of good faith to publish them and he has no just case or excuses for doing so, the court may grant injunction against him. The distinction between the copyright and confidence may be of considerable importance with regard to unpublished manuscripts / works submitted, and not accepted, for publication or use. Whereas copyright protects material that has been reduced to permanent form, the general law of confidence may protect either written or oral confidential communication. Copyright is good against the world generally while confidence operates against those who receive information or ideas in confidence. Copyright has a fixed statutory time limit which does not apply to confidential information, though in practice application of confidence usually ceases when the information or ideas becomes public knowledge. Further the obligation of confidence rests not only on the original recipient, but also on any person who received the information with knowledge acquired at the time or subsequently that it was originally given in confidence."

A similar view, in a similar fact situation Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court had also came to a similar conclusion in the case of Anil Gupta v. Kunal Das Gupta.[34]

The law of confidentiality has also come to the rescue of employers in attempting to prevent important business and client information from being taken or copied by the employees for their personal gain. In the case of Mr. Diljeet Titus, Advocate v. Mr. Alfred A. Adebare, [35] the Delhi High Court had to decide a claim based on breach of confidentiality when some ex-employees of a law firm tried to take away client lists and drafts of legal agreements and opinions from their earlier employer-law firm. Discussing the importance of preventing employees or former employees from away which such actions, the Court held as follows:

"81. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in Margaret, Duchess of Argyll (Feme Sole) v. Duke of Argyll and Ors. (1965) 1 All ER 611, that a Court must step in to restrain a breach of confidence independent of any right under law. Such an obligation need not be expressed but be implied and the breach of such confidence is independent of any other right as stated above. The obligation of confidence between an advocate and the client can hardly be re-emphasised. Section 16 of the Copyright Act itself emphasizes the aspect of confidentiality de hors even the rights under the Copyright Act. If the defendants are permitted to do what they have done it would shake the very confidence of relationship between the advocates and the trust imposed by clients in their advocates. The actions of the defendants cause injury to the plaintiff and as observed by Aristotle: 'It makes no difference whether a good man defrauds a bad one, nor whether a man who commits an adultery be a good or a bad man; the law looks only to the difference created by the injury."

The Court allowed the claim of the law firm holding that the relationship between a law firm and its attorneys is of a nature where information passed between them would be covered by the law of confidence and would not be allowed to be copied or used by the attorneys for their individual gain.

Recently, in 2009, the principles relating to breach of confidentiality under Indian law were very succinctly summarized by the Bombay High Court in the case of Urmi Juvekar Chiang v. Global Broadcasting News Limited,[36] where in a fact situation similar to the ones in Zee Telefilms case and the Anil Gupta case, the Court discussed a number of previous cases on breach of confidentiality and laid down the following principles:

"8. The principles on which the action of breach of confidence can succeed, have been culled out as

(i) he (Plaintiff) had to identify clearly what was the information he was relying on;

(ii) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was handed over in the circumstances of confidence;

(iii) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was information of the type which could be treated as

confidential; and

(iv) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was used without licence or there was threat to use it…… It is further noted that at interlocutory stage, the Plaintiff does not have to prove (iii) and (iv) referred to above, as he will at the trial. But the Plaintiff must address them and show that he has atleast seriously arguable case in relation to each of them."

From the above discussion on Indian law it is clear that the Courts in India have tried to incorporate the best of both worlds, in the sense that it has taken and adopted the principle of a right to privacy, a breach of which would give rise to an action in torts, from American jurisprudence while rejecting the stand taken by English Courts in rejecting such a right to privacy. However, Indian Courts have often referred to the decisions given by English Courts as well as American Courts in interpreting the principle of the right to confidentiality. Therefore on an overall examination it would appear that insofar as the rights to privacy and confidentiality are concerned, Indian jurisprudence has more in common with American law rather than English law.

Conclusion

The law of privacy does not seem to have existed as a recognizable principle of law before it was propounded in the article by Warren and Brandeis in the Harvard Law Review in 1890. It slowly gained traction in American jurisprudence over the twentieth century but was rejected outright by the Courts in England, which preferred to follow the principle of confidentiality rather than privacy and tried to expand that old principle to fit newer and newer situations. Since Indian law borrows heavily from English law and to a smaller extent also from American law, the Courts in India have accepted both, the principle of a right to privacy as well as a right to confidentiality. This is not to say that the Courts in America do not recognize a right to confidentiality and only accept a right to privacy. Infact American Courts, just like their Indian counterparts, recognize both a right to confidentiality as well as a right to privacy.

Since Indian courts accept both the concept of breach of privacy as well as breach of confidentiality, one should not try to figure out if a particular circumstance is more appropriate for the one over the other, but actually use both principles to supplement one another for achieving the same objective. For example in situations where the conditions required for the application of the law of confidentiality do not exist such as disclosure of personal information by a person who did not receive it in a confidential capacity, one could apply the principle of privacy to prevent such information being disclosed or claim a remedy after disclosure. On the other hand if the information to be disclosed is not of a personal nature then one could try to utilize the law of confidentiality to prevent disclosure or claim damages.

[1] Harry Kalven, Jr., Privacy in Tort Law-Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?, "31 Law & Contemp. Problems". 326, 327 (1966). Elbridge L. Adams, The Right of Privacy, and Its Relation to the Law of Libel, 39 AM. L. REV. 37 (1905).

[2] Wainwright v. Home Office, 2003 UKHL 53.

[3] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 at 128 and 132 (2007).

[4] Pollard v. Photographic Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 345.

[5] It is also said that this concern arose out of the personal experience of Samuel Warren, whose wedding announcement as well as the report on his sister-in-law's death in the newspapers did not go down well with him. http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380powerpoint/privacy.pdf

[6] (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).

[7] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[8] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, "4 Harvard Law Review", 193 at 207 (1890).

[9] Thomas M. Cooley, The Law Of Torts, 2^nd Ed., 1888, p. 29.

[10] Wainwright v. Home Office, 2003 UKHL 53.

[11] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[12] As early as in 1891, the case of Schuyler v. Curtis, 45 NYS 787 (Sup. Ct., 1891) involving the erection of a statue of a dead person, recognized the principle proposed in Warren and Brandeis' article.

[13] Most famously the case of Robertson v. Rochester folding Box Co., 64 NE 442 (NY 1902) where the New York Court of appeals specifically rejected a the existence of a right to privacy as proposed by Warren and Brandeis.

[14] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[15] Bredd v. Lovelace, (1577) 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (Ch.)

[16] For doctor patient confidentiality we need look no further than the Hippocratic Oath itself which states "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret".

[17] (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).

[18] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[19] [1948] 65 RPC 203.

[20] [1969] RPC 41 (UK).

[21] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[22] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[23] 2003 UKHL 53.

[24] [1979] Ch 344.

[25] [1997] AC 558.

[26] [1991] FSR 62

[27] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=3641 .

[28] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=6014 .

[29] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=11212 .

[30] Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor and others, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/793946/.

[31] http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/GM/judgement/25-01-2010/GM12102007S21722006.pdf

[32] http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/25-04-2009/SRB13042009S11022006.pdf

[33] http://indiankanoon.org/doc/603848/ .

[34] http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1709727/ .

[35] http://delhicourts.nic.in/may06/DILJEET%20TITUS%20VS.%20ALFED%20A.%20ADEBARE.htm .

[36] http://indiankanoon.org/doc/582634/ .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/relationship-between-privacy-and-confidentiality

International Cooperation in Cybercrime: The Budapest Convention

vipul — 2019-04-29T22:35:37Z

In today’s increasingly digitized world where an increasing volume of information is being stored in the digital format, access to data generated by digital technologies and on digital platforms is important in solving crimes online and offline.

Click to download the file here

However, the global nature of the internet challenges traditional methods of law enforcement by forcing states to cooperate with each other for a greater variety and number of cases than ever before in the past. The challenges associated with accessing data across borders in order to be able to fully investigate crimes which may otherwise have no international connection forces states to think of easier and more efficient ways of international cooperation in criminal investigations. One such mechanism for international cooperation is the Convention on Cybercrime adopted in Budapest (“Budapest Convention”). Drafted by the Council of Europe along with Canada, Japan, South Africa and the United States of America it is the first and one of the most important multilateral treaties addressing the issue of cybercrime and international cooperation.^{^[1]}

Extradition

Article 24 of the Budapest Convention deals with the issue of extradition of individuals for offences specified in Articles 2 to 11 of the Convention. Since the Convention allows Parties to prescribe different penalties for the contraventions contained in Articles 2-11, it specifies that extradition cannot be asked for unless the crime committed by the individual carries a maximum punishment of deprivation of liberty for atleast one year.^{^[2]} In order to not complicate issues for Parties which may already have extradition treaties in place, the Convention clearly mentions that in cases where such treaties exist, extradition will be subject to the conditions provided for in such extradition treaties.^{^[3]} Although extradition is also subject to the laws of the requested Party, if the laws provide for the existence of an extradition treaty, such a requirement shall be deemed to be satisfied by considering the Convention as the legal basis for the extradition.^{^[4]} The Convention also specifies that the offences mentioned in Articles 2 to 11 shall be deemed to be included in existing extradition treaties and Parties shall include them in future extradition treaties to be executed.^{^[5]}

The Convention also recognises the principle of "aut dedere aut judicare" (extradite or prosecute) and provides that if a Party refuses to extradite an offender solely on the basis that it shall not extradite their own citizens,^{^[6]} then, if so requested, such Party shall prosecute the offender for the offences alleged in the same manner as if the person had committed a similar offence in the requested Party itself.^{^[7]} The Convention also requires the Secretary General of the Council of Europe to maintain an updated register containing the authorities designated by each of the Parties for making or receiving requests for extradition or provisional arrest in the absence of a treaty.^{^[8]}

Mutual Assistance Requests

The Convention imposes an obligation upon the Parties to provide mutual assistance “to the widest extent possible” for investigations or proceedings of criminal offences related to computer systems and data.^{^[9]} Just as in the case of extradition, the mutual assistance to be provided is also subject to the conditions prescribed by the domestic law of the Parties as well as mutual assistance treaties between the Parties.^{^[10]} However, it is in cases where no mutual assistance treaties exist between the Parties that the Convention tries to fill the lacuna and provide for a mechanism for mutual assistance.

The Convention requires each Party to designate an authority for the purpose of sending and answering mutual assistance requests from other Parties as well as transmitting the same to the relevant authority in their home country. Similar to the case of authorities for extradition, the Secretary General is required to maintain an updated register of the central authorities designated by each Party.^{^[11]} Recognising the fact that admissibility of the evidence obtained through mutual assistance in the domestic courts of the requesting Party is a major concern, the Convention provides that the mutual assistance requests are to be executed in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the requesting Party unless such procedures are incompatible with the laws of the requested Party.^{^[12]}

Parties are allowed to refuse a request for mutual assistance on the grounds that (i) the domestic laws of the requested party do not allow it to carry out the request;^{^[13]} (ii) the request concerns an offence considered as a political offence by the requested Party;^{^[14]} or (iii) in the opinion of the requested Party such a request is likely to prejudice its sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests.^{^[15]} The requested Party is also allowed to postpone any action on the request if it thinks that acting on the request would prejudice criminal investigations or proceedings by its own authorities.^{^[16]} In cases where assistance would be refused or postponed, the requested Party may consult with the other Party and consider whether partial or conditional assistance may be provided.^{^[17]}

In practice it has been found that though States refuse requests on a number of grounds,^{^[18]} some states even refuse cooperation in the event that the case is minor but requires an excessive burden on the requested state.^{^[19]} A case study of a true instance recounted below gives an idea of the effort and resources it may take for a requested state to carry out a mutual assistance request:

“In the beginning of 2005, a Norwegian citizen (let’s call him A.T.) attacked a bank in Oslo. He intended to steal money and he did so effectively. During his action, a police officer was killed. A.T. ran away and could not be found in Norway. Some days later, police found and searched his home and computer and discovered that A.T. was the owner of an email account from a provider in the United Kingdom. International co-operation was required from British authorities which asked the provider to put his email account under surveillance. One day, A.T. used his email account to send an email message. In the United Kingdom, police asked the ISP information about the IP address where the communication came from and it was found that it came from Spain.

British and Spanish authorities installed an alert system whose objective was to know, each time that A.T. used his email account, where he was. Thus, each time A.T. used his account, British police obtained the IP address of the computer in the origin of the communication and provided it immediately to Spanish police. Then, Spanish police asked the Spanish ISPs about the owner or user of the IP address. All the connexions were made from cybercafés in Madrid. Even proceeding to that area very quickly, during a long period of time it was not possible to arrive at those places before A.T. was gone.

Later, A.T. began to use his email account from a cybercafé in Malaga. This is a smaller town than Madrid and there it was possible to put all the cybercafés from a certain area permanently under physical surveillance. After some days of surveillance, British police announced that A.T. was online, using his email account, and provided the IP address. Very rapidly, the Spanish ISP informed Spanish police from the concrete location of the cybercafé what allowed the officers in the street to identify and arrest A.T. in place.

A.T. was extradited to Norway and prosecuted.”^{^[20]}

It is clear from the above that although the crime occurred in Norway, a lot of work was actually done by the authorities in the United Kingdom and Spain. In a serious case such as this where there was a bank robbery as well as a murder involved, the amount of effort expended by authorities from other states may be appropriate but it is unlikely that the authorities in Britain and Spain would have allocated such resources for a petty crime.

In sensitive cases where the requests have to be kept secret or confidential for any reason, the requesting Party has to specify that the request should be kept confidential except to the extent required to execute the request (such as disclosure in front of appropriate authorities to obtain the necessary permissions). In case confidentiality cannot be maintained the requested Party shall inform the requesting Party of this fact, which shall then take a decision regarding whether to withdraw the request or not.^{^[21]} On the other hand the requested Party may also make its supply of information conditional to it being kept confidential and that it not be used in proceedings or investigations other than those stated in the request.^{^[22]} If the requesting Party cannot comply with these conditions it shall inform the requested Party which will then decide whether to supply the information or not.^{^[23]}

In the normal course the Convention envisages requests being made and executed through the respective designated central authorities, however it also makes a provision, in urgent cases, for requests being made directly by the judicial authorities or even the Interpol.^{^[24]} Even in non urgent cases, if the authority of the requested Party is able to comply with the request without making use of coercive action, requests may be transmitted directly to the competent authority without the intervention of the central authority.^{^[25]}

The Convention clarifies that through these mutual assistance requests a Party may ask another to (i) either search, seize or disclose computer data within its territory,^{^[26]} (ii) provide real time collection of traffic data with specified communications in its territory;^{^[27]} and (iii) provide real time collection or recording of content data of specified communications.^{^[28]} The provision of mutual assistance specified above has to be in accordance with the domestic laws of the requested Party.

The procedure for sending mutual assistance requests under the Convention is usually the following:

Preparation of a request for mutual assistance by the prosecutor or enforcement agency which is responsible for an investigation.
Sending the request by the prosecutor or enforcement agency to the Central Authority for verification (and translation, if necessary).
The Central Authority then submits the request either, (i) to the foreign central authority, or (ii) directly to the requested judicial authority.

The following procedure is then followed in the corresponding receiving Party:

Receipt of the request by the Central Authority.
Central Authority then examines the request against formal and legal requirements (and translates it, if necessary).
Central Authority then transmits the request to the competent prosecutor or enforcement agency to obtain court order (if needed).
Issuance of a court order (if needed).
Prosecutor orders law enforcement (e.g. cybercrime unit) to obtain the requested data.
Data obtained is examined against the MLA request, which may entail translation or

using a specialist in the language.

The information is then transmitted to requesting State via MLA channels.^{^[29]}

In practice, the MLA process has generally been found to be inefficient and this inefficiency is even more pronounced with respect to electronic evidence. The general response times range from six months to two years and many requests (and consequently) investigations are often abandoned.^{^[30]} Further, the lack of awareness regarding procedure and applicable legislation of the requested State lead to formal requirements not being met. Requests are often incomplete or too broad; do not meet legal thresholds or the dual criminality requirement.^{^[31]}

Preservation Requests

The Budapest Convention recognises the fact that computer data is highly volatile and may be deleted, altered or moved, rendering it impossible to trace a crime to its perpetrator or destroying critical proof of guilt. The Convention therefore envisioned the concept of preservation orders which is a limited, provisional measure intended to take place much more rapidly than the execution of a traditional mutual assistance. Thus the Convention gives the Parties the legal ability to obtain the expeditious preservation of data stored in the territory of another (requested) Party, so that the data is not altered, removed or deleted during the time taken to prepare, transmit and execute a request for mutual assistance to obtain the data.

The Convention therefore provides that a Party may request another Party to obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer data in respect of which such Party intends to submit a mutual assistance request. Once such a request is received the other Party has to take all appropriate measures to ensure compliance with such a request. The Convention also specifies that dual criminality is not a condition to comply with such requests for preservation of data since these are considered to be less intrusive than other measures such as seizure, etc.^{^[32]} However in cases where parties have a dual criminality requirement for providing mutual assistance they may refuse a preservation request on the ground that at the time of providing the data the dual criminality condition would not be met, although in regard to the offences covered under Articles 2 to 11 of the Convention, the requirement of dual criminality will be deemed to have been satisfied.^{^[33]} In addition to dual criminality a preservation request may also be refused on the grounds that (i) the offence alleged is a political offence; and (ii) execution of the request would likely to prejudice the sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests of the requested Party.^{^[34]}

In case the requested Party feels that preservation will not ensure the future availability of the data or will otherwise prejudice the investigation, it shall promptly inform the requesting Party which shall then take a decision as to whether to ask for the preservation irrespective.^{^[35]} Preservation of the data pursuant to a request will be for a minimum period of 60 days and upon receipt of a mutual assistance request will continue to be preserved till a decision is taken on the mutual assistance request.^{^[36]} If the requested Party finds out in the course of executing the preservation request that the data has been transmitted through a third state or the requesting Party itself, it has a duty to inform the requesting Party of such facts as well as provide it with sufficient traffic data in order for it to be able to identify the service provider in the other state.^{^[37]}

Jurisdiction and Access to Stored Data

The problem of accessing data across international borders stems from the international law principle which provides that the authority to enforce (an action) on the territory of another State is permitted only if the latter provides consent for such behaviour. States that do not acquire such consent may therefore be acting contrary to the principle of non-intervention and may be in violation of the sovereignty of the other State.^{^[38]} The Convention specifies two situations in which a Party may access computer data stored in another Party’s jurisdiction; (i) when such data is publicly available; and (ii) when the Party has accessed such data located in another state through a computer system located in its own territory provided it has obtained the “lawful and voluntary consent of the person who has the lawful authority to disclose the data to the Party through that computer system”.^{^[39]} These are two fairly obvious situations where a state should be allowed to use the computer data without asking another state, infact if a state was required to take the permission of the state in the territory of which the data was physically located even in these situations, then it would likely delay a large number of regular investigations where the data would otherwise be available but could not be legally used unless the other country provided it under the terms of the Convention or some other legal instrument. At the time of drafting the Convention it appears that Parties could not agree upon any other situations where it would be universally acceptable for a state to unilaterally access data located in another state, however it must be noted that other situations for unilaterally accessing data are neither authorized, nor precluded.^{^[40]}

Since the language of the Budapest Convention stopped shy of addressing other situations law enforcement agencies had been engaged in unilateral access to data stored in other jurisdictions on an uncertain legal basis risking the privacy rights of individuals raising concerns regarding national sovereignty.^{^[41]} It was to address this problem that the Cybercrime Committee established the “ad-hoc sub-group of the T-CY on jurisdiction and transborder access to data and data flows” (the “Transborder Group”) in November 2011 which came out with a Guidance Note clarigying the legal position under Article 32.

The Guidance Note # 3 on Article 32 by the Cybercrime Committee specifies that Article 32(b) would not cover situations where the data is not stored in another Party or where it is uncertain where the data is located. A Party is also not allowed to use Article 32(b) to obtain disclosure of data that is stored domestically. Since the Convention neither authorizes nor precludes other situations, therefore if it is unknown or uncertain that data is stored in another Party, Parties may need to evaluate themselves the legitimacy of a search or other type of access in the light of domestic law, relevant international law principles or considerations of international relations.^{^[42]} The Budapest Convention does not require notification to the other Party but parties are free to notify the other Party if they deem it appropriate.^{^[43]} The “voluntary and lawful consent” of the person means that the consent must be obtained without force or deception. Giving consent in order to avoid or reduce criminal charges would also constitute lawful and voluntary consent. If cooperation in a criminal investigation requires explicit consent in a Party, this requirement would not be fulfilled by agreeing to the general terms and conditions of an online service, even if the terms and conditions indicate that data would be shared with criminal justice authorities.^{^[44]}

The person who is lawfully authorized to give consent is unlikely to include service providers with respect to their users’ data. This is because normally service providers would only be holders of the data, they would not own or control the data and therefore cannot give valid consent to share the data.^{^[45]} The Guidance Note also specifies that with respect to the location of the person providing access or consent, while the standard assumption is that the person would be physically located in the requesting Party however there may be other situations, “It is conceivable that the physical or legal person is located in the territory of the requesting law enforcement authority when agreeing to disclose or actually providing access, or only when agreeing to disclose but not when providing access, or the person is located in the country where the data is stored when agreeing to disclose and/or providing access. The person may also be physically located in a third country when agreeing to cooperate or when actually providing access. If the person is a legal person (such as a private sector entity), this person may be represented in the territory of the requesting law enforcement authority, the territory hosting the data or even a third country at the same time.” Parties are also required to take into account the fact that third Parties may object (and some even consider it a criminal offence) if a person physically located in their territory is directly approached by a foreign law enforcement authority to seek his or her cooperation.^{^[46]}

Production Order

A similar problem arises in case of Article 18 of the Convention which requires Parties to put in place procedural provisions to compel a person in their territory to provide specified stored computer data, or a service provider offering services in their territory to submit subscriber information.^{^[47]} It must be noted here, that the data in question must be already stored or existing data, which implies that this provision does not cover data that has not yet come into existence such as traffic data or content data related to future communications.^{^[48]} Since the term used in this provision is that the data must be within the “possession or control” of the person or the service provider, therefore this provision is also capable of being used to access data stored in the territory of a third party as long as the data is within the possession and control of the person on whom the Production Order has been served. In this regard it must be noted that the Article makes a distinction between computer data and subscriber information and specifies that computer data can only be asked for from a person (including a service provider) located within the territory of the ordering Party even if the data is stored in the territory of a third Party.^{^[49]} However subscriber information^{^[50]} can be ordered only from a service provider even if the service provider is not located within the territory of the ordering Party as long as it is offering its services in the territory of that Party and the subscriber information relates to the service offered in the ordering Party’s territory.^{^[51]}

Since the power under Article 18 is a domestic power which potentially can be used to access subscriber data located in another State, the use of this Article may raise complicated jurisdictional issues. This combined with the growth of cloud computing and remote data storage also raises concerns regarding privacy and data protection, the jurisdictional basis pertaining to services offered without the service provider being established in that territory, as well as access to data stored in foreign jurisdictions or in unknown or multiple locations “within the cloud”.^{^[52]} Even though some of these issues require further discussions and a more nuanced treatment, the Cybercrime Committee felt the need to issue a Guidance Note to Article 18 in order to avoid some of the confusion regarding the implementation of this provision.

Article 18(1)(b) may include a situation where a service provider is located in one jurisdiction, but stores the data in another jurisdiction. Data may also be mirrored in several jurisdictions or move between jurisdictions without the knowledge or control of the subscriber. In this regard the Guidance Note points out that legal regimes increasingly recognize that, both in the criminal justice sphere and in the privacy and data protection sphere, the location of the data is not the determining factor for establishing jurisdiction.^{^[53]}

The Guidance Note further tries to clarify the term “offering services in its territory” by saying that Parties may consider that a service provider is offering services if: (i) the service provider enables people in the territory of the Party to subscribe to its services (and does not, for example, block access to such services); and (ii) the service provider has established a real and substantial connection that Party. Relevant factors to determine whether such a connection has been established include “the extent to which a service provider orients its activities toward such subscribers (for example, by providing local advertising or advertising in the language of the territory of the Party), makes use of the subscriber information (or associated traffic data) in the course of its activities, interacts with subscribers in the Party, and may otherwise be considered established in the territory of a Party”.^{^[54]} A service provider will not be presumed to be offering services within the territory of a Party just because it uses a domain name or email address connected to that country.^{^[55]} The Guidance Note provides a very elegant tabular illustration of its requirements to serve a valid Production Order on a service provider:^{^[56]}

PRODUCTION ORDER CAN BE SERVED
IF The criminal justice authority has jurisdiction over the offence
AND The service provider is in possession or control of the subscriber information
AND
The service provider is in the territory of the Party (Article 18(1)(a))	Or	A Party considers that a service provider is “offering its services in the territory of the Party” when, for example: - the service provider enables persons in the territory of the Party to subscribe to its services (and does not, for example, block access to such services); and - the service provider has established a real and substantial connection to a Party. Relevant factors include the extent to which a service provider orients its activities toward such subscribers (for example, by providing local advertising or advertising in the language of the territory of the Party), makes use of the subscriber information (or associated traffic data) in the course of its activities, interacts with subscribers in the Party, and may otherwise be considered established in the territory of a Party. (Article 18(1)(b))
AND
		the subscriber information to be submitted is relating to services of a provider offered in the territory of the Party.

The existing processes for accessing data across international borders, whether through MLATs or through the mechanism established under the Budapest Convention are clearly too slow to be a satisfactory long term solution. It is precisely for that reason that the Cybercrime Committee has suggested alternatives to the existing mechanism such as granting access to data without consent in certain specific emergency situations;^{^[57]} or access to data stored in another country through a computer in its own territory provided the credentials for such access are obtained through lawful investigative activities.^{^[58]} Another option suggested by the Cybercrime Committee is to look beyond the principle of territoriality, specially in light of the recent developments in cloud computing where the location of the data may not be certain or data may be located in multiple locations,^{^[59]} and look at a connecting legal factor as an alternative such as the “power of disposal”. This option implies that even if the location of the data cannot be determined it can be connected to the person having the power to “alter, delete, suppress or render unusable as well as the right to exclude other from access and any usage whatsoever”.^{^[60]}

Language of Requests

It was found from practice that the question of the language in which the mutual assistance requests were made was a big issue in most States since it created problems such as delays due to translations, costly translations, quality of translations, etc. The Cybercrime Committee therefore suggested that an additional protocol be added to the Budapest Convention to stipulate that requests sent by Parties should be accepted in English atleast in urgent cases since most States accepted a request in English.^{^[61]} Due to these problems associated with the language of assistance requests, the Cybercrime Convention Committee has already released a provisional draft Additional Protocol to address the issue of language of mutual assistance requests for public comments.^{^[62]}

24/7 Network

Parties are required to designate a point of contact available on a twenty-four hour, seven-day-a week basis, in order to ensure the provision of immediate assistance for the purpose of investigations or proceedings concerning criminal offences related to computer systems and data, or for the collection of evidence, in electronic form, of a criminal offence. The point of contact for each Party is required to have the capacity to carry out communications with the points of contact for any other Party on an expedited basis. It is the duty of the Parties to ensure that trained and properly equipped personnel are available in order to facilitate the operation of the network.^{^[63]} The Parties recognized that establishment of this network is among the most important means provided by the Convention of ensuring that Parties can respond effectively to the law enforcement challenges posed by computer-or computer-related crimes.^{^[64]} In practice however it has been found that in a number of Parties there seems to be a disconnect between the 24/7 point of contact and the MLA request authorities leading to situations where the contact points may not be informed about whether preservation requests are followed up by MLA authorities or not.^{^[65]}

Drawbacks and Improvements

The Budapest Convention, whilst being the most comprehensive and widely accepted document on international cooperation in the field of cybercrime, has its own share of limitations and drawbacks. Some of the major limitations which can be gleaned from the discussion above (and potential recommendations for the same) are listed below:

Weakness and Delays in Mutual Assistance: In practice it has been found that though States refuse requests on a number of grounds,^{^[66]} some states even refuse cooperation in the event that the case is minor but requires an excessive burden on the requested state. Further, the delays associated with the mutual assistance process are another major hurdle, and are perhaps the reason by police-to-police cooperation for the sharing of data related to cybercrime and e-evidence is much more frequent than mutual legal assistance.^{^[67]} The lack of regulatory and legal awareness often leads to procedural lapses due to which requests do not meet legal thresholds. More training, more information on requirements to be met and standardised and multilingual templates for requests may be a useful tool to address this concern.

Access to data stored outside the territory: Access to data located in another country without consent of the authorities in that country poses another challenge. The age of cloud computing with processes of data duplication and delocalisation of data have added a new dimension to this problem.^{^[68]} It is precisely for that reason that the Cybercrime Committee has suggested alternatives to the existing mechanism such as granting access to data without consent in certain specific emergency situations;^{^[69]} or access to data stored in another country through a computer in its own territory provided the credentials for such access are obtained through lawful investigative activities.^{^[70]} Another option suggested by the Cybercrime Committee is to look beyond the principle of territoriality and look at a connecting legal factor as an alternative such as the “power of disposal”.

Language of requests: Language of requests create a number of problems such as delays due to translations, cost of translations, quality of translations, etc. Due to these problems, the Cybercrime Convention Committee has already released for public comment, a provisional draft Additional Protocol to address the issue.^{^[71]}

Bypassing of 24/7 points of contact: Although 24/7 points have been set up in most States, it has been found that there is often a disconnect between the 24/7 point of contact and the MLA request authorities leading to situations where the contact points may not be informed about whether preservation requests are followed up by MLA authorities or not.^{^[72]}

India and the Budapest Convention

Although countries outside the European Union have the option on signing the Budapest Convention and getting onboard the international cooperation mechanism envisaged therein, India has so far refrained from signing the Budapest Convention. The reasons for this refusal appear to be as follows:

India did not participate in the drafting of the treaty and therefore should not sign. This concern, while valid is not a consistent foreign policy stand that India has taken for all treaties, since India has signed other treaties, where it had no hand in the initial drafting and negotiations.^{^[73]}
Article 32(b) of the Budapest Convention involves tricky issues of national sovereignty since it allows for cross border access to data without the consent of the other party. Although, as discussed above, the Guidance Note on Article 32 clarified this issue to an extent, it appears that arguments have been raised in some quarters of the government that the options provided by Article 32 are too limited and additional means may be needed to deal with cross border data access.^{^[74]}
The mutual legal assistance framework under the Convention is not effective enough and the promise of cooperation is not firm enough since States can refuse to cooperate on a number of grounds.^{^[75]}
It is a criminal justice treaty and does not cover state actors; further the states from which most attacks affecting India are likely to emanate are not signatories to the Convention either.^{^[76]}
Instead of joining the Budapest Convention, India should work for and promote a treaty at the UN level.^{^[77]}

Although in January 2018 there were a number of news reports indicating that India is seriously considering signing the Budapest Convention and joining the international cooperation mechanism under it, there have been no updates on the status of this proposal.^{^[78]}

Conclusion

The Budapest Convention has faced a number of challenges over the years as far as provisions regarding international cooperation are concerned. These include delays in getting responses from other states, requests not being responded to due to various reasons (language, costs, etc.), requests being overridden by mutual agreements, etc. The only other alternative which is the MLAT system is no better due to delays in providing access to requested data.^{^[79]} This however does not mean that international cooperation through the Budapest Convention is always late and inefficient, as was evident from the example of the Norwegian bank robber-murderer given above. There is no doubt that the current mechanisms are woefully inadequate to deal with the challenges of cyber crime and even regular crimes (specially in the financial sector) which may involve examination of electronic evidence. However that does not mean the end of the road for the Budapest Convention, one has to recognize the fact that it is the pre-eminent document on international cooperation on electronic evidence with 62 State Parties as well as another 10 Observer States. Any mechanism which offers a solution to the thorny issues of international cooperation in the field of cyber crime would require most of the nations of the world to sign up to it; till such time that happens, expanding the scope of the Budapest Convention to address atleast some of the issues discussed above by leveraging the work already done by the Cybercrime Committee through various reports and Guidance Notes (some of which have been referenced in this paper itself) may be a good option as this could be an incentive for non signatories to become parties to a better and more efficient Budapest Convention providing a more robust international cooperation regime.

^{^[1]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 304.

^{^[2]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(1)(a). Except in cases where a different minimum threshold has been provided by a mutual arrangement, in which case such other minimum threshold shall be applied.

^{^[3]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(5).

^{^[4]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(3).

^{^[5]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(2).

^{^[6]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 251.

^{^[7]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(6).

^{^[8]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 24(7).

^{^[9]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 25(1).

^{^[10]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 25(4).

^{^[11]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(2).

^{^[12]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(3) read with para 267 of the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[13]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 25(4).

^{^[14]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(4)(a).

^{^[15]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(4)(b).

^{^[16]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(5).

^{^[17]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(6).

^{^[18]} Some of the grounds listed by Parties for refusal are: (i) grounds listed in Article 27 of the Convention, (ii) the request does not meet formal or other requirements, (iii) the request is motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion or similar, (iv) the request concerns a political or military offence, (v) Cooperation may lead to torture or death penalty, (vi) Granting the request would prejudice sovereignty, security, public order or national interest or other essential interests, (vii) the person has already been punished or acquitted or pardoned for the same offence “Ne bis in idem”, (viii) the investigation would impose an excessive burden on the requested State or create practical difficulties, (ix) Granting the request would interfere in an ongoing investigation (in which case the execution of the request may be postponed). Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 34.

^{^[19]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 34.

^{^[20]} Pedro Verdelho, Discussion Paper: The effectiveness of international cooperation against cybercrime: examples of good practice, 2008, pg. 5, https://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/economiccrime/cybercrime/T-CY/DOC-567study4-Version7_en.PDF, accessed on March 28, 2019.

^{^[21]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(8).

^{^[22]} However, disclosure of the material to the defence and the judicial authorities is an implicit exception to this rule. Further the ability to use the material in a trial (which is generally a public proceeding) is also a recognised exception to the right to limit usage of the material. See para 278 of the the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[23]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 28.

^{^[24]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(9)(a) and (b).

^{^[25]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 27(9)(d) read with para 274 of the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[26]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 31.

^{^[27]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 33.

^{^[28]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 34.

^{^[29]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 37.

^{^[30]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 123.

^{^[31]} Ibid at 124.

^{^[32]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(3) read with para 285 of the Explanatory Note to the Budapest Convention.

^{^[33]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(4).

^{^[34]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(5).

^{^[35]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(6).

^{^[36]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 29(7).

^{^[37]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 30.

^{^[38]} Anna-Maria Osula, Accessing Extraterritorially Located Data: Options for States, http://ccdcoe.eu/uploads/2018/10/Accessing-extraterritorially-located-data-options-for-States_Anna-Maria_Osula.pdf, accessed on March 28, 2019.

^{^[39]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 32.

^{^[40]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 293.

^{^[41]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Report of the Transborder Group, Transborder access and jurisdiction: What are the options?, December 2012, para 310.

^{^[42]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.2.

^{^[43]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.3.

^{^[44]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.4.

^{^[45]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.6.

^{^[46]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note # 3, Transborder access to data (Article 32), para 3.8.

^{^[47]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 18.

^{^[48]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 170.

^{^[49]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 173.

^{^[50]} Defined in Article 18(3) as “any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which can be established:

a. the type of communication service used, the technical provisions taken thereto and the period of service;

b. the subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and other access number, billing and payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement;

c. any other information on the site of the installation of communication equipment, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement.

^{^[51]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 173.

^{^[52]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), at pg.3.

^{^[53]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), para 3.5 at pg. 7.

^{^[54]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), para 3.6 at pg. 8.

^{^[55]} Id.

^{^[56]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Guidance Note #10, Production orders for subscriber information (Article 18 Budapest Convention), para 3.8 at pg. 9.

^{^[57]} Situations such as preventions of imminent danger, physical harm, the escape of a suspect or similar situations including risk of destruction of relevant evidence.

^{^[58]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Subgroup on Transborder Access, (Draft) Elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime Regarding Transborder Access to Data, April 2013, pg. 49.

^{^[59]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee Cloud Evidence Group, Criminal justice access to data in the cloud: challenges (Discussion paper), May 2015, pgs 10-14.

^{^[60]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Subgroup on Transborder Access, (Draft) Elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime Regarding Transborder Access to Data, April 9, 2013, pg. 50.

^{^[61]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 35.

^{^[62]} https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/-/towards-a-protocol-to-the-budapest-convention-further-consultatio-1

^{^[63]} Council of Europe, Convention on Cybercrime, 23 November 2001, Article 35.

^{^[64]} Council of Europe, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b, para 298.

^{^[65]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 86.

^{^[66]} Some of the grounds listed by Parties for refusal are: (i) grounds listed in Article 27 of the Convention, (ii) the request does not meet formal or other requirements, (iii) the request is motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion or similar, (iv) the request concerns a political or military offence, (v) Cooperation may lead to torture or death penalty, (vi) Granting the request would prejudice sovereignty, security, public order or national interest or other essential interests, (vii) the person has already been punished or acquitted or pardoned for the same offence “Ne bis in idem”, (viii) the investigation would impose an excessive burden on the requested State or create practical difficulties, (ix) Granting the request would interfere in an ongoing investigation (in which case the execution of the request may be postponed). Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 34.

^{^[67]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 7.

^{^[68]} Giovanni Buttarelli, Fundamental Legal Principles for a Balanced Approach, Selected papers and contributions from the International Conference on “Cybercrime: Global Phenomenon and its Challenges”, Courmayeur Mont Blanc, Italy available at ispac.cnpds.org/download.php?fld=pub_files&f=ispacottobre2012bassa.pdf

^{^[69]} Situations such as preventions of imminent danger, physical harm, the escape of a suspect or similar situations including risk of destruction of relevant evidence.

^{^[70]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Subgroup on Transborder Access, (Draft) Elements of an Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime Regarding Transborder Access to Data, April 2013, pg. 49.

^{^[71]} https://www.coe.int/en/web/cybercrime/-/towards-a-protocol-to-the-budapest-convention-further-consultatio-1

^{^[72]} Council of Europe, Cybercrime Convention Committee assessment report: The mutual legal assistance provisions of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, December 2014, pg. 86.

^{^[73]} Dr. Anja Kovaks, India and the Budapest Convention - To Sign or not? Considerations for Indian Stakeholders, available at https://internetdemocracy.in/reports/india-and-the-budapest-convention-to-sign-or-not-considerations-for-indian-stakeholders/

^{^[74]} Alexander Seger, India and the Budapest Convention: Why not?, Digital Debates: The CyFy Journal, Vol III, available at https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/india-and-the-budapest-convention-why-not/

^{^[75]} Id.

^{^[76]} Id.

^{^[77]} Id.

^{^[78]} https://indianexpress.com/article/india/home-ministry-pitches-for-budapest-convention-on-cyber-security-rajnath-singh-5029314/

^{^[79]} Elonnai Hickok and Vipul Kharbanda, Cross Border Cooperation on Criminal Matters - A perspective from India, available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cross-border-cooperation-on-criminal-matters

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vipul-kharbanda-april-29-2019-international-cooperation-in-cybercrime-the-budapest-convention

International Cooperation in Cybercrime

vipul — 2019-04-29T22:34:05Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/budapest-convention-paper.pdf

An Analysis of the RBI’s Draft Framework on Regulatory Sandbox for Fintech

vipul — 2019-05-08T13:57:49Z

The term Fintech is generally used to describe innovative technology and technological processes being used in the financial services sector.

Click here to download the file.

It originated as a term referring to the back-end technology used by large financial institutions, but has expanded to include technological innovation in the financial sector, including innovations in financial literacy and education, retail banking, investments, etc. Entities engaged in FinTech offer an array of services ranging from peer-to-peer lending platforms and mobile payment solutions to online portfolio management tools and international money transfers.

Regulation and supervision of the Fintech industry raises some unique challenges for regulatory authorities as they have to strike a balance between financial inclusion, stability, integrity, consumer protection, and competition. One of the methods that have been adopted by regulators in certain jurisdictions to tackle the complexities of this sector is to establish a “regulatory sandbox” which could nurture innovative fintech enterprises while at the same time ensuring that the risk associated with any regulatory relaxations is contained within specified boundaries. It was precisely for this reason that establishment of a regulatory sandbox was one of the options put forward by the Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking established by the Reserve Bank of India in its report of November, 2017 which was released for public comments on February 8, 2018. Acting on this recommendation the Reserve Bank has proposed a Draft Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox, dated April 18, 2019, (“RBI Framework”) which is analysed and discussed below.

Regulatory Sandbox and its benefits

While the basic concept of a regulatory sandbox is to ensure that there is regulatory encouragement and incentive for fledgling Fintech enterprises in a contained environment to mitigate risks, different regulatory authorities have adopted varied methods of achieving this objective. While the Australian Securities and Exchange Commission (ASIC) uses a method where the eligible enterprises notify the ASIC and commence testing without an individual application process, the Financial Conduct Authority, UK (FCA) uses a cohort approach wherein eligible enterprises have to apply to the FCA which then selects the best options based on criteria laid down in the policy. The RBI has, not surprisingly, adopted an approach similar to the FCA wherein applicants will be selected by the RBI based on pre-defined eligibility criterion and start the regulatory sandbox in cohorts containing a few entities at a time.

A regulatory sandbox offers the users the opportunity to test the product’s viability without a larger and more expensive roll out involving heavy investment and regulatory authorizations. If the product appears to have the potential to be successful, it might then be authorized and brought to the broader market more quickly. If there are any problems with the product the limited nature of the sandbox ensures that the consequences of the problems are contained and do not affect the broader market. It also allows regulators to obtain first-hand empirical evidence on the benefits and risks of emerging technologies and business models, and their implications, which allows them to take a considered (and perhaps more nuanced) view on the regulatory requirements that may be needed to support useful innovation, while mitigating the attendant risks. A regulatory sandbox initiative also sends a clear signal to the market that innovation is on the agenda of the regulator.

RBI Draft Framework

Since the RBI has adopted a cohort approach for its regulatory sandbox process (“RS”), it implies that fintech entities will have to apply to the RBI to be selected in the RS. The eligibility criterion provides that the applicants will have to meet the eligibility conditions prescribed by the government for start-ups as per the Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Notification GSR 364(E) April 11, 2018. The RS will focus on areas where (i) there is an absence of regulations, (ii) regulations need to be eased to encourage innovation, and (iii) the innovation/product shows promise of easing/effecting delivery of financial services in a significant way. The Framework also provides an indicative list of innovative products and technologies which could be considered for RS testing, and at the same time prohibits certain products and technologies from being considered for this programme such as credit registry, crypto currencies, ICOs, etc.

The RBI Framework also lays down specific conditions that the entity has to satisfy in order to be considered for the RS such as satisfaction of the conditions to be considered a start-up, minimum net worth requirements, fit and proper criteria for Directors and Promoters, satisfactory conduct of bank accounts of promoters/directors, satisfactory credit score, technological readiness of the product for deployment in the broader market, ensuring compliance with existing laws and regulations on consumer data and privacy, adequate safeguards in its IT systems for protection against unauthorised access etc. and a robust IT infrastructure and managerial resources. The fit and proper criteria for Directors and Promoters which requires elements of credit history along with the minimum net worth requirements in the RBI Framework are conditions which may be too difficult for some of the smaller and newer start-ups to satisfy even though the technology and products they offer might be sound. The applicants are also required to: (i) highlight an existing gap in the financial ecosystem and how they intend to address that, (ii) show a regulatory barrier or gap that prevents the implementation of the solution on a large scale, (iii) clearly define the test scenarios, expected outcomes, boundary conditions, exit or transition strategy, assessment and mitigation of risks, etc.

The RBI Framework specifies that the focus of the RS should be narrow in terms of areas of innovation and limited in terms of intake. While limits on the number of entities per cohort may be justified based on paucity of resources, limiting the focus of the RS by narrow areas of innovation is a lost opportunity in terms of sharing of ideas and learning from the mistakes of their colleagues who may be employing technologies and principles which could be useful in fields other than those where they are currently being applied.

The RBI Framework specifies that the boundaries of the RS have to be well defined so that any consequences of failure can be contained. These boundary conditions include a specific start and end date, target customer type and limits on number of customers, cash holdings, transaction amounts and customer losses. The Framework does not put in place any hard numbers on the boundary conditions which ensures that the RS process can be customised to the needs of specific entities since the sample sizes and data needed to determine the viability of fintech entities and products may vary from product to product. However a major dampener is the hard limit of 12 weeks imposed on the testing phase of the RS, which is the most important phase since all the data from the operations is generated during this phase and 12 weeks may not be enough time to generate enough reliable data so as to reach a determination of the viability of the product.

Although the RBI has shown a willingness to relax regulatory requirements for RS participants on a case to case basis, it has specified that there shall be no relaxation on issues of customer privacy and data protection, security of payment data, transaction security, KYC requirements and statutory restrictions. Since this is only an initiative by the RBI the RS participants dealing with the insurance or securities sector would not be entitled to any relaxations from the IRDA or the SEBI even if they are found eligible for relaxations from RBI regulations. This would severely limit the efficacy of the RS process and is an issue that could have been addressed if all three regulators had collaborated thereby encouraging innovative start-ups offering a broader spectrum of services.

Once the RS is finished, the regulatory relaxations provided by the RBI will expire and the fintech entity will have to either stop operations or comply with the relevant regulations. In case the entity requires an extension of the RS period, it would apply to the RBI atleast one month prior to the expiry of the RS period with reasons for the extension. The RBI also has the option of prematurely terminating the sandbox process in case the entity does not achieve its intended purpose or if it cannot comply with the regulatory requirements and other conditions specified at the relevant stage of the sandbox process. The fintech entity is also entitled to quit the RS process prematurely by giving one week’s notice to the RBI, provided it ensures that all its existing obligations to its customers are fully addressed before such discontinuance. Infact customer obligations have to be met by the fintech entities irrespective of whether the operations are prematurely ended by the entity or it continues through the entire RS process; no waiver of the legal liability towards consumers is provided by the RS process. In addition, customers are required to be notified upfront about the potential risks and their explicit consent is to be taken in this regard.

The RBI Framework itself lists out some of the risks associated with the regulatory sandbox model such as (i) loss of flexibility in going through the RS process, (ii) case by case determinations involve time and discretional judgements, (iii) no legal waivers, (iv) requirement of regulatory approvals after the RS process is over, (iv) legal issues such as consumer complaints, challenges from rejected candidates, etc. While acknowledging the above risks the Framework also mentions that atleast some of them may be mitigated by following a time bound and transparent process thus reducing risks of arbitrary discretion and loss of flexibility.

Conclusions

While there are some who are sceptical of the entire concept of a regulatory sandbox for the reason that it loosens regulation too much while at the same time putting customers at risk, the cohort model adopted by the RBI would reduce that risk to an extent since it ensures comprehensive screening and supervision by the RBI with clear exit strategies and an emphasis on consumer interests. On the other hand the eligibility criterion for applicants prescribes minimum net worth requirements as well as credit history, etc. which may impose conditions too onerous for some start ups which may be their infancy. Further the clear emphasis on protection of customer privacy and consumer interests also ensures that the RBI will not put the interests of ordinary citizens at risk in order to promote new and untested technologies. That said, the regulatory sandbox process is a welcome initiative by the RBI which may send a signal to the financial community that it is aware of the potential advantages as well as risks of Fintech and is willing to play a proactive role in encouraging new technologies to improve the financial sector in India.

Report of Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking, Reserve Bank of India, November, 2017, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=892

Jenik, Ivo, and Kate Lauer. 2017. “Regulatory Sandboxes and Financial Inclusion.” Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, available at https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/Working-Paper-Regulatory-Sandboxes-Oct-2017.pdf

Other countries which have regulatory sandboxes are Netherlands, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Report of Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking, Reserve Bank of India, November, 2017, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=892

These conditions are fairly liberal in that they require that the entity should be less than 7 years old; should not have a turnover of more than 25 crores, and should be working for innovation, development or improvement of products or processes or services, or if it is a scalable business model with a high potential of employment generation or wealth creation.

Clause 5 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.1 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.3 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.5 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.4 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.7 of the RBI Framework.

Clauses 6.2 and 8 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.6 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.9 of the RBI Framework.

Jemima Kelly, A “fintech sandbox” might sound like a harmless idea. It's not, Financial Times, Aplphaville, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/12/05/1543986004000/A--fintech-sandbox--might-sound-like-a-harmless-idea--It-s-not/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vipul-kharbanda-may-8-2019-an-analysis-of-rbi-draft-framework-on-regulatory-sandbox-for-fintech

Incident Response Requirements in Indian Law

vipul — 2016-12-28T01:19:28Z

Cyber incidents have serious consequences for societies, nations, and those who are victimised by them. The theft, exploitation, exposure or otherwise damage of private, financial, or other sensitive personal or commercial data and cyber attacks that damage computer systems are capable of causing lasting harm.

A recent example of such an attack that we have seen from India is the recent data breach involving an alleged 3.2 million debit cards in India.^[1] In the case of this hack the payment processing networks such as National Payments Corporation of India, Visa and Mastercard, informed the banks regarding the leaks, based on which the banks started the process of blocking and then reissuing the compromised cards. It has also been reported that the banks failed to report this incident to the Computer Emergency Response Team of India (CERT-In) even though they are required by law to do so.^[2] Such risks are increasingly faced by consumers, businesses, and governments. A person who is a victim of a cyber incident usually looks to receive assistance from the service provider and government agencies, which are prepared to investigate the incident, mitigate its consequences, and help prevent future incidents. It is essential for an effective response to cyber incidents that authorities have as much knowledge regarding the incident as possible and have that knowledge as soon as possible. It is also critical that this information is communicated to the public. This underlines the importance of reporting cyber incidents as a tool in making the internet and digital infrastructure secure.. Like any other crime, an Internet-based crime should be reported to those law enforcement authorities assigned to tackle it at a local, state, national, or international level, depending on the nature and scope of the criminal act. This is the first in a series of blog posts highlighting the importance of incident reporting in the Indian regulatory context with a view to highlight the Indian regulations dealing with incident reporting and the ultimate objective of having a more robust incident reporting environment in India.

Incident Reporting under CERT Rules

In India, section 70-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “IT Act”) gives the Central Government the power to appoint an agency of the government to be called the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. In pursuance of the said provision the Central Government issued the Information Technology (The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013 (the “CERT Rules”) which provide the location and manner of functioning of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). Rule 12 of the CERT Rules gives every person, company or organisation the option to report cyber security incidents to the CERT-In. It also places an obligation on them to mandatorily report the following kinds of incidents as early as possible:

Targeted scanning/probing of critical networks/systems;
Compromise of critical systems/information;
Unauthorized access of IT systems/data;
Defacement of website or intrusion into a website and unauthorized changes such as inserting malicious code, links to external websites, etc.;
Malicious code attacks such as spreading of virus/worm/Trojan/botnets/spyware;
Attacks on servers such as database, mail, and DNS and network devices such as routers;
Identity theft, spoofing and phishing attacks;
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks;
Attacks on critical infrastructure, SCADA systems and wireless networks;
Attacks on applications such as e-governance, e-commerce, etc.

The CERT Rules also impose an obligation on service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates to report cyber incidents within a reasonable time so that CERT-In may have scope for timely action. This mandatory obligation of reporting incidents casts a fairly wide net in terms of private sector entities, however it is notable that prima facie the provision does not impose any obligation on government entities to report cyber incidents unless they come under any of the expressions “service providers”, “data centres”, “intermediaries” or “body corporate”. This would mean that if the data kept with the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India is hacked in a cyber incident, then there is no statutory obligation under the CERT Rules on it to report the incident. It is pertinent to mention here that although there is no obligation on a government department under law to report such an incident, such an obligation may be contained in its internal rules and guidelines, etc. which are not readily available.

It is pertinent to note that although the CERT Rules provide for a mandatory obligation to report the cyber incidents listed therein, the Rules themselves do not provide for any penalty for non compliance. However this does not mean that there are no consequences for non compliance, it just means that we have to look to the parent legislation i.e. the IT Act for the appropriate penalties for non compliance. Section 70B(6) gives the CERT-In the power to call for information and give directions for the purpose of carrying out its functions. Section 70B(7) provides that any service provider, intermediary, data center, body corporate or person who fails to provide the information called for or comply with the direction under sub-section (6), shall be liable to imprisonment for a period up to 1 (one) year or fine of up to 1 (one) lakh or both.

It is possible to argue here that sub-section (6) only talks about calls for information by CERT-In and the obligation under Rule 12 of the CERT Rules is an obligation placed by the central government and not CERT-In. It can also be argued that sub-section (6) is only meant for specific requests made by CERT-In for information and sub-section (7) only penalises those who do not respond to these specific requests. However, even if these arguments were to be accepted and we were to conclude that a violation of the obligation imposed under Rule 12 would not attract the penalty stipulated under sub-section (7) of section 70B, that does not mean that Rule 12 would be left toothless. Section 44(b) of the IT Act provides that where any person is required under any of the Rules or Regulations under the IT Act to furnish any information within a particular time and such person fails to do so, s/he may be liable to pay a penalty of upto Rs. 5,000/- for every day such failure continues. Further section 45 provides for a further penalty of Rs.25,000/- for any contravention of any of the rules or regulations under the Act for which no other penalty has been provided.

Incident Reporting under Intermediary Guidelines

Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act defined the term “intermediary” in the following manner;

“intermediary” with respect to any particular electronic record, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes.

Rule 3(9) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (the “Intermediary Guidelines”) also imposes an obligation on any intermediary to report any cyber incident and share information related to cyber security incidents with the CERT-In. Since neither the Intermediary Guidelines not the IT Act specifically provide for any penalty for non conformity with Rule 3(9) therefore any enforcement action against an intermediary failing to report a cyber security incident would have to be taken under section 45 of the IT Act containing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.

Incident Reporting under the Unified License

Clause 39.10(i) of the Unified License Agreement obliges the telecom company to create facilities for the monitoring of all intrusions, attacks and frauds on its technical facilities and provide reports on the same to the Department of Telecom (DoT). Further clause 39.11(ii) provides that for any breach or inadequate compliance with the terms of the license, the telecom company shall be liable to pay a penalty amount of Rs. 50 crores (Rs. 50,00,00,000) per breach.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above discussion that there is a legal obligation service providers to report cyber incidents to the CERT-In. Presently, the penalty prescribed under Indian law may not be enough to incentivise companies to adopt comprehensive and consistent incident response programmes. , except in cases of telecom companies under the Unified License Agreement. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- appears to be inconsequential when compared to the possible dangers and damages that may be caused due to a security breach of data containing, for example, credit card details.. Further, it is also imperative that apart from the obligation to report the cyber incident to the appropriate authorities (CERT-In) there should also be a legal obligation to report it to the data subjects whose data is stolen or is put at risk due to the said breach. A provision requiring notice to the data subjects could go a long way in ensuring that service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates implement the best data security practices since a breach would then be known by general consumers leading to a flurry of bad publicity which could negatively impact the business of the data controller, and for a business entity an economic stimulus may be an effective way to ensure compliance.

As we continue to research incident response, the questions and areas we are exploring include the ecosystem of incidence response including what is reported, how, and when, appropriate incentives to companies and governments to report incidents, various forms of penalties, the role of cross border sharing of information and jurisdiction and best practices for incident reporting and citizen awareness.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document

^[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/21/atm-card-hack-what-banks-are-saying-about-india-s-biggest-data/

^[2] http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/cert-in-had-warned-banks-on-oct-7-about-expected-targeted-attacks-from-pakistan/54991025

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/incident-response-requirements-in-indian-law

Comments on the Draft Second Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention)

vipul — 2019-02-25T16:48:18Z

Following consultations with data protection, civil society, industry and others, during the Cybercrime Convention Committee (T-CY) meeting from 29 November 2018 onwards, the Cybercrime Convention Committee has sought additional contributions regarding the provisional draft text for a Second Additional Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (“Budapest Convention”).

The Centre for Internet and Society, (“CIS”), is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, and open access), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, artificial intelligence, freedom of expression, and cyber-security. This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the rights of stakeholders. CIS is thankful to the Cybercrime Convention Committee for this opportunity to provide feedback to the Draft.

The draft text addresses three issues viz. language of requests, emergency multilateral cooperation and taking statements through video conferencing. Click to download the entire submission here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vipul-kharbanda-february-25-2019-comments-on-draft-second-protocol-to-convention-on-cybercrime-budapest-convention

Cryptocurrency Regulation in India – A brief history

vipul — 2020-03-05T18:36:09Z

The story of cryptocurrencies started in 2008 when a paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System” was published by a single or group of pseudonymous developer(s) by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. The actual network took some time to start with the first transactions taking place only in January 2009. The first actual sale of an item using Bitcoin took place a year later with a user swapping 10,000 Bitcoin for two pizzas in 2010, which attached a cash value to the cryptocurrency for the first time. By 2011 other cryptocurrencies began to emerge, with Litecoin, Namecoin and Swiftcoin all making their debut. Meanwhile, Bitcoin the cryptocurrency that started it all started getting criticised after claims emerged that it was being used on the so-called “dark web”, particularly on sites such as Silk Road as a means of payment for illegal transactions. Over the next five years cryptocurrencies steadily gained traction with increased number of transactions and the price of Bitcoin, the most popular cryptocurrency shot up from around 5 Dollars in the beginning of 2012 to almost 1000 Dollars at the end of 2017.

Riding on the back of this wave of popularity, a number of cryptocurrency exchanges started operating in India between 2012 and 2017 providing much needed depth and volume to the Indian cryptocurrency market. These included popular exchanges such as Zebpay, Coinsecure, Unocoin, Koinex, Pocket Bits and Bitxoxo. With the price of cryptocurrencies shooting up and because of its increased popularity and adoption by users outside of its traditional cult following, regulators worldwide began to take notice of this new technology; in India the RBI issued a Press Release cautioning the public against dealing in virtual currencies including Bitcoin way back in 2013. However, the transaction volumes and adoption of cryptocurrencies in India really picked up in earnest only after the demonetisation of high value currency notes in November of 2016, with the government’s emphasis on digital payments leading to alternatives to traditional online banking such as cryptocurrencies forcing their way into the public consciousness. Indian cryptocurrency exchanges started acquiring users at a much higher pace which drove up volume for cryptocurrency transactions on all Indian exchanges. The growing popularity of cryptocurrencies and its adoption by large numbers of Indian users forced the RBI to issue another Press Release in February 2017 reiterating its concerns regarding cryptocurrencies raised in its earlier Press Release of 2013.

In October and November, 2017 two Public Interest Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India, one by Siddharth Dalmia and another by Dwaipayan Bhowmick, the former asking the Supreme Court to restrict the sale and purchase of cryptocurrencies in India, and the latter asking for cryptocurrencies in India to be regulated. Both the petitions are currently pending in the Supreme Court.

In November, 2017 the Government of India constituted a high level Inter-ministerial Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Subhash Chandra Garg, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance and comprising of Shri Ajay Prakash Sawhney (Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology), Shri Ajay Tyagi (Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India) and Shri B.P. Kanungo (Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India). The mandate of the Committee was to study various issues pertaining to Virtual Currencies and to propose specific actions that may be taken in relation thereto. This Committee submitted its report in July of 2019 recommending a ban on private cryptocurrencies in India.

In December 2017 both the RBI as well as the Ministry of Finance issued Press releases cautioning the general public about the dangers and risks associated with cryptocurrencies, with the Ministry of Finance Press Release saying that cryptocurrencies are like ponzi schemes and also declaring that they are not currencies or coins. It should be mentioned here that till the end of March 2018, the RBI and the Finance Ministry had issued various Press Releases on cryptocurrencies cautioning people against their risks, however none of them ever took any legal action or gave any enforceable directions against cryptocurrencies. All of this changed with the RBI circular dated April 6, 2018 whereby the RBI prevented Commercial and Co-operative Banks, Payments Banks, Small Finance Banks, NBFCs, and Payment System Providers not only from dealing in virtual currencies themselves but also directing them to stop providing services to all entities which deal with virtual currencies.

The effect of the circular was that cryptocurrency exchanges, which relied on normal banking channels for sending and receiving money to and from their users, could not access any banking services within India. This essentially crippled their business operations since converting cash to cryptocurrencies and vice versa was an essential part of their operations. Even pure cryptocurrency exchanges which did not deal in fiat currency, were unable to carry out their regular operations such as paying for office space, staff salaries, server space, vendor payments, etc. without access to banking services.

As a the operations of cryptocurrency exchanges took a severe hit and the number of transactions on these exchanges reduced substantially. People who had bought cryptocurrencies on these exchanges as an investment were forced to sell their crypto assets and cash out before they lost access to banking facilities. The cryptocurrency exchanges themselves found it hard to sustain operations in the face of the dual hit of reduced transaction volumes and loss of access banking services. Faced with such an existential threat, a number of exchanges who were members of the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI), filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on May 15, 2018 titled Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, the final arguments in which were heard by the Supreme Court of India in January, 2020 and the judgment is awaited. If the Supreme Court agrees with the arguments of the petitioners, then cryptocurrency exchanges would be able to restart operations in India; as a result the cryptocurrency ecosystem in India may be revived and cryptocurrencies may become a viable investment alternative again.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cryptocurrency-regulation-in-india-2013-a-brief-history

Budapest Convention and the Information Technology Act

vipul — 2018-11-20T16:18:51Z

The Convention on Cybercrime adopted in Budapest (“Convention”) is the fist and one of the most important multilateral treaties addressing the issue of internet and computer crimes.

Introduction
It was drafted by the Council of Europe along with Canada, Japan, South Africa and the United States of America.[1] The importance of the Convention is also indicated by the fact that adherence to it (whether by outright adoption or by otherwise making domestic laws in compliance with it) is one of the conditions mentioned in the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act passed in the USA (CLOUD Act) whereby a process has been established to enable security agencies of in India and the United States to directly access data stored in each other’s territories. Our analysis of the CLOUD Act vis-à-vis India can be found here. It is in continuation of that analysis that we have undertaken here a detailed comparison of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) and how it stacks up against the provisions of Chapter I and Chapter II of the Convention.^{^[2]}

Before we get into a comparison of the Convention with the IT Act, we must point out the distinction between the two legal instruments, for the benefit of readers from a non legal background. An international instrument such as the Convention on Cybercrime (generally speaking) is essentially a promise made by the States which are a party to that instrument, that they will change or modify their local laws to get them in line with the requirements or principles laid out in said instrument. In case the signatory State does not make such amendments to its local laws, (usually) the citizens of that State cannot enforce any rights that they may have been granted under such an international instrument. The situation is the same with the Convention on Cybercrime, unless the signatory State amends its local laws to bring them in line with the provisions of the Convention, there cannot be any enforcement of the provisions of the Convention within that State.[3] This however is not the case for India and the IT Act since India is not a signatory to the Convention on Cybercrime and therefore is not obligated to amend its local laws to bring them in line with the Convention.

Although India and the Council of Europe cooperated to amend the IT Act through major amendments brought about vide the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, India still has not become a signatory to the Convention on Cybercrime. The reasons for this appear to be unclear and it has been suggested that these reasons may range from the fact that India was not involved in the original drafting, to issues of sovereignty regarding the provisions for international cooperation and extradition.[4]

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 2 – Illegal access

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. A Party may require that the offence be committed by infringing security measures, with the intent of obtaining computer data or other dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Section 43

If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network -

(a) accesses or secures access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource

Section 66

If any person, dishonestly, or fraudulently, does any act referred to in section 43, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two three years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees or with both.

The Convention gives States the right to further qualify the offence of “illegal access” or “hacking” by adding elements such as infringing security measures, special intent to obtain computer data, other dishonest intent that justifies criminal culpability, or the requirement that the offence is committed in relation to a computer system that is connected remotely to another computer system.^{^[5]} However, Indian law deals with the distinction by making the act of unathorised access without dishonest or fraudulent intent a civil offence, where the offender is liable to pay compensation. If the same act is done with dishonest and fraudulent intent, it is treated as a criminal offence punishable with fine and imprisonment which may extend to 3 years.

It must be noted that this provision was included in the Act only through the Amendment of 2008 and was not present in the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its original iteration.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 3 – Illegal Interception

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the interception without right, made by technical means, of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system, including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data. A Party may require that the offence be committed with dishonest intent, or in relation to a computer system that is connected to another computer system.

Although the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not specifically criminalise the interception of communications by a private person. It is possible that under the provisions of Rule 43(a) the act of accessing a “computer network” could be interpreted as including unauthorised interception within its ambit.

The other way in which illegal interception may be considered to be illegal is through a combined reading of Sections 69 (Interception) and 45 (Residuary Penalty) with Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 which prohibits interception, monitoring and decryption of information under section 69(2) of the IT Act except in a manner as provided by the Rules. However, it must be noted that section 69(2) only talks about interception by the government and Rule 3 only provides for procedural safeguards for such an interception. It could therefore be argued that the prohibition under Rule 3 is only applicable to the government and not to private individuals since section 62, the provision under which Rule 3 has been issued, itself is not applicable to private individuals.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 4 – Data interference

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data without right.

2 A Party may reserve the right to require that the conduct described in paragraph 1 result in serious harm.

Section 43

If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network -

(d) damages or causes to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer data base or any other programmes residing in such computer, computer system or computer network;

(i) destroys, deletes or alters any information residing in a computer resource or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously by any means;

(j) Steals, conceals, destroys or alters or causes any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage,

he shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation not exceeding one crore rupees to the person so affected. (change vide ITAA 2008)

Section 66

Damage, deletion, diminishing in value and alteration of data is considered a crime as per Section 66 read with section 43 of the IT Act if done with fraudulent or dishonest intention. While the Convention only requires such acts to be crimes if committed intentionally, however the Information Technology Act requires that such intention be either dishonest or fraudulent only then such an act will be a criminal offence, otherwise it will only incur civil consequences requiring the perpetrator to pay damages by way of compensation.

It must be noted that the optional requirement of such an act causing serious harm has not been adopted by Indian law, i.e. the act of such damage, deletion, etc. by itself is enough to constitute the offence, and there is no requirement of such an act causing serious harm.

As per the Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, “Suppressing of computer data means any action that prevents or terminates the availability of the data to the person who has access to the computer or the data carrier on which it was stored.” Strictly speaking the act of suppression of data in another system is not covered by the language of section 43, but looking at the tenor of the section it is likely that if a court is faced with a situation of intentional/malicious denial of access to data, the court could expand the scope of the term “damage” as contained in sub-section (d) to include such malicious acts.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 5 – System interference

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, the serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data.

Section 43

If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network -

(e) disrupts or causes disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network;

Explanation - for the purposes of this section -

(i) "Computer Contaminant" means any set of computer instructions that are designed -

(a) to modify, destroy, record, transmit data or programme residing within a computer, computer system or computer network; or

(b) by any means to usurp the normal operation of the computer, computer system, or computer network;

(iii) "Computer Virus" means any computer instruction, information, data or programme that destroys, damages, degrades or adversely affects the performance of a computer resource or attaches itself to another computer resource and operates when a programme, data or instruction is executed or some other event takes place in that computer resource;

Section 66

The offence of causing hindrance to the functioning of a computer system with fraudulent or dishonest intention is an offence under the IT Act. While the Convention only requires such acts to be crimes if committed intentionally, however the IT Act requires that such intention be either dishonest or fraudulent only then such an act will be a criminal offence, otherwise it will only incur civil consequences requiring the perpetrator to pay damages by way of compensation.

The IT Act does not require such disruption to be caused in any particular manner as is required under the Convention, although the acts of introducing computer viruses as well as damaging or deleting data themselves have been classified as offences under the IT Act.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 6 – Misuse of devices

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

a the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:

i a device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5;

ii a computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5; and

b the possession of an item referred to in paragraphs a.i or ii above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in Articles 2 through 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches.

2 This article shall not be interpreted as imposing criminal liability where the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available or possession referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is not for the purpose of committing an offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 5 of this Convention, such as for the authorised testing or protection of a computer system.

3 Each Party may reserve the right not to apply paragraph 1 of this article, provided that the reservation does not concern the sale, distribution or otherwise making available of the items referred to in paragraph 1 a.ii of this article.

This provision establishes as a separate and independent criminal offence the intentional commission of specific illegal acts regarding certain devices or access data to be misused for the purpose of committing offences against the confidentiality, the integrity and availability of computer systems or data. While the IT Act does not by itself makes the production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution of devices designed to be adopted for such purposes, sub-section (g) of section 43 along with section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which deals with “conspiracy” could perhaps be used to bring such acts within the scope of the penal statutes.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 7 – Computer related forgery

Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right, the input, alteration, deletion, or suppression of computer data, resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible. A Party may require an intent to defraud, or similar dishonest intent, before criminal liability attaches.

The acts of deletion, alteration and suppression of data by itself is a crime as discussed above, there is no specific offence for doing such acts for the purpose of forgery. However this does not mean that the crime of online forgery is not punishable in India at all, such crimes would be dealt with under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Chapter 18) read with section 4 of the IT Act.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 8 – Computer-related fraud

a any input, alteration, deletion or suppression of computer data,

b any interference with the functioning of a computer system,

with fraudulent or dishonest intent of procuring, without right, an economic benefit for oneself or for another person.

Just as in the case of forgery, there is no specific provision in the IT Act whereby online fraud would be considered as a crime, however specific acts such as charging services availed of by one person to another (section 43(h), identity theft (section 66C), cheating by impersonation (section 66D) have been listed as criminal offences. Further, as with forgery, fraudulent acts to procure economic benefits would also get covered by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code that deal with cheating.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 9 – Offences related to child pornography

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right, the following conduct:

a producing child pornography for the purpose of its distribution through a computer system;

b offering or making available child pornography through a computer system;

c distributing or transmitting child pornography through a computer system;

d procuring child pornography through a computer system for oneself or for another person;

e possessing child pornography in a computer system or on a computer-data storage medium.

2 For the purpose of paragraph 1 above, the term "child pornography" shall include pornographic material that visually depicts:

a a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct;

b a person appearing to be a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct;

c realistic images representing a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

3 For the purpose of paragraph 2 above, the term "minor" shall include all persons under 18 years of age. A Party may, however, require a lower age-limit, which shall be not less than 16 years.

4 Each Party may reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraphs 1, subparagraphs d and e, and 2, sub-paragraphs b and c.

67 B Punishment for publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form.

Whoever,-

(a) publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted material in any electronic form which depicts children engaged in sexually explicit act or conduct or

(b) creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads, advertises, promotes, exchanges or distributes material in any electronic form depicting children in obscene or indecent or sexually explicit manner or

(c) cultivates, entices or induces children to online relationship with one or more children for and on sexually explicit act or in a manner that may offend a reasonable adult on the computer resource or

(d) facilitates abusing children online or

(e) records in any electronic form own abuse or that of others pertaining to sexually explicit act with children,

shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and with a fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and in the event of second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and also with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees:

Provided that the provisions of section 67, section 67A and this section does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure in electronic form-

(i) The publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern; or

(ii) which is kept or used for bonafide heritage or religious purposes

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "children" means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years.

The publishing, transmission, creation, collection, seeking, browsing, etc. of child pornography is an offence under Indian law punishable with imprisonment for upto 5 years for a first offence and upto 7 years for a subsequent offence, along with fine.

It is important to note that bona fide depictions for the public good, such as for publication in pamphlets, reading or educational material are specifically excluded from the rigours of the section, Similarly material kept for heritage or religious purposes is also exempted under this section. Such exceptions are in line with the intent of the Convention, since the Explanatory statement itself states that “The term "pornographic material" in paragraph 2 is governed by national standards pertaining to the classification of materials as obscene, inconsistent with public morals or similarly corrupt. Therefore, material having an artistic, medical, scientific or similar merit may be considered not to be pornographic.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 10 – Offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of copyright, as defined under the law of that Party, pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken under the Paris Act of 24 July 1971 revising the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Copyright Treaty, with the exception of any moral rights conferred by such conventions, where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.

2 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law the infringement of related rights, as define under the law of that Party, pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken under the International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations (Rome Convention), the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, with the exception of any moral rights conferred by such conventions, where such acts are committed wilfully, on a commercial scale and by means of a computer system.

3 A Party may reserve the right not to impose criminal liability under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article in limited circumstances, provided that other effective remedies are available and that such reservation does not derogate from the Party’s international obligations set forth in the international instruments referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article.

81 Act to have Overriding effect

The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall restrict any person from exercising any right conferred under the Copyright Act, 1957 or the Patents Act, 1970

The use of the term "pursuant to the obligations it has undertaken" in both paragraphs makes it clear that a Contracting Party to the Convention is not bound to apply agreements cited (TRIPS, WIPO, etc.) to which it is not a Party; moreover, if a Party has made a reservation or declaration permitted under one of the agreements, that reservation may limit the extent of its obligation under the present Convention.

The IT Act does not try to intervene in the existing copyright regime of India and creates a special exemption for the Copyright Act and the Patents Act in the clause which provides this Act overriding effect. India’s obligations under the various treaties and conventions on intellectual property rights are enshrined in these legislations.^{^[6]}

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 11 – Attempt and aiding or abetting

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, aiding or abetting the commission of any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 10 of the present Convention with intent that such offence be committed.

2 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally, an attempt to commit any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 3 through 5, 7, 8, and 9.1.a and c of this Convention.

3 Each Party may reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 2 of this article.

84 B Punishment for abetment of offences

Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Act for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence under this Act.

Explanation: An Act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.

84 C Punishment for attempt to commit offences

Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Act or causes such an offence to be committed, and in such an attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence or with both.

As can be seen, both attempts as well as abetment of criminal offences under the IT Act have also been criminalised.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 12 – Corporate liability

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that legal persons can be held liable for a criminal offence established in accordance with this Convention, committed for their benefit by any natural person, acting either individually or as part of an organ of the legal person, who has a leading position within it, based on:

a a power of representation of the legal person;

b an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person;

c an authority to exercise control within the legal person.

2 In addition to the cases already provided for in paragraph 1 of this article, each Party shall take the measures necessary to ensure that a legal person can be held liable where the lack of supervision or control by a natural person referred to in paragraph 1 has made possible the commission of a criminal offence established in accordance with this Convention for the benefit of that legal person by a natural person acting under its authority.

3 Subject to the legal principles of the Party, the liability of a legal person may be criminal, civil or administrative.

4 Such liability shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of the natural persons who have committed the offence.

85 Offences by Companies.

(1) Where a person committing a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made there under is a Company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made there under has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation-

For the purposes of this section

(i) "Company" means any Body Corporate and includes a Firm or other Association of individuals; and

(ii) "Director", in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm.

The liability of a company or other body corporate has been laid out in the IT Act in a manner similar to the Budapest Convention. While, the test to determine the relationship between the legal entity and the natural person who has committed the act on behalf of the legal entity is a little more detailed[7] in the Convention, the substance of the test is laid out in the IT Act as “a person who is in charge of, and was responsible to, the company”.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 14

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish the powers and procedures provided for in this section for the purpose of specific criminal investigations or proceedings.

2 Except as specifically provided otherwise in Article 21, each Party shall apply the powers and procedures referred to in paragraph 1 of this article to:

a the criminal offences established in accordance with Articles 2 through 11 of this Convention;

b other criminal offences committed by means of a computer system; and

c the collection of evidence in electronic form of a criminal offence.

3 a Each Party may reserve the right to apply the measures referred to in Article 20 only to offences or categories of offences specified in the reservation, provided that the range of such offences or categories of offences is not more restricted than the range of offences to which it applies the measures referred to in Article 21. Each Party shall consider restricting such a reservation to enable the broadest application of the measure referred to in Article 20.

b Where a Party, due to limitations in its legislation in force at the time of the adoption of the present Convention, is not able to apply the measures referred to in Articles 20 and 21 to communications being transmitted within a computer system of a service provider, which system:

i is being operated for the benefit of a closed group of users, and

ii does not employ public communications networks and is not connected with another computer system, whether public or private, that Party may reserve the right not to apply these measures to such communications.

Each Party shall consider restricting such a reservation to enable the broadest application of the measures referred to in Articles 20 and 21.

This is a provision of a general nature that need not have any equivalence in domestic law. The provision clarifies that all the powers and procedures provided for in this section (Articles 14 to 21) are for the purpose of “specific criminal investigations or proceedings”.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 15 – Conditions and safeguards

1 Each Party shall ensure that the establishment, implementation and application of the powers and procedures provided for in this Section are subject to conditions and safeguards provided for under its domestic law, which shall provide for the adequate protection of human rights and liberties, including rights arising pursuant to obligations it has undertaken under the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other applicable international human rights instruments, and which shall incorporate the principle of proportionality.

2 Such conditions and safeguards shall, as appropriate in view of the nature of the procedure or power concerned, inter alia, include judicial or other independent supervision, grounds justifying application, and limitation of the scope and the duration of such power or procedure.

3 To the extent that it is consistent with the public interest, in particular the sound administration of justice, each Party shall consider the impact of the powers and procedures in this section upon the rights, responsibilities and legitimate interests of third parties.

This again is a provision of a general nature which need not have a corresponding clause in the domestic law. India is a signatory to a number of international human rights conventions and treaties, it has acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 1965, with certain reservations, signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979 with certain reservations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 and signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1984. Further the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution takes within its fold a number of human rights such as the right to privacy. Freedom of expression, right to fair trial, freedom of assembly, right against arbitrary arrest and detention are all fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, 1950.^{^[8]}

In addition, India has enacted the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of “human rights” and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Thus, there does exist a statutory mechanism for the enforcement of human rights^{^[9]} under Indian law. It must be noted that the definition of human rights also incorporates rights embodied in International Covenants and are enforceable by Courts in India.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 16 – Expedited preservation of stored computer data

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer data, including traffic data, that has been stored by means of a computer system, in particular where there are grounds to believe that the computer data is particularly vulnerable to loss or modification.

2 Where a Party gives effect to paragraph 1 above by means of an order to a person to preserve specified stored computer data in the person’s possession or control, the Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to oblige that person to preserve and maintain the integrity of that computer data for a period of time as long as necessary, up to a maximum of ninety days, to enable the competent authorities to seek its disclosure. A Party may provide for such an order to be subsequently renewed.

3 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to oblige the custodian or other person who is to preserve the computer data to keep confidential the undertaking of such procedures for the period of time provided for by its domestic law.

4 The powers and procedures referred to in this article shall be subject to Articles 14 and 15.

Article 17 – Expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data

1 Each Party shall adopt, in respect of traffic data that is to be preserved under Article 16, such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to:

a ensure that such expeditious preservation of traffic data is available regardless of whether one or more service providers were involved in the transmission of that communication; and

b ensure the expeditious disclosure to the Party’s competent authority, or a person designated by that authority, of a sufficient amount of traffic data to enable the Party to identify the service providers and the path through which the communication was transmitted.

2 The powers and procedures referred to in this article shall be subject to Articles 14 and 15.

29 Access to computers and data.

(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 69, the Controller or any person authorized by him shall, if he has reasonable cause to suspect that any contravention of the provisions of this chapter made there under has been committed, have access to any computer system, any apparatus, data or any other material connected with such system, for the purpose of searching or causing a search to be made for obtaining any information or data contained in or available to such computer system. (Amended vide ITAA 2008)

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the Controller or any person authorized by him may, by order, direct any person in charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of the computer system, data apparatus or material, to provide him with such reasonable technical and other assistant as he may consider necessary.

67 C Preservation and Retention of information by intermediaries

(1) Intermediary shall preserve and retain such information as may be specified for such duration and in such manner and format as the Central Government may prescribe.

Rule 3(7) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011

3(7) - When required by lawful order, the intermediary shall provide information or any such assistance to Government Agencies who are lawfully authorised for investigative, protective, cyber security activity. The information or any such assistance shall be provided for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, cyber security incidents and punishment of offences under any law for the time being in force, on a request in writing staling clearly the purpose of seeking such information or any such assistance.

It must be noted that Article 16 and Article 17 refer only to data preservation and not data retention. “Data preservation” means to keep data, which already exists in a stored form, protected from anything that would cause its current quality or condition to change or deteriorate. Data retention means to keep data, which is currently being generated, in one’s possession into the future.^{^[10]} In short, the article provides only for preservation of existing stored data, pending subsequent disclosure of the data, in relation to specific criminal investigations or proceedings.

The Convention uses the term "order or similarly obtain", which is intended to allow the use of other legal methods of achieving preservation than merely by means of a judicial or administrative order or directive (e.g. from police or prosecutor). In some States, preservation orders do not exist in the procedural law, and data can only be preserved and obtained through search and seizure or production order. Flexibility was therefore intended by the use of the phrase "or otherwise obtain" to permit the implementation of this article by the use of these means.

While Indian law does not have a specific provision for issuing an order for preservation of data, the provisions of section 29 as well as sections 99 to 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be utilized to achieve the result intended by Articles 16 and 17. Although section 67C of the IT Act uses the term “preserve and retain such information”, this provision is intended primarily for the purpose of data retention and not data preservation.

Another provision which may conceivably be used for issuing preservation orders is Rule 3(7) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 which requires intermediaries to provide “any such assistance” to Government Agencies who are lawfully authorised for investigative, protective, cyber security activity. However, in the absence of a power of preservation in the main statute (IT Act) it remains to be seen whether such an order would be enforced if challenged in a court of law.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 18 – Production order

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to order:

a. a person in its territory to submit specified computer data in that person’s possession or control, which is stored in a computer system or a computer-data storage medium; and

b. a service provider offering its services in the territory of the Party to submit subscriber information relating to such services in that service provider’s possession or control.

2 The powers and procedures referred to in this article shall be subject to Articles 14 and 15.

3 For the purpose of this article, the term “subscriber information” means any information contained in the form of computer data or any other form that is held by a service provider, relating to subscribers of its services other than traffic or content data and by which can be established:

a the type of communication service used, the technical provisions taken thereto and the period of service;

b the subscriber’s identity, postal or geographic address, telephone and other access number, billing and payment information, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement;

c any other information on the site of the installation of communication equipment, available on the basis of the service agreement or arrangement.

Section 28(2)

(2) The Controller or any officer authorized by him in this behalf shall exercise the like powers which are conferred on Income-tax authorities under Chapter XIII of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and shall exercise such powers, subject to such limitations laid down under that Act.

Section 58(2)

(2) The Cyber Appellate Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging their functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, while trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely -

(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents or other electronic records;

While the Cyber Appellate Tribunal and the Controller of Certifying Authorities both have the power to call for information under the IT Act, these powers can be exercised only for limited purposes since the jurisdiction of both authorities is limited to the procedural provisions of the IT Act and they do not have the jurisdiction to investigate penal provisions. In practice, the penal provisions of the IT Act are investigated by the regular law enforcement apparatus of India, which use statutory provisions for production orders applicable in the offline world to computer systems as well. It is a very common practice amongst law enforcement authorities to issue orders under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (section 91) or the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to compel production of information contained in a computer system. The power to order production of a “document or other thing” under section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code is wide enough to cover all types of information which may be residing in a computer system and can even include the entire computer system itself.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 19 – Search and seizure of stored computer data

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to search or similarly access:

a a computer system or part of it and computer data stored therein; and

b a computer-data storage medium in which computer data may be stored in its territory.

2 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that where its authorities search or similarly access a specific computer system or part of it, pursuant to paragraph 1.a, and have grounds to believe that the data sought is stored in another computer system or part of it in its territory, and such data is lawfully accessible from or available to the initial system, the authorities shall be able to expeditiously extend the search or similar accessing to the other system.

3 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to seize or similarly secure computer data accessed according to paragraphs 1 or 2. These measures shall include the power to:

a seize or similarly secure a computer system or part of it or a computer-data storage

medium;

b make and retain a copy of those computer data;

c maintain the integrity of the relevant stored computer data;

d render inaccessible or remove those computer data in the accessed computer system.

4 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to order any person who has knowledge about the functioning of the computer system or measures applied to protect the computer data therein to provide, as is reasonable, the necessary information, to enable the undertaking of the measures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2.

5 The powers and procedures referred to in this article shall be subject to Articles 14 and15.

76 Confiscation

Any computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, in respect of which any provision of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder has been or is being contravened, shall be liable to confiscation:

Provided that where it is established to the satisfaction of the court adjudicating the confiscation that the person in whose possession, power or control of any such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories relating thereto is found is not responsible for the contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made there under, the court may, instead of making an order for confiscation of such computer, computer system, floppies, compact disks, tape drives or any other accessories related thereto, make such other order authorized by this Act against the person contravening of the provisions of this Act, rules, orders or regulations made there under as it may think fit.

While Article 19 provides for the power to search and seize computer systems for the investigation into criminal offences of any type of kind, section 76 of the IT Act is limited only to contraventions of the provisions of the Act, rules, orders or regulations made thereunder. However, this does not mean that Indian law enforcement authorities do not have the power to search and seize a computer system for crimes other than those contained in the IT Act; just as in the case of Article 18, the authorities in India are free to use the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code and other sectoral legislations which allow for seizure of property to seize computer systems when investigating criminal offences.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 20 – Real-time collection of traffic data

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to empower its competent authorities to:

a collect or record through the application of technical means on the territory of that Party, and

b compel a service provider, within its existing technical capability:

i to collect or record through the application of technical means on the territory of that Party; or

ii to co-operate and assist the competent authorities in the collection or recording of,

traffic data, in real-time, associated with specified communications in its territory transmitted by means of a computer system.

2 Where a Party, due to the established principles of its domestic legal system, cannot adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1.a, it may instead adopt legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure the real-time collection or recording of traffic data associated with specified communications transmitted in its territory, through the application of technical means on that territory.

3 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to oblige a service provider to keep confidential the fact of the execution of any power provided for in this article and any information relating to it.

4 The powers and procedures referred to in this article shall be subject to Articles 14 and 15.

69B Power to authorize to monitor and collect traffic data or information through any computer resource for Cyber Security

(1) The Central Government may, to enhance Cyber Security and for identification, analysis and prevention of any intrusion or spread of computer contaminant in the country, by notification in the official Gazette, authorize any agency of the Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.

(2) The Intermediary or any person in-charge of the Computer resource shall when called upon by the agency which has been authorized under sub-section (1), provide technical assistance and extend all facilities to such agency to enable online access or to secure and provide online access to the computer resource generating , transmitting, receiving or storing such traffic data or information.

(3) The procedure and safeguards for monitoring and collecting traffic data or information, shall be such as may be prescribed.

(4) Any intermediary who intentionally or knowingly contravenes the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, (i) "Computer Contaminant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 43.

(ii) "traffic data" means any data identifying or purporting to identify any person, computer system or computer network or location to or from which the communication is or may be transmitted and includes communications origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration or type of underlying service or any other information.

Section 69B in the IT Act enables the government to authorise the monitoring and collection of traffic data through any computer system. Under the Convention, orders for collection and recording of traffic data can be given for the purposes mentioned in Articles 14 and 15. On the other hand, as per the Information Technology (Procedure and safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009, an order for monitoring may be issued for any of the following purposes relating to cyber security:

(a) forecasting of imminent cyber incidents;

(b) monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resource;

(d) tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents;

(e) tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus or computer contaminants;

(f) identifying or tracking of any person who has breached, or is suspected of having breached or being likely to breach cyber security;

(g) undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resources;

(h) accessing a stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force;

(i) any other matter relating to cyber security.

As can be seen from the above, the reasons for which an order for monitoring traffic data can be issued are extremely wide, this is in stark contrast to the reasons for which an order for interception of content data may be issued under section 69. The Rules also provide that the intermediary shall not disclose the existence of a monitoring order to any third party and shall take all steps necessary to ensure extreme secrecy in the matter of monitoring of traffic data.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 21 – Interception of content data

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary, in relation to a range of serious offences to be determined by domestic law, to empower its competent authorities to:

a collect or record through the application of technical means on the territory of that Party, and

b compel a service provider, within its existing technical capability:

i to collect or record through the application of technical means on the territory of that Party, or

ii to co-operate and assist the competent authorities in the collection or recording of,

content data, in real-time, of specified communications in its territory transmitted by means of a computer system.

2 Where a Party, due to the established principles of its domestic legal system, cannot adopt the measures referred to in paragraph 1.a, it may instead adopt legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure the real-time collection or recording of content data on specified communications in its territory through the application of technical means on that territory.

4 The powers and procedures referred to in this article shall be subject to Articles 14 and 15.

69 Powers to issue directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through any computer resource

(1) Where the central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorized by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defense of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information transmitted received or stored through any computer resource.

(2) The Procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed

(3) The subscriber or intermediary or any person in charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency which has been directed under sub section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to -

(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource containing such information; generating, transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or

(b) intercept or monitor or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or

(4) The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

There has been a lot of academic research and debate around the exercise of powers under section 69 of the IT Act, but the current piece is not the place for a standalone critique of section 69.[11] The analysis here is limited to a comparison of the provisions of Article 20 vis-à-vis section 69 of the IT Act.

In that background, it needs to be pointed out that two important issues mentioned in Article 20 of the Convention are not specifically mentioned in section 69B, viz. (i) that the order should be only for specific computer data, and (ii) that the intermediary should keep such an order confidential; these requirements are covered by Rules 9 and 20 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, respectively.

Convention on Cybercrime

Information Technology Act, 2000

Article 22 – Jurisdiction

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with Articles 2 through 11 of this Convention, when the offence is committed:

a in its territory; or

b on board a ship flying the flag of that Party; or

c on board an aircraft registered under the laws of that Party; or

d by one of its nationals, if the offence is punishable under criminal law where it was committed or if the offence is committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of any State.

2 Each Party may reserve the right not to apply or to apply only in specific cases or conditions the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraphs 1.b through 1.d of this article or any part thereof.

3 Each Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary to establish jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 24, paragraph 1, of this Convention, in cases where an alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him or her to another Party, solely on the basis of his or her nationality, after a request for extradition.

4 This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised by a Party in accordance with its domestic law.

5 When more than one Party claims jurisdiction over an alleged offence established in accordance with this Convention, the Parties involved shall, where appropriate, consult with a view to determining the most appropriate jurisdiction for prosecution.

1. Short Title, Extent, Commencement and Application

(2) It shall extend to the whole of India and, save as otherwise provided in this Act, it applies also to any offence or contravention hereunder committed outside India by any person.

75 Act to apply for offence or contraventions committed outside India

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply also to any offence or contravention committed outside India by any person irrespective of his nationality.

(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), this Act shall apply to an offence or contravention committed outside India by any person if the act or conduct constituting the offence or contravention involves a computer, computer system or computer network located in India.

The Convention provides for extra territorial jurisdiction only for crimes committed outside the State by nationals of that State. However, the IT Act applies even to offences under the Act committed by foreign nationals outside India, as long as the act involves a computer system or computer network located in India.

Unlike para 3 of Article 22 of the Convention, the IT Act does not touch upon the issue of extradition. Cases involving extradition would therefore be dealt with by the general law of the land in respect of extradition requests contained in the Extradition Act, 1962. The Convention requires that in cases where the state refuses to extradite an alleged offender, it should establish jurisdiction over the offences referred to in Article 21(1) so that it can proceed against that offender itself. In this regard, it must be pointed out that Section 34A of the Extradition Act, 1962 provides that “Where the Central Government is of the opinion that a fugitive criminal cannot be surrendered or returned pursuant to a request for extradition from a foreign State, it may, as it thinks fit, take steps to prosecute such fugitive criminal in India.” Thus the Extradition Act gives the Indian government the power to prosecute an individual in the event that such individual cannot be extradited.

International Cooperation

Chapter III of the Convention deals specifically with international cooperation between the signatory parties. Such co-operation is to be carried out both "in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter" and "through application of relevant international agreements on international cooperation in criminal matters, arrangements agreed to on the basis of uniform or reciprocal legislation, and domestic laws." The latter clause establishes the general principle that the provisions of Chapter III do not supersede the provisions of international agreements on mutual legal assistance and extradition or the relevant provisions of domestic law pertaining to international co-operation.^{^[12]} Although the Convention grants primacy to mutual treaties and agreements between member States, in certain specific circumstances it also provides for an alternative if such treaties do not exist between the member states (Article 27 and 28). The Convention also provides for international cooperation on certain issues which may not have been specifically provided for in mutual assistance treaties entered into between the parties and need to be spelt out due to the unique challenges posed by cyber crimes, such as expedited preservation of stored computer data (Article 29) and expedited disclosure of preserved traffic data (Article 30). Contentious issues such as access to stored computer data, real time collection of traffic data and interception of content data have been specifically left by the Convention to be dealt with as per existing international instruments or arrangements between the parties.

Conclusion

The broad language and wide terminology used IT Act seems to cover a number of the cyber crimes mentioned in the Budapest Convention, even though India has not signed and ratified the same. Penal provisions such as illegal access (Article 2), data interference (Article 4), system interference (Article 5), offence related to child pornography (Article 9), attempt and aiding or abetting (Article 11), corporate liability (Article 12) are substantially covered and reflected in the IT Act in a manner very similar to the requirements of the Convention. Similarly procedural provisions such as search and seizure of stored computer data (Article 19), real-time collection of traffic data (Article 20), interception of content data (Article 21) and Jurisdiction (Article 22) are also substantially reflected in the IT Act.

However certain penal provisions mentioned in the Convention such as computer related forgery (Article 7), computer related fraud (Article 8) are not provided for specifically in the IT Act but such offences are covered when provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are read in conjugation with provisions of the IT Act. Similarly procedural provisions such as expedited preservation of stored computer data (Article 16) and production order (Article 18) are not specifically provided for in the IT Act but are covered under Indian law through the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Apart from the above two categories there are certain provisions such as misuse of devices (Article 6) and Illegal interception (Article 3) which may not be specifically covered at all under Indian law, but may conceivably be said to be covered through an expansive reading of provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the IT Act. It may therefore be said that even though India has not signed or ratified the Budapest Convention, the legal regime in India is substantially in compliance with the provisions and requirements contained therein.

Thus, the Convention on Cybercrime is perhaps the most important international multi state instruments that may be used to combat cybercrime, not merely because the provisions thereunder may be used as a model to bolster national/local laws by any State, be it a signatory or not (as in the case of India) but also because of the mechanism it lays down for international cooperation in the field of cyber terrorism. In an increasingly interconnected world where more and more information of individuals is finding its way to the cloud or other networked infrastructure the international community is making great efforts to generate norms for increased international cooperation to combat cybercrime and cyber terrorism. While the Convention is one such multilateral effort, States are also proposing to use bilateral treaties to enable them to better fight cybercrime, the United States CLOUD Act, being one such effort. In the backdrop of these novel efforts the role to be played by older instruments such as the Convention on Cybercrime as well as by important States such as India is extremely crucial.

[1] Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 304, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b.

[2] The analysis here has been limited to only Chapter I and Chapter II of the Convention, as it is only adherence to these two chapters that is required under the CLOUD Act.

[3] The only possible enforcement that may be done with regard to the Convention on Cybercrime is that the Council of Europe may put pressure on the signatory State to amend its local laws (if it is refusing to do so) otherwise it would be in violation of its obligations as a member of the European Union.

[4] Alexander Seger, “India and the Budapest Convention: Why Not?”, https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/india-and-the-budapest-convention-why-not/

[5] Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 50, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b.

[6] India is a party to the Berne Convention on Literary and Artistic Works, the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights and the Rome Convention. India has also recently (July 4, 2018) announced that it will accede to the WIPO Copyright Treaty as well as the WIPO Performances and Phonographs Treaty.

[7] The test under the Convention is that the relevant person would be the one who has a leading position within the company, based on:

a power of representation of the legal person;
an authority to take decisions on behalf of the legal person;
an authority to exercise control within the legal person.

[8]Vipul Kharbanda and Elonnai Hickock, “MLATs and the proposed Amendments to the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act”, https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mlats-and-the-proposed-amendments-to-the-us-electronic-communications-privacy-act

[9] The term “human rights” has been defined in the Act as “rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India”.

[10] Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 151, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b. .

[11] A similar power of interception is available under section 5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885, but that extends only to interception of telegraphic communication and does not extend to communications exchanged through computer networks.

[12] Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, Para 244, https://rm.coe.int/16800cce5b.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/budapest-convention-and-the-information-technology-act