Harchand Choudhary

Saturday 9 July 2016

National Judicial Appointment Commission is better than Collegium System

By -- Harchand Choudhary1

“Even so, the creed of judicial independence is our constitutional ‘religion’ and, if the executive use Article 222 to imperil this basic tenet, the Court must ‘do or die’” — Justice Krishna Iyer

1. Collegium System:-

Collegium system came into existence through a long judicial activism and judicial process. After the case of 1973 in which A.N. Ray was appointed as chief justice of India superseding three senior colleagues, judicial appointment process always remained in controversy. Collegium system got its final form through various Supreme Court judgments. The first case was S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1982[2] also known as the judges transfer case, in that case, Supreme Court of India held that power of the appointment of judges of higher judiciary solely and exclusively in the hand of the central government of India. In the second judges case Supreme Court Advocate – on Record Association v. Union of India 1993[3], the Supreme Court overruled the judgment of S.P. Gupta case and held that in the matter of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts the chief justice of India should have primacy. And in third judges case in Re Presidential Reference 1999[4], the Supreme Court finally evolved the collegium system and held in regard to the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court, chief justice of India should consult a collegium system of four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

For the appointment of judges of High Courts, the court held that the collegium should consist of the chief justice of India and two senior most judges of Supreme Court of India. In the regard to the transfer of the judges of High Court in addition to the collegium system of four judges, chief justice of India require consulting chief justice of two High Courts ( one from which judge is being transferred and other receiving him)

2. Weakness of Collegium System:-

Elevation of justice P.D. Dinakran of Karnataka High Court to the Supreme Court of India added fuel to the fire in the weakness of collegium system when it overlooked the chief justices of Bombay, Gujrat, and Uttarakhand High Courts. This incident once again raised the questions against the validity and utility of the present method of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts by the collegium system.[1]

The method of selecting judges through the collegium system does not find any palace in the constitution of India. The Indian constitution provides power to the president of India to appoint the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. But through the judgement, The Supreme Court acquired this power in its hand and started to assess their own merit, ability, and qualification among themselves. And the recommendations for appointment made by collegium will be binding on the government.

Prior to case 1993 second judge case, many ablest judges were appointed with the consultation of government. The emergency case was an exception. There was no any single controversy on those appointments which were done by collegium system. It is difficult to understand what was necessary to overturn the constitutional principles of like collegium system.

The collegium system had neither a secretariat to shoulder its burden nor an intelligence bureau to make appropriate inquiry character and competence for 31 judges of the Supreme Court and other judges of 24 High Courts of India. That is why there is always vacancies in higher judiciary in India. Besides that the collegium system was opaque because the choice of judges came to light only when they forward their name to the government. Collegium system was bound by seniority they do not see the constitutional vision of judges, what their social philosophy is and what is their attitudes toward gender justice. Because of seniority concept collegium overlooked many talented junior judges.

In an interview, former justice Ganguly said that “one thing about collegium system I have a criticism which has completely made the executive subservient to the primacy of the opinion of the judiciary that is not correct, that is not the scheme of the constitution. By a judgement, you cannot rewrite the constitution”.

In the process of the appointment of judges of higher judiciary, there must be elements of democratic accountability. We can not depend on this assumption that judges know best. In the process of appointment of judges, political class must be included otherwise it will be a judicial oligarchy. They are bound by seniority and do not see what is his attitude towards affirmative action. That is why that it is good that collegium system had repealed by Indian parliament and introduced new process National Judicial Appointment Commission 2014.

3. National Judicial Appointment Commission 2014:-

Because of failure of collegium system through opaqueness, corruption, nepotism, lack of transparency and recent revelation by former justice katju and justice Dinakaran cases compelled to the Indian parliament to bring new laws related to appointment in the higher judiciary. Consequently, after getting full majority in general election NDA government passed 99th constitutional amendment in 2014 and added new clauses, Art. 124A,124B, and 124C and got ratification of 16 states to get rid of all problems which were faced in Indian judiciary. So that transparency and impartiality can be maintained in Indian judiciary. Thus Act came into force on 31st dec. 2014.There are following provision of this Act.

• ‘The NJAC comprises of six members which include Chief Justice of India as Chairman, Union Law Minister, two senior-most Supreme Court judges and two eminent persons.

• The two eminent persons will be selected by a collegium comprising of Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and leader of the opposition or the leader of the single largest party in the Lok Sabha.

• Besides, one eminent person should belong to the SC, ST, women or minority community, preferably by rotation and will have the tenure of three years.

• The NJAC will recommend to the President for the appointment and transfer of judges of higher judiciary, viz., Supreme Court and High Courts.

• It will also make recommendations for the appointment of Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of High Courts.

• If two members out of six are not agreed then the proposed name cannot be appointed or promote or transfer and proposal will be automatically canceled.’[5]

New provisions through National Judicial Appointment Commission 2014 tried to bring transparency and equal say to the executive in appointing process of the higher judiciary. It Introduces new separate body which can look after a fair and right process of judicial appointment.

4. Other Nations’ Judicial Appointing Process:-

The United States of America

The power to appoint judges to the US Supreme Court is exercised by the executive branch of government; specifically, by the President of the United States. Presidential appointments to the US Supreme Court must first be confirmed by the US Senate, which is part of the legislative branch of government. In other words, the Senate has the power to reject or block the appointment. Moreover, the confirmation proceedings usually involve a lengthy review process in which the Senate Judiciary Committee is permitted to directly question the President's nominee. Also, there are no special rules for the President to follow in choosing a nominee. The President may appoint any lawyer for whom Senatorial confirmation can be obtained

The Republic of France

As in France the power to make appointments to the nation's highest court, the Court de Cassation, resides within the executive branch of government; specifically, the French President.in France, an independent body oversees the appointment process. This body is referred to as the Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature, which is tasked with reviewing and interviewing potential Court de Cassation appointees, and then making a recommendation to the French President.

The purpose of the Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature is to ensure judicial independence and quality control in the appointment of judges to the nation's courts.

Thus like appointing process of USA and France India also can follow through NJAC because it is not necessary to always follow the seniority junior can be more talented and smart. So that burden of cases which are pending in court can be disposed of as soon as possible. Since justice delay is justice denied.

5. Some weakness of NJAC 2014:-

NJAC 2014 there are two clauses which are questionable and doubtful. First is the composition of NJAC has been left in the parliament and mere parliamentary statute is enough to make more flexible to it then the amendment of the constitution. Second is NJAC 2014 did not clear that how eminent members will be chosen collectively by Prime minister, Chief justice of India and Leader of the largest opposition party. Is it by unanimity or simple consensus. This is yet not clear.

6. Conclusion :-

“I do not think that we should select judges based on a particular philosophy as opposed to temperament, commitment to judicial neutrality and commitment to other more constant values as to which there is general consensus”.- Anthony Kennedy

The independent and transparent judiciary is the sine qua non for a healthy democracy. To maintain accountability and impartiality in the appointment of judiciary NJAC is much better than an opaque collegium system. To make this commission is stronger it is necessary that composition, function and procedure must not be in the hand of parliament. It must be in the permanent part of the constitution which can be amended only by the special majority of parliament with the ratification of the states. So that it cannot be amended easily. And another thing is that no system can be perfect, but can be relatively better. There is always the possibility of drawbacks in any system so to make better to NJAC, it is necessary to implement this system in India.

________________________________________

1. Student of Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University New Law College Pune (India)

2. AIR 1982 SC 149

3. AIR (1993)4 SSC 441

4 AIR 1999 SC 1

5. The National Judicial Appointment Commission Bill, 2014

Tuesday 28 June 2016

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL AND ITS ROLE IN JUDICIARY

The Constitution of India through its directive principles of state policy (DPSP) mentions that “it is the duty of the state to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country and bestow upon the citizens the duty to protect the environment”. In reality the implementation of DPSPs immediately after independence was a difficult task for government as there were many other problems that were given priority over the environment. To overcome the basic problems of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment and to provide basic health care facilities, environment issues were not given that much importance. In order to increase the production in the economy more and more industries were set up. This has led to degradation of environment at a large scale in India and the priority in the last decade had gradually shifted to protection of environment.

Origin of the idea of establishing environmental courts in India

As a result of this dire need for speedy justice The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was founded on 18th October, 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is a statutory tribunal which was enacted by the parliament specially for hearing the matters concerning to environmental issues. It was a result of long procedure and the demand for such tribunal started long back in the year 1984 after the Bhopal gas tragedy. Then the Supreme Court specifically mentioned the need for such tribunals in the case where the gas leaked from Shri Ram food and fertilizers limited in Delhi. The Supreme Court than in a number of cases highlighted the difficulty faced by judges in adjudicating on complex environmental cases and laid emphasis on the need to set up a specialized environmental court. it became functional only because of repeated directions of the Supreme Court while hearing the Special Leave Petition titled Union of India v. Vimal Bhai¹.

Powers of NGT

The legislate Act of Parliament defines the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as “An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”

The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974;
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977;
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981;
The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986;
The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991;
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The NGT has been given the power to regulate the procedure by itself. It does not follow the principles of civil procedure code instead it follows principles of natural justice². The NGT also at the time of giving orders shall apply the principals of sustainable development and also the principal that the one who pollutes shall pay. It will have the same power as of the civil court in deciding the matter falling within these seven legal acts³. The major benefit with NGT is that it has a strong order enforcing mechanism. If the orders of NGT are not complied with than it has the power to impose both punishment as well as fine. The punishment is up to three years and the penalty is up to ten crore and for firms in can extend up to twenty five crores. Also the director or manager of the firm can be punished or penalized if it is found by the tribunal that the offence has been committed on the orders or with the consent of such officer of the firm.

The act also provides various kinds of reliefs to the persons who are affected by the degradation of environment as the inhabitant of that particular area. One of the provisions of the act is to provide compensation to the victims of any loss occurring from accident or leakage while handling hazardous substance. So this provision basically will deal with any loss which occurs due to leakage of some hazardous gas in a locality. This was necessary because earlier law was silent in this regard due to which the people who suffered damages in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy could not get proper compensation from the union carbide.

Notable orders

Yamuna floodplain case

Recently in March 2015 NGT imposed fine of Rs 5 crore on Art of Living Foundation because it has organized World Cultural Festival on Yamuna flood plain and affected the environment.

Yamuna Conservation Zone

On 25 April 2014, The NGT said that the health of Yamuna will be affected by the proposed recreational facilities on the river. The NGT also recommended the Government to declare a 52 km stretch of the Yamuna in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as a conservation zone.

Coal Blocks in Chhattisgarh Forests

The National Green Tribunal has cancelled the clearance given by the then Union Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh, to the Parsa East and Kante-Basan captive coal blocks in the Hasdeo-Arand forests of Chhattisgarh, overruling the statutory Forest Advisory Committee.

Ban on decade old Diesel vehicles at Delhi NCR

An attempt to minimize air pollution at capital of India and NCR PM 2.5 particles have reached alarming level. As per this order, 10 yrs old vehicles are not allowed to ply.

Footnotes

¹ SLP (civil) No(s).12065/2009

² Section 18(2), national green tribunal act, 2010

³ Citizens welfare forum v. union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

Wednesday 25 May 2016

“RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN THE DAWN OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY- A Critical Review ”

By- HarchandChoudhary^@

Abstract-

Right to privacy is basic right of a human kind and it is recognised universally. In Indian perspective even though it is came in existence through case by case because of Indian vigilant judiciary and made it sine qua non for human being and provided power against any encroachment. But revolution in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) diluted this right to privacy. ICT affected man badly and his right to be alone. Crime of hacking are continuously increasing because laws existed in present scenario is not adequate to handle the breach of data privacy. Even sometimes government agencies also encroaches other people’s right to their own benefit on the name of national security. On the other hand ICT also became part and partial in modern time and it cannot be banned. The only solutions are evolved a framework and enact effective rules and regulations against unwanted interference in right to privacy.

1. Introduction-

Every civilized nation ensures privacy of its citizen. The concept of privacy differs from society to society. The Universal Declaration of Human Right provides for the right of privacy similarly other International Instruments also endow for right of privacy.

Article 12, No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The constitution of India does not expressly provide the right to privacy,however, the Supreme Court of India had interpreted it under the right to life. The Right of privacy has not been defined statutorily in India. The analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision on various cases brings forward certain areas that cover protection of information as a part of right of privacy. The concept of privacy in modern times is not restricted to mere physical movement or domiciliary surveillance, but also encompasses protection of a wide range of information, whether its medical, financial, bio metric or personal etc. The Supreme Court has explained the facet of privacy meritoriously as,

“The most serious advocate of privacy must confess that there are serious problems

of defining the essence and scope of the right. The privacy interest in autonomy must also be

placed in the context of other rights and values. Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and childbearing.”¹

2. Evolution of right to privacy-

Though it is true that the Indian Constitution does not explicitly guarantee this right as a fundamental right certainly the right to privacy or, the right to be left alone, should be accepted as an individual right. The courts' treatment of this right is a matter of paramount importance because of growing invasions of this right in areas that remained away from the purview of courts. It also assumes importance because of frequent violation of this right by the State on grounds which are not bona fide.

The Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Court") had the opportunity to first decide and lay down the contours of the right to privacy in India in the case of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1]. This case did not witness the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the ‘personal liberty’ clause of Article 21 of the Constitution. Majority of the judges in this case refused to interpret Article 21 in a manner to include within its ambit the right to privacy, however two of the seven judges asserted that the right to privacy does form an essential ingredient of personal liberty. Subsequently, the Supreme Court while deciding the case of Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh³ laid down that a number of fundamental rights of citizens can be described as contributing to the right to privacy. Although the Supreme Court also stated that the right to privacy will have to go through a process of case by case development.The Supreme Court in the case of R. Rajagopa v. State of Tamil Nadu^4, for the first time directly linked the right to privacy to Article 21 of the Constitution and laid down:

"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 aright 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."

Further, while deciding on the issue of telephone-tapping in the case of PUCL v. Union of India⁵, the Supreme Court observed that telephone-tapping would be a serious invasion of an individual’sprivacy.Thus, telephone-tapping would infract Article 21 of the Constitution, unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.

Therefore, the concept of privacy of an individual has evolved over the years and has been held to be a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. In the case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka⁶the Supreme Court held that an involuntary subjection of a person to narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and BEAP tests violates the right to privacy.
[2]

The Supreme Court has articulated an implicit right to privacy derived from the language set out in Article 21 of the Constitution. However, India does not have a separate and specific legislation that explicitly recognizes therightto privacyand sets out the contours of its applicability

Indian government proposed a bill for separate Right to Privacy Bill 2011 but it did not clear by parliament yet.

3. Effect of ICT on privacy-

Although Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) have greatly enhanced

ours capacities to collect, store, process and communicate information, it is ironically

thesecapacities of technology which make us vulnerable to intrusions of our privacy

on a previously impossible scale. Firstly, Data on our own personal computers can

compromise us in unpleasant ways – with consequences ranging from personal

embarrassment to financial loss. Secondly, transmission of data over the internet and

mobile networks is equally fraught with the risk of interception – both lawful and

unlawful – which could compromise our privacy. Thirdly, in this age of cloud computing

when much of “our” data – our emails, chat logs, personal profiles, bank statements etc.

resides on the distant servers of the companies whose services we use, our privacy

become only as strong as these companies’ internal electronic security systems.

Fourthly, the privacy of children, women and sexuality minorities tend to be especially

fragile in this digital age and they have become frequent targets of exploitation. Fifthly,

the internet has spawned new kinds of annoyances from electronic voyeurism to spam or

offensive email to ‘phishing’ – impersonating someone else’s identity for financial gain -

which each have the effect of impinging on one’s privacy.

In India right to privacy was breached many times by government agencies through phone tappings. in this there was famous case was Nira Radia Case.The Radia tapes controversy relates to the telephonic conversations between NiraRadia, a lobbyist and an acquaintance of the (then) Indian telecom minister A. Raja, and with senior journalists, politicians, and corporate houses,^[1] taped by the Indian Income Tax Department in 2008–09. The tapes led to accusations of misconduct by many of these people.

Latter on Tata has challenged the unauthorized publication of the recordings. His argument is that the authorities have failed in their duty to protect his privacy by allowing the tapes to be leaked and then proving unable to prevent dissemination of the information. He has thus asked for directives by the court for a probe into the leak, for the authorities to attempt to retrieve all leaked recordings, and for the media to be prohibited from publishing the tapes in any form. It is the second and third requests that have become points of controversy

Another most famous incident of phone tapping in India was during the Ramakrishna Hegde regime in Karnataka in the year 1988. The opposition had alleged that Hegde had ordered the tapping of phones of opposition leaders and was invading their privacy.

In 2014 Edward Snowden revealed thousands of documents of spying program run by USA intelligence agencies CIA and FBI. These document shows that thousands of people, politicians, celebrities, businessmen and departments were spied by US agencies and breached right to privacy of many people. like

Ø “US 'hacks China networks'

Ø Merkel phone calls 'intercepted'

Ø A total of 38 embassies and missions have been the "targets" of US spying operations, accordingto a secret file leaked to the Guardian.

Ø Latin America 'monitored'

Ø SMS messages 'collected and stored' In January 2014, the Guardian newspaper and Channel Four News reported that the US had collected and stored almost 200 million text messages per day across the globe.

A National Security Agency (NSA) programme is said to have extracted and stored data from the SMS messages to gather location information, contacts and financial data.

The documents also revealed that GCHQ had used the NSA database to search for information on people in the UK.”

· “In July 2015, adult website Ashley Madison suffered a data breach when a hacker group stole information on its 37 million users. The hackers threatened to reveal user names and specifics if Ashley Madison and a fellow site, EstablishedMen.com, did not shut down permanently.

· In November 2014 and for weeks after, Sony Pictures Entertainment suffered a data breach involving personal information about Sony Pictures employees and their families, e-mails between employees, information about executive salaries at the company, copies of (previously) unreleased Sony films, and other information. The hackers involved claim to have taken over 100 terabytes of data from Sony.

· In August 2014, nearly 200 photographs of celebrities were posted to the image board website 4chan. An investigation by Apple found that the images were obtained "by a targeted attack on user names, passwords and security questions".

These are the purely side effects of ICT on right to privacy if ICT would not have existed then privacy had breached at vast level.

4. Laws for protection of privacy-

Although there are a number of technological measures through which these risks can be reduced, it is equally important to have a robust legal regime in place which lays emphasis on the maintenance of privacy. We have some laws as under mention -

(A) Under Section 43A of the (Indian) Information Technology Act, 2000, a body corporate who is possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information, and is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices resulting in wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, then such body corporate may be held liable to pay damages to the person so affected. It is important to note that there is no upper limit specified for the compensation that can be claimed by the affected party in such circumstances.

(B) Under Section 72A of the (Indian) Information Technology Act, 2000, disclosure of information, knowingly and intentionally, without the consent of the person concerned and in breach of the lawful contract has been also made punishable with imprisonment for a term extending to three years and fine extending to INR 5,00,000 (Approx. US$ 10750).

The current lot of legislations that try to address privacy concerns are piecemeal in nature. Bulk of these provisions is found in the Information Technology Act 2000 and its subsequent amendments. Section 72 of the Information Technology Act 2000 in its original form penalized the breaches of confidentiality and privacy of data. Essentially, the scope of the provision covered those empowered by the Act to gain “access to any electronic record, book, register, correspondence, information document or other material” seized for investigation. It was aimed at preventing accidental leaks of such information during the course of investigation. It was later amendedto include Section 72A to penalize “any person” (including an intermediary) who has obtained personal information while providing services under a lawful contract and discloses the personal information without consent of the person, with the intent to cause, or knowing it is likely to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

When this clause is read together with Section 69B of the Act, it squarely puts the responsibility of securing personal data on the intermediary, which in this case could be a wide spectrum of actors from cyber cafes to telecom companies and ISPs. This also makes Government agencies like the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) which is tasked with collection of biometric data, accountable for maintaining privacy of such data collected by it.

Another set of amendments came into force by the addition of Section 43A which obliges corporate bodies which possess, deal or handle any sensitive personal data to implement and maintain “reasonable security practices,” failing which they would be liable to pay damages. The Act defines “corporate bodies” as those involved in “commercial or professional activities” only. The definitions of “sensitive personal data” and “reasonable security practices” are narrow and hence prevent courts from interpreting a contextual definition. Most importantly, government agencies and non-profit organizations are entirely excluded from the ambit of this section.

(C) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly for Right to Privacy -

Reaffirming the human right to privacy, according to which no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, and the right to the protection of the law against such interference, and recognizing that the exercise of the right to privacy is important for the realization of the right to freedom of expression and to hold opinions without interference, and is one of the foundations of a democratic society, Stressing the importance of the full respect for the freedom

(D)Article 12 of The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,which states that:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”

@ The court also specified in this judgment delivered in the PUCL vs Union of India⁷ case in 1997 that a telephonic conversation in private without interference would come under the purview of right to privacy as mandated in the Constitution.
The court further observed that unlawful means of phone tapping are invasions in privacy and are uncivilized and undemocratic in nature.

The Supreme Court, in the same judgment, also went on to lay down various guidelines regarding phone tapping which are as follows:

Ø If a telephone needs to be tapped, then the home secretary of the Union government or the respective state government can issue an order to this effect.

Ø Strong reasons have to be specified in order to issue such a directive.

Ø Such an order shall be in force only for two months unless there is another order, which will give the home secretary the right to extend it by another six months only.

The Supreme Court, however, does not give the home secretary the ultimate power and states clearly in the same judgment that such an order shall be subject to review by the Cabinet, law and telecommunication secretary who will need to review the same in 2 months time of the date the order has been passed

[3]

5. Possible Remedies-

Recommendations of the Shah Committee

In general, the Shah Committee recommended that the legislation on right to privacy must harmonize all statutory provisions that relate to privacy. As perthe Committee Report submitted in October 2012, the major recommendations of the Shah Committee were as follows:-

1. The regulatory framework will consist of privacycommissioners at the Central and Regional levels;

2. A system of co-regulation granting the selfregulating organizations at industry level the choice to develop privacy standards. These standards should be approved by a privacycommissioner;

3. Individuals would be given the choice (opt-in/opt-out) with regard to providing their personal information and the data controller would take individual consent only after providing inputs of its information practices;

4. The data controller shall only collect that personal information from data subjects as is necessary for the purposes identified for such collection as well as process the data relevant to the purpose for which they are collected;

[4]

5. The data collected would be put to use for the purpose for which it has been collected. Any change in the usage would be done only with consent of the person concerned;

6. Data collected and processed would be relevant for the purpose and no additional data elements would be collected from the individual;[5]

7. Interception orders must be specific and all interceptions would only be in force for a period of 60 days and may be renewed for a period of up to 180 days. Records of interception must be destroyed by security agencies after 6 months or 9 months and service providers must destroy after 2 months or 6 months; and

8. Infringement of any provision under the Act would constitute an offence forwhich individuals may seek compensation.

6. Conclusion-

Right to Privacy is fundamental right and sine qua non for a human being to live a dignify life. No one can compromise with his privacy. But on other hand Information and Communication Technology is also become a part and partial of modern world. ICT made whole world a village and connected to one another and without ICT life will be very difficult at present time. So both privacy and ICT are important for a person in these days, the only possible solution is to enact effective laws, rules and regulation to prevent data breach and create such a framework which can punish those people who breach the privacy of others.Government should motivate the IT companies to build a robust internet security and privacy protections in their network.