Activists Welcome Privacy Bill, but Point Out Concerns
Activists Welcome Privacy Bill, but Point Out Concerns is a Mint report published on 23 June 2010. It covers the government’s move to form a panel of secretary-level officials to draft a privacy and personal data protection law, with experts welcoming the intent while flagging risks around overlapping legislation, an inadequate consultation process, and the rapid advance of biometric technology. It quotes Sunil Abraham, then executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, on the broad scope of the proposed Bill and its interaction with the Aadhaar Bill.
Contents
Article Details
- 📰 Published in:
- Mint
- 📅 Date:
- 23 June 2010
- 📄 Type:
- News Report
- 📰 Article Link:
- Not available online
Full Text
Experts have welcomed the government's move to bring in a law for protecting individual privacy, amid concerns about the potential misuse of personal data it is collecting to execute social welfare and security schemes.
But they warn that overlaps with existing laws, a limited consultation process and failure to keep up with technological advances could undercut the utility of the planned legislation.
The Union government has set up a panel of secretary-level officials to prepare a blueprint for a law to protect individual privacy and personal data from misuse, even by the government, Mint reported on Monday.
The government is collecting personal data to operate schemes such as Aadhaar — a project to provide numeric identity cards to all residents, and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), which will track information obtained by 11 law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
These agencies can access details of phone calls, credit card transactions, visa, immigration and property records, and driving licences of all citizens, as well as their iris and thumb-prints.
Lawrence Liang, a lawyer who works with Bangalore-based Alternative Law Forum, said the planned law will check the manner in which private companies use the personal data of citizens.
"Currently, there are only private contracts between individuals and companies on how personal data is used. With this legislation, the individual is more empowered. The state can back him better in case of a dispute," he said.
Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, which has protested Aadhaar's project structure, also welcomed the move.
"The privacy Bill guidelines are fairly broad. It is early days yet. There will be a large overlap between the privacy and Aadhaar Bills," he said.
Faking biometric data, for instance, isn't a violation of privacy in the proposed law but could be criminally cognizable under the Aadhaar Bill, Abraham said. "It will be interesting to see how these issues are tackled as there are several nuances and grey areas."
A scientist at the Institute for Genomics and Integrative Biology in New Delhi said new kinds of privacy issues will emerge because of the imminent rise of bioinformatics applications.
There are no products or applications today that rely solely on biometric information to breach individual privacy, he said, requesting anonymity.
"But within five years, it will be easier to collect biometric information and link it to other details such as credit card information and driving licence numbers on a large scale. There could then be issues of privacy that will emerge," he added.
Leo Saldanha, coordinator at the Bangalore-based Environment Support Group and another critic of Aadhaar, said the planned privacy Bill is a sham.
"Privacy is anyway enumerated in our constitutional rights under Article 21. But governments have anyway accessed information via phone taps unencumbered," he said. "I don't think the existence of legislation per se will change matters on the ground."
Context and Background
This report appeared about two months after the first organised legal challenge to Aadhaar covered in the Mint piece of 28 April 2010. By June 2010, the debate had shifted from questioning the programme’s legality to demanding a broader privacy framework to govern it. The government’s decision to set up a drafting panel was widely seen as a partial concession to the concerns raised by civil society groups including the Centre for Internet and Society.
Sunil Abraham’s observation about the overlap between the privacy Bill and the Aadhaar Bill proved prescient. The tension between the two legislative tracks remained unresolved for years, eventually culminating in the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which affirmed privacy as a fundamental right and reshaped the legal context for both Aadhaar and data protection law in India.
📄 This page was created on 15 April 2026. You can view its history on GitHub, preview the fileTip: Press Alt+Shift+G, or inspect the .