The government has recently allowed 10 various intelligence and investigating agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer. These authorised agencies encompass the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Cabinet Secretariat (RAW), Directorate of Signal Intelligence (restricted to regions of Jammu & Kashmir, North-East and Assam) and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Every individual who is a subscriber or service provider, or is responsible for any computer resource, must provide full cooperation and technical aid to these agencies.
Legitimacy of the Notification
This provision allowing interception of information from computer resources has been in existence since the passing of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Act stipulates this under Section 69(1), taking into account the country’s sovereignty and integrity, state security, maintaining amicable foreign state relations, public order and preventing incitement to any cognizable offence.
In 2008, Section 69 received amendments that further allowed the Centre and State governments to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information transmitted through, received or stored in a computer. This interception, decryption or monitoring of each case, however, requires the approval of the Union Home secretary, the competent authority. Similarly, State governments also hold these powers as per the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules 2009.
Review Process
The review committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary, reviews all such occurrences of interception, monitoring or decryption. It holds meetings at least once in two months for this purpose. In the scenario of State governments, the Chief Secretary heads the corresponding committee that performs these reviews.
| Agency | Authority | Monitor Information |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Bureau | Union Home Secretary | Yes |
| Narcotics Control Bureau | State Government | Yes |
| Cabinet Secretariat (RAW) | Union Home Secretary | Yes |
Notification and the Telegraph Act 1885
The recent notification does not grant any additional powers. It is similar to the authorisation issued under the Telegraph Act 1885, permitting phone call interceptions. For each individual case, the Union Home Ministry or the State government’s prior approval remains a requirement. The Home Ministry has not handed over its powers to any law enforcement or security agency.
Criticism and Privacy Concerns
This notification granting blanket approval for electronic surveillance has been criticised as an attack on civil liberties and individual freedom, potentially leading to the creation of a surveillance state. The judgement of the 2017 K.S. Puttaswamy (privacy) by the Supreme Court, which directed the government to safeguard every individual’s informational privacy, is perceived to be challenged by this development.
In the K. S puttaswamy judgement, the Supreme Court implored the government to carefully and sensitively balance individual privacy and the legitimate concerns of the state, even if national security was at stake. This balance between national security and individual privacy remains a crucial consideration that the Government should strike.