The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was recently introduced in Parliament. The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee for detailed examination, and the Committee is expected to submit its report by the last week of Budget Session, 2020. The Bill seeks to provide for the protection of personal data of individuals (known as data principals), and creates a framework for processing such personal data by other entities (known as data fiduciaries). It provides the data principal with certain rights with respect to their data, such as seeking correction, completion or transfer of their data to other fiduciaries. Similarly, it sets out certain obligations, and other transparency and accountability measures to be undertaken by the data fiduciary, such as instituting grievance redressal mechanisms to address complaints of individuals. Processing of personal data is exempted from the provisions of the Bill in certain cases, such as security of state, public order, or for prevention, investigation, or prosecution of any offence. The Bill also establishes a Data Protection Authority to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Bill and provide for further regulations.
As per the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2019 Bill, the provisions of the Bill are based on the recommendations of the report of the Expert Committee (Chair: Justice B. N. Srikrishna) which examined issues related to protection of personal data and proposed a Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018.
In a previous blog, we provided a brief background to the 2019 Bill, explained why a Bill was brought for personal data protection and what are some of the key provisions of the Bill. In this blog, we look at how the 2019 Bill differs from the 2018 Draft Bill.
Table 1: Comparison of the provisions of the 2018 Draft Bill with the 2019 Bill
Provision |
Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018 |
Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 |
Definition of personal data |
|
|
Sensitive personal data |
|
|
Rights of individual (data principal) |
|
|
Non-consensual processing of personal data |
|
|
Social media intermediaries |
|
|
Exemptions for the government for processing of personal data |
|
|
Exemptions for manual processing by small entities |
|
|
Transfer of personal data outside country |
|
|
Composition of Data Protection Authority of India |
|
|
Offences and penalties |
|
|
Non-personal and anonymised personal data |
|
|
Sources: The Draft Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018; The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019; PRS.
Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have seen disruptions this morning on the issue of FDI in multi-brand retail. The issue may be discussed in Parliament under various procedures. We have explained these in an Op-Ed in today’s Indian Express. The summary is given below.
In sum, there are several methods. with different political implications. available to MPs who would like a debate on the FDI issue. A no-confidence motion would question the continuance of the current government. An adjournment motion could censure the government. A motion under Rule 184 or to annul the FDI regulation could require reversal of the policy. A debate under Rule 193 (without a vote) would only require a response from the minister.
The stance taken by various parties will be based on a combination of their views on the issue, the potential costs to the stability of the government under the given procedure, as well as the likely positions that other parties may take. This may guide the choice of procedure adopted by parties that want to raise the issue.