India’s data protection Bill

(GS-II: Government policies and issues arising out of it)

In News:

Nearly two years after it was constituted on 11 December 2019, the Joint Committee on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, has presented its final report on the upcoming bill in both Houses of Parliament on 16 December.

Key recommendations:

Remove the word ‘personal’ from the existing title of ‘Personal Data Protection Bill’. This is intended to reflect that the bill, in order to better ensure privacy, will also be dealing with non-personal data, such as personal data that has been anonymised.

Amend the section restricting the transfer of personal data outside India to say “sensitive personal data shall not be shared with any foreign government or agency unless such sharing is approved by the central government.

No social media platform be allowed to operate in India unless its parent company, which controls the technology powering its services, sets up an office in the country.

It proposes a separate regulatory body to be set up to regulate the media.

Jail term of up to 3 years, fine of Rs 2 lakh or both if de-identified data is re-identified by any person.

The word ‘personal’ ought to be dropped from the name of the Bill.

Central government may exempt any government agency from the legislation only under exceptional circumstances.

How do these recommendations compare with EU regulation?

The JCP recommendations on the Personal Data Protection Bill are in some aspects very similar to global standards such as European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation.

Similarities:

Consent: Users must have informed consent about the way their data is processed so that they can opt in or out.

Breach: Authorities must be notified of a breach within 72 hours of the leak.

Transition period: Two-year transition period for provisions of GDPR to be put in place.

Data fiduciary: Under EU law, a Data fiduciary is any natural or legal person, public authority, agency or body that determines purpose and means of data processing. In India, it also includes NGOs.

The committee has recommended the formation of a Data Protection Authority (DPA):

The Data Protection Authority (DPA) will be dealing with privacy and personal data as well as non-personal data.

Composition of DPA: The Chairperson and the members of the DPA shall be appointed by the Union government based on the recommendation of a selection committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.

Other members of the committee would be the Attorney General of India, the IT and law secretaries.

Nominated members: An independent expert and a director each from the IIT and the IIM will be nominated by the Centre.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960

(GS-II: Government policies and issues arising out of it)

In News:

The Supreme Court has allowed Maharashtra to hold bullock cart races in the state till the pendency of the matter before the constitutional Bench of the apex court. It is a 400-year-old tradition.

What’s the issue?

Bullock cart races were banned in Maharashtra after the Supreme Court declared that the race as violative of the provisions of the central act in 2014.

After the Tamil Nadu government enacted a law to regulate jallikattu (taming of the bull), there was a demand to revive bullock races in Maharashtra.

In April 2017, the Maharashtra assembly had passed a legislation for resumption of bullock cart races across the state.

In August 2017, the Bombay High Court passed an interim order restraining the Maharashtra government from giving permission for bullock cart races anywhere in the state.

The state then approached the Supreme Court.

Demands by Maharashtra:

The Maharashtra government, on Wednesday, had told the SC that the ban on bullock cart races in the state should be lifted as the same is being conducted in the states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

What next?

The SC, while allowing the resumption of bullock cart races, has observed that the validity of the amended provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the rules framed by Maharashtra, which provided for bullock cart race in the state, would operate during the pendency of the petitions as the entire matter has been referred to a constitution Bench.

About the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960:

• Seeks to “prevent the infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering on animals”.
• The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) was established in 1962 under Section 4 of the Act.
• This Act provides for punishment for causing unnecessary cruelty and suffering to animals. The Act defines animals and different forms of animals.
• It provides the guidelines relating to experimentation on animals for scientific purposes.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Care and Maintenance of Case Property Animals) Rules, 2017:

• Framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
• The Rules allow a Magistrate to forfeit the cattle of an owner facing trial under the Act.
• The animals are then sent to infirmaries, animal shelters, etc.
• The authorities can further give such animals for “adoption”.

Raising legal age of marriage for women

(GS-I: Issues related to women)

In News:

The Cabinet has decided to raise the legal age of marriage for women from 18 to 21. This decision is based on the recommendation of a panel led by Jaya Jaitly.

Task force:

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in her Budget speech last year proposed a panel on the “age of a girl entering motherhood” to lower maternal mortality rates and improve nutrition levels.

But when the decision to appoint a task force was announced, its terms of reference included examining “the correlation of age of marriage and motherhood” with health and nutritional status of mothers and infants.

Important recommendations:

The age of marriage should be increased to 21 years.

The government should look into increasing access to schools and colleges for girls, including their transportation to these institutes from far-flung areas.

Skill and business training has also been recommended, as has sex education in schools.

These deliveries must come first, as, unless they are implemented and women are empowered, the law will not be as effective.

Rationale behind the proposal:

The committee has said the recommendation is not based on the rationale of population control (India’s total fertility rate is already declining) but more with women’s empowerment and gender parity. The committee has said access to education and livelihood must be enhanced simultaneously for the law to be effective.

Criticism:

Women’s rights activists have opposed the suggestion and have cited evidence to show that such a move may be used to incarcerate young adults marrying without parents’ consent.

Also, this move would lead to criminalisation of a large number of marriages that will take place once the law comes into effect.

What the law says?

Currently, the law prescribes that the minimum age of marriage is 21 and 18 years for men and women, respectively.

The minimum age of marriage is distinct from the age of majority, which is gender-neutral.

An individual attains the age of majority at 18 as per the Indian Majority Act, 1875.

For Hindus, Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 sets 18 years as the minimum age for the bride and 21 years as the minimum age for the groom. Child marriages are not illegal but can be declared void at the request of the minor in the marriage.

In Islam, the marriage of a minor who has attained puberty is considered valid under personal law.

The Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 also prescribe 18 and 21 years as the minimum age of consent for marriage for women and men respectively.

Why is the law being relooked at?

From bringing in gender-neutrality to reduce the risks of early pregnancy among women, there are many arguments in favour of increasing the minimum age of marriage of women.

Early pregnancy is associated with increased child mortality rates and affects the health of the mother.

Despite laws mandating minimum age and criminalising sexual intercourse with a minor, child marriages are very prevalent in the country.

Also, according to a study, children born to adolescent mothers (10-19 years) were 5 percentage points more likely to be stunted (shorter for their age) than those born to young adults (20-24 years).

Tamil Nadu makes it mandatory to stand while state song is being played

(GS-II: Government policies and issues arising out of it)

In News:

The Tamil Nadu government has declared Tamil Thai Vaazhthu, a prayer song sung in praise of Mother Tamil, as the State Song.

A Government Order (GO) had been issued directing that everyone who is present during the rendition of the song, barring differently abled persons, should remain standing.

What’s the issue now?

The order has come less than two weeks after the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court said (Kan. Ilango v. State case) that “There is no statutory or executive order requiring the attendees to stand up when Tamil Thai Vaazhthu is sung.”

What has the Supreme Court in this regard previously?

The High Court referred to Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala case (1986), in which the Supreme Court ordered the readmission to school of three children of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who had been expelled for refusing to sing the national anthem. It was noted (by the Supreme Court) that there is no provision of law which obliges anyone to sing the National Anthem.

Again, while the Supreme Court had, in Shyam Narayan Chouksey v. Union of India (2017), directed that all cinema halls shall play the national anthem before the film and all present are obliged to stand, it had modified the original directions and made it “optional and not mandatory”.

Questions raised by the High Court:

While “it is true that the members of the audience conventionally stand up whenever Tamil Thai Vaazhthu is sung, the question is whether this is the only mode in which respect can be shown”.

• When we celebrate pluralism and diversity, insisting that there can be only one way of showing respect reeks of hypocrisy.
• Also, it would be “false respect” if people respected something only by law, and a law that was made for that one person.