Tag: delhi high court

WhatsApp privacy policy violates IT Rules, restrain its implementation, Centre tells HC

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Centre on Friday told the Delhi High Court that the new privacy policy announced by WhatsApp in January violates the 2011 IT Rules on five counts, and urged it to restrain the messaging app from implementing it pending adjudication of the case by the court.

WhatsApp put the policy on hold after widespread criticism, but plans to implement it from May.

In its written response to a petition challenging the privacy policy, the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology told the court that the policy fails to specify which types of sensitive personal data was being collected, notify the details of personal information collected to the user, provide an option to review or amend information and withdraw consent retrospectively, and guarantee further non-disclosure by third parties including other Facebook companies.

WhatsApp has used “extremely general terms” to list the kinds of data collected, with no distinction between personal data or sensitive personal data being collected, the government said.

The policy mentions the involvement of third-party service providers who may have access to the data, but does not provide the names and associated details of those service providers, it said.

“This is also the case for other Facebook companies, who are allowed to review and share information about the user from and with WhatsApp,” the Ministry said.

The policy is completely silent on correction or amendment of the information, the government said – for it to be compliant with the rules, it “must allow users to exercise this option for all kinds of data collected” which are mentioned in the policy.

While WhatsApp complies with the requirement of giving a user the choice of not providing their data, there is a “clear failure” in complying with the requirement of deletion of data if the user withdraws the consent for collection of data given earlier.

“WhatsApp has only provided the user with “Deleting Your WhatsApp Account” option in its privacy policy. If a user exercises this option, the policy clearly mentions that “your undelivered messages are deleted from our servers as well as any of other information we no longer need to operate and provide our Services”, the government said, adding that the “substantial corpus” of data may be retained even after the user deletes the account.

The government has pointed out that Rule 6(4) prohibits the disclosure of data received by a third party from a body corporate – WhatsApp in this case – and any policy that provides the scope for such further disclosure is to be seen as non-compliant. When WhatsApp shares data with a third party service, no further disclosure is permitted. However, the privacy policy explicitly “abdicates” the obligation.

“In the impugned policy, WhatsApp has stated that data and information will be freely shared with and received from other Facebook companies. Since the contract of the user is only with WhatsApp, all other Facebook companies are ‘third parties’ within the meaning of Rule 6(4), and any inter-sharing of data obtained from WhatsApp by these companies will amount to a violation of the restriction on further disclosure,” the government said in its reply.

The PIL pending before the court has sought the framing of guidelines to protect the privacy and data of users from being collected by various social media sites and messaging apps. The petition, filed by Noida resident Dr Seema Singh along with Delhi residents Meghan and Vikram Singh, has argued that the fissures in law with regard to the data are “quite conspicuous”, and a framework to regulate the same is the need of the hour.

In its reply, the government also said that the Centre has introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 in Lok Sabha, which, upon becoming law, will provide a robust regime on data protection “which will limit the ability of the entities such as WhatsApp issuing privacy policies which do not align with appropriate standards of security and data protection”.

“Pending the passage of this Bill, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Rules made thereunder forms the extant regime on data protection, any privacy policy issued by a ‘body corporate’ such as WhatsApp must comply with the requirements specified in the Act and the accompanying Rules,” it said.

The hearing in the case was adjourned to April 20 on Friday. The government had earlier sought a clarification from WhatsApp regarding the privacy policy.

[ad_2]

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

Delhi HC refuses to further hear plea for vaccinating judges, lawyers on priority following SC stay

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Delhi High Court Friday refused to further hear a PIL to declare all people associated with the judicial functioning, including judges, court staff and lawyers, as “frontline workers” to enable them to get COVID-19 vaccination on priority in view of the Supreme Court’s order staying the proceedings.

A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli adjourned sine-die the hearing in the PIL which was initiated by the high court on its own.

The apex court on Thursday had stayed proceedings in the Delhi High Court on giving priority to the legal fraternity for administering COVID-19 vaccine and favoured transferring the suo motu case on the issue to itself for adjudication.

The Centre has opposed creating a separate class of lawyers and said that though it is not opposed to the legal fraternity members but tomorrow journalists and banking sector employees may also come forward seeking priority in vaccination.

During the brief hearing, central government standing counsel Anil Soni informed the high court that in the seven district courts here, the facility of COVID-19 vaccination for lawyers, who are eligible for it as per the policy, has started.

The Delhi High Court and all the district courts here have resumed full-fledged physical functioning from March 15.

Earlier, the Centre had told the high court that the decision for COVID-19 vaccination is based on vulnerability of citizens to the disease and is not profession wise and the government is sensitive to the needs of the country.

Bharat Biotech and Serum Institute of India (SII), the country’s leading COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, had told the high court that adequate capacity of vaccines was available for the vaccination of judicial staff, advocates and judges as frontline workers.

The PIL was initiated to examine the demand to declare all people associated with the judicial functioning, including judges, court staff and lawyers, as frontline workers so that they could receive COVID-19 vaccination on priority and without limitations of their age or physical condition.

As per the current policy, those above 60 years of age or between the age of 45 to 59 years with comorbidities are eligible for the vaccination.

The government has said that rather than going by profession, the government is starting with vulnerability to COVID-19 infection.

The high court had on March 4 asked the Centre to explain the rationale behind keeping strict control over class of persons who can be vaccinated against COVID-19 currently as under the present system those above the age of 60 years or with comorbidities can receive vaccination.

It had said the two institutes which have developed the vaccines COVISHIELD and COVAXIN — Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech — have more capacity to provide the vaccines but it seems that their full capacity is not being exploited.

[ad_2]

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Leave a comment , , , , , , ,

PMLA case | Delhi High Court refuses to stay summons issued to Mehbooba Mufti by ED

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh said they are not granting any relief to the PDP leader.

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to stay the summons issued to former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti by the Enforcement Directorate in a money laundering case.

A bench of Chief Justice DN Patel and Justice Jasmeet Singh said they are not granting any relief to the PDP leader.

The court asked the ED to file a short note of submission along with compilation of judgements relied upon by them before the next date on April 16.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, said Ms Mufti just has to appear before the officials.

The ED, which had earlier summoned Ms Mufti for March 15, has not been issued summons for March 22.

The former Jammu and Kashmir chief minister has been summoned for March 22.

Senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, representing Ms Mufti, urged the court to ask ED not to insist for her personal presence as was done earlier.

To this, the bench said, “We are not giving any stay. We are not granting any relief.” Ms Mufti has sought quashing of summons issued to her by the ED in a money laundering case.

She has also sought to declare section 50 (power of ED officer to record statement) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as void and inoperative, being unfairly discriminatory, bereft of safeguards, and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. She has also sought an interim stay on the summons until the question of law in relation to constitutionality of Section 50 of the Act is decided.

[ad_2]

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Leave a comment , , ,

Delhi HC Restrains Future Group from Moving Ahead with Rs 24,000 Crore Reliance Deal on Amazon’s Plea

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


File photo of Delhi High Court

File photo of Delhi High Court

The high court directed the Future Group and its directors to deposit Rs 20 lakh cost in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund for providing COVID-19 vaccines to senior citizens of Below Poverty Line (BPL) category.

  • PTI New Delhi
  • Last Updated:March 18, 2021, 19:11 IST
  • FOLLOW US ON:

The Delhi High Court Thursday upheld the Singapore’s Emergency Arbitrator’s (EA) order restraining Future Retail Ltd (FRL) from going ahead with its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail to sell its business, which was objected to by US-based e-commence giant Amazon. Justice J R Midha directed Kishore Biyani-led FRL not to take further action on the deal and held that the group willfully violated Singapore Arbitrator’s order.

The high court directed the Future Group and its directors to deposit Rs 20 lakh cost in Prime Minister’s Relief Fund for providing COVID-19 vaccines to senior citizens of Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. The court directed the presence of Biyani and others before it on April 28 as also attachment of their properties.

The high court asked them to show cause as to why they be not detained for 3 months under civil prison for violating emergency arbitrator’s order. The high court’s order came on Amazon’s plea seeking direction to order enforcement of the award by Singapore’s EA on October 25, 2020, restraining FRL from going ahead with its Rs 24,713 crore deal with Reliance Retail.

Amazon, in its interim plea, has sought to restrain FRL from taking any steps to complete the transaction with entities that are a part of the Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani (MDA) Group. Future Group and Amazon have been locked in a battle after the US-based company took FRL into the emergency arbitration over alleged breach of a contract between them.

[ad_2]

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Leave a comment , , , , ,

Toolkit case: HC grants last opportunity to Centre, police to file reply to Disha Ravi’s plea

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


The Delhi High Court Wednesday granted last opportunity to the Centre and Delhi Police to file their response on a plea by climate activist Disha Ravi for restraining the police from leaking to the media any probe material in relation to the FIR lodged against her in the toolkit case.

Justice Prathiba M Singh said the central government and Delhi Police shall file their counter affidavits within two weeks and listed the matter for further hearing on May 18.

“A last and final opportunity is granted to the Centre and Delhi Police to file their counter affidavits withing two weeks and rejoinder by petitioner thereafter,” the court said.

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and advocate Ajay Digpaul, representing the Centre, and advocate Amit Mahajan, appearing for Delhi Police, sought more time to file their replies to the petition.

Ravi was arrested by Delhi Police on February 13 for allegedly being involved in sharing a “toolkit” on social media related to the farmers’ protest, and was granted bail by a trial court here on February 19.

Ravi, in her plea, has said she is “severely aggrieved and prejudiced by the media trial surrounding her arrest and the ongoing investigation, where she is being viscerally attacked by the respondent 1 (police) and several media houses”.

She has claimed that her arrest from Bengaluru on February 13 by a Cyber Cell team of Delhi Police was “wholly unlawfully and without basis”.

She has also contended that in the present circumstances, it was “highly likely” that the general public will perceive the news items “as being conclusive as to the guilt of the petitioner (Ravi)”.

She has claimed that the police first “leaked investigative material” — like alleged WhatsApp chats — the substance and details of which were only in the possession of the investigating agency.

[ad_2]

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Leave a comment , , , , , ,

Delhi high court asks Serum Institute, Bharat Biotech to disclose capacity to manufacture Covid-19 vaccines | India News – Times of India

[ad_1]

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court on Thursday directed Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech to disclose their capacities to manufacture Covaxin, Covishield vaccines.
The high court also asked the Centre to explain in affidavit the rationale behind keeping strict control over class of persons who can be vaccinated against Covid-19 currently as under the present system those above the age of 60 years or between 45 to 60 years with comorbidities can receive vaccination.
A bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli said the two institutes– Serum Institute of India and Bharat Biotech — have more capacity to provide the vaccines but it seems that they are not exploiting it fully.
“We are not utilising it fully. We are either donating it to foreign countries or selling it to foreign countries and are not vaccinating our own people. So there has to be that sense of responsibility and urgency,” the bench said.
It also asked the Delhi government to carry out inspection of medical facilities available in court complexes here and to report if Covid-19 vaccination centres could be set up there.
The high court was hearing a PIL initiated by it to examine the demand of Bar Council of Delhi to declare all people associated with the judicial functioning, including judges, court staff and lawyers as “frontline workers” so that they could receive Covid-19 vaccination on priority and without limitations of their age or physical condition.

[ad_2]

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Leave a comment , , , , , , , , , , ,