
Madras stays OTP verification during DMK's ‘Oraniyil Tamil Nadu' drive
on Monday ordered a limited interim injunction restraining
from sending OTP verification messages during the party's enrolment drive 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu'. The restraint order shall be in force until the issues of right to privacy and data protection are examined by the court in detail.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
A division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice A D Maria Clete, passed the interim orders on a PIL pertaining to DMK's 'Oraniyil Tamil Nadu', which is a mass membership drive organised across the state by DMK.
"Digital membership drives conducted by the political parties in recent times are a new area of study, whereby there is a clear departure from the conventional modes of inducting party members. The bearing it has on the data privacy of the individual is a concern that has to be addressed.
Hence, a clarity is required as to the means and infrastructure adopted by the political parties to collect, process and store data from the public.
How this data is stored and processed and the implications on the right to privacy of the voter including the right to privacy of the political affiliation also ought to be examined," the judges observed.
In the absence of accountability and transparency in the data collected from individuals across the state, it is an issue which needs elaborate analysis, the judges said.
A valid and free consent is an essential part of such membership programmes organized by the political parties. Hence, no force or coercion shall be employed in such membership drives conducted by the political parties, they said.
The judges then directed the DMK to provide details on the data privacy policy employed in this membership campaign and ensure the security of the data collected and whether 'informed consent' is obtained from the individuals in this membership drive.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
It is also to be seen if other smaller or economically challenged political parties will be put in a disadvantageous position and will disturb the level playing field in the election thereby impacting Article 14 of the Constitution, the judges observed.
Justice Maria Clete, in a separate order, observed that when a query was put forth as to whether any mechanism or designated authority exists to address violations under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the Centre responded that rules have been framed under the Act and that the authority concerned is the joint secretary.
However, the Centre sought time to verify and respond on the specific operational aspects and the institutional framework under the Act.
The judge observed that she agreed to the interim order particularly in light of the serious concerns relating to personal data protection and digital privacy. However, she made it clear that such relief is extended with circumspection, particularly in the absence of a counter-affidavit and without full knowledge of the programme's operational framework.
She also clarified that she did not agree with Justice Subramaniam's views pertaining to smaller or economically challenged political parties being put in a disadvantageous position. They are not immediately germane to the legal and factual matrix presently before the court, she said.
The judges then ordered notice to the Centre, state and DMK and adjourned the hearing in the case by two weeks.
The court passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation filed by S Rajkumar, a resident of T Athikarai village in Sivaganga district in Tamil Nadu.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
6 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
'Did you take chance…?': SC to Justice Yashwant Varma on his plea against probe into cash at his home
'Why did you appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take chance of favourable order there first?' the Supreme Court asked Justice Yashwant Varma on Monday, as he sought quashing of an adverse report of the SC in-house committee. Justice Yashwant Varma(PTI File) The committee found him guilty of misconduct over the unaccounted-for cash found at his Delhi residence in March. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Justice Varma, submitted that there is a process to be followed under Article 124 of the Constitution, and that a judge can't be a subject of public debate, PTI reported. At this point, the bench asked, "Why did you (Justice Varma) appear before the inquiry committee? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first?" Justice Varma's plea challenges the probe report and the committee's very remit. It also seeks quashing of the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to initiate impeachment proceedings against him. For now posted at the Allahabad high court, Justice Varma is staring at action via Parliament. Also read | Lok Sabha will initiate proceedings to remove Justice Yashwant Varma: Kiren Rijiju When cash was allegedly found by firefighters in a blaze at his residence on March 14, he was a judge of the Delhi HC. He was not present there, and has strongly denied any involvement, asserting that neither he nor his family members placed the cash in the storeroom. He has also alleged that the probe committee proceeded in a pre-determined fashion and merely drew inferences. He wants that the recommendation by the CJI — asking the President and Prime Minister to start his removal process — be declared unconstitutional, ANI reported. Also read | BJP orchestrated VP Jagdeep Dhankhar's exit over Justice Varma: Cong He has further argued that the in-house procedure extended beyond its role of self-regulation and fact-finding: 'By culminating in recommendations for removal from constitutional office, it creates a parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism." The committee constituted on March 22 was comprised of Justices Sheel Nagu (then CJ of Punjab and Haryana high court), GS Sandhawalia (then CJ of Himachal Pradesh HC), and Anu Sivaraman (judge of Karnataka HC. (with agency inputs)


Scroll.in
8 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Kerala urges Supreme Court to dismiss president's reference about timelines for bills assent
The Kerala government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to return unanswered the presidential reference that seeks clarity on whether courts can impose timelines on the president and the governors to act on bills passed by legislatures, Live Law reported. In its application, the state argued that the reference was an attempt to reopen and overturn the Supreme Court's April ruling in Tamil Nadu government's case against the governor. On July 22, the court issued notice to the Union government and all states on the reference made by President Droupadi Murmu under Article 143 of the Constitution. According to Article 143 of the Constitution, the president may refer any question of law or fact of public importance to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The president makes such a reference based on the advice of the Union council of ministers. In May, referencing 14 questions, Murmu asked whether the actions of governors and the president could be tried in court and whether such timelines could be imposed on them in the absence of any such provision in the law. The president also said that Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution do not prescribe deadlines or specific procedural requirements. In light of the reference, the Supreme Court set up a Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar. In its application on Monday, Kerala argued that the reference was based on an 'erroneous statement' that Article 200 does not stipulate a time frame for governors to act on bills, Live Law reported. The state said that 11 out of the 14 questions raised by the president had already been addressed in the Supreme Court's ruling in the Tamil Nadu case. It alleged that the reference was a 'serious misuse' of Article 143, the legal news outlet reported. Kerala also said that the Union government had not filed a review or curative petition against the April judgement and had therefore accepted it. SC's ruling on Tamil Nadu versus governor The ruling on April 8 had come on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. In its judgement, the court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, it said that the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both sections outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgement had also introduced the concept of ' deemed assent ' in cases of prolonged inaction by the governor or president, allowing pending bills to be considered approved.


Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Year 2026 will see 'Dravidian model 2.0 regime,' says Tamil Nadu's ruling DMK
People have immense faith in Chief Minister MK Stalin and it will be the " Dravidian model 2.0 regime" following a big win in the 2026 Assembly election, the ruling DMK said on Monday. The DMK's official organ 'Murasoli,' in a write-up referred to claims and counter-claims and speculations in the media in respect of the Assembly election due by March-April next year. While this was the scenario in the media, the reality is that Chief Minister Stalin follows a people-centric approach, the daily said and referred to a five-fold approach. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Finance Project Management CXO Leadership healthcare Management Product Management Design Thinking Artificial Intelligence Data Analytics Data Science others MBA Degree Technology Data Science Cybersecurity Operations Management Public Policy PGDM Digital Marketing Healthcare MCA Others Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 Months IIM Calcutta SEPO - IIMC CFO India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Fintech & Blockchain India Starts on undefined Get Details Under the ' Oraniyil Tamil Nadu campaign ,' the welfare schemes of the government are explained to the people and those desirous are being enrolled as DMK members. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Villas For Sale in Dubai Might Surprise You Villas In Dubai | Search Ads Get Rates As regards the 'Ungaludan Stalin' outreach programme, the Dravidian party daily said the scheme is aimed at taking government services to the people and redress grievances by organising special camps in their neighbourhoods. Thirdly, the CM himself is touring districts, interacting with the people, including farmers and voluntary groups, and he receives representations from them and directs authorities to address them. Also, he is in touch with people by way of measures such as roadshows as well. Live Events Stalin meets at party headquarters, party functionaries and cadres with the slogan of "Udanpirappe va" and guides them. Deputy CM and DMK youth wing secretary Udhayanidhi Stalin visits districts, holds review meetings with top officials, speeds up work and ensures progress in works as per the chief minister's directives. Also, Udhayanidhi interacts with party office-bearers and meets people and ensures implementation of welfare schemes. On the whole, due to such measures, every family is witnessing peace and they grow in terms of per capita income as well and this is the ground situation in Tamil Nadu. People have immense faith in Chief Minister Stalin and the DMK and notwithstanding claims, counterclaims and political speculations in the media, it will be the "Dravidian model 2.0 regime" following a big win in the 2026 Assembly election, the ruling DMK said adding the Dravidian model 2.0 regime will be helmed by Stalin. DMK literary wing deputy secretary Sowmiyan Vaithiyanathan authored the write up in Murasoli on July 28.