Latest news with #MadanLokur
The Wire
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Wire
'Excessive Centralisation of Power': Lawyers, Activists, Journalists, MPs Express Fear Over DPDP Act
Law The organisers said that if the DPDP Act is enacted in its current form, activists, journalists, lawyers, political parties and organisations 'will become 'data fiduciaries' under the law'. New Delhi: A group of representatives from social movements, campaigns, civil society organisations, and including senior lawyers, retired judges, journalists, media and parliamentarians met for a day-long consultation on the implications of the controversial Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. The meeting was organised by the Roll Back RTI Amendments Campaign (comprising the National Campaign for Peoples' Right to Information (NCPRI) and 30+ campaigns and groups) and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR). The DPDP Act, the draft rules of which were notified in January this year, could curtail the freedom of the press and people's right to information, many have said, as it vests excessive powers in the Union government. Last week, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology told the parliament that The draft rules received 6,915 inputs and comments from the public, firms and other stakeholders, Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MP Vaddiraju Ravichandra. In a press release, the organisers expressed that the DPDP Act can have a chilling impact on activists, journalists, lawyers, political parties, groups and organisations 'who collect, analyse and disseminate critical information as they will become 'data fiduciaries' under the law'. 'The excessive centralisation of power in the central government, including the constitution of a government-controlled Data Protection Board with powers to levy penalties of up to 250 crore (which can be doubled up to Rs. 500 crore), raises concerns about the weaponisation of this law against those seeking accountability,' they said. The meeting was attended by Justice Madan Lokur, Justice Rekha Sharma, senior lawyers and advocates CU Singh, Prashanto Sen, Prashant Bhushan, Huzefa Ahmadi, Trideep Pais, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Nizam Pasha, Ritwick Dutta, Sarim Naved, Gautam Bhatia, Apar Gupta, Suroor Mander, Soutik Banerjee, Cheryl D'Souza and Shahrukh Alam. Also read: Media Under Attack: India's New Data Protection Law Senior journalists, the President of the Editor's Guild of India and the President and Vice-President of the Press Club of India also spoke of its impact on media and investigative reporting, while MPs including V. Sivadasm (CPIM), Raja Ram Singh (CPIML) and Rajkumar Raut (BAP) also joined the session. Representatives of various campaigns and social movements including the Right to Food Campaign, the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights, National Federation of Indian Women, Right to Education Campaign, talked about the challenges posed by the DPDP Act and how it will prevent public monitoring and scrutiny. RTI Activists including Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, Commodore Lokesh Batra, Jayaram, Bhaskar Prabhu, Praveer Peter, Amrita Johri and Rakshita Swamy flagged the severe dilution of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act. Economist Jayati Ghosh, former IAS officers and members of the Constitutional Conduct Group and Yashovardhan Azad, former Information Commissioner, CIC also attended the meeting. There was consensus that the DPDP Act, in its current form, is extremely problematic and the press release also stated that 'using the smoke screen of privacy and data protection, the government is diluting crucial rights'. Journalist bodies including the Editor's Guild of India and Press Club of India have earlier expressed fear that this law could end exposed corruption and silence whistleblowers, fundamentally altering India's media landscape. The issue also comes up as another significant threat has emerged regarding the weakening of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, due to an amendment brought through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by allowing government bodies to simply withhold 'personal information' without the safeguard provisions on public interest or other such exceptions. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Correcting the image of the higher judiciary
Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur is known for his candour and courage. His occasional pungent comments on a wide array of subjects were quite a draw when he was on the Bench and also thereafter. He never minced words even when discretion and silence were an alluring option. He often publicly speaks his mind about several issues pertaining to the Indian judiciary. His criticisms often focus on the executive's attempts to tinker with the independence of the judiciary. Not everybody will agree with his criticisms, but these certainly can't be ignored or glossed over. At the recent World Justice Forum in Warsaw recently, Lokur was categorical that there were many aspects of our judiciary which should cause us concern. Pointing out India's low rank (79/142) in the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index, he stated that this showed the country in a very poor light. The emphasis during his address was on the judiciary's relations with the executive. He threw more than a hint that governments were uncomfortable with independent judges and said delays in approving the recommendations of the apex court's collegium on judicial appointments had become far too frequent for comfort. Also, the executive was not acting fast in cases of corruption in the judiciary brought to its notice. He also referred to the huge backlog of cases in Indian courts. These criticisms need to be taken seriously because the country is doing so well on the economic front and cannot afford a poor image for its judiciary. From geopolitical standing to investment attractiveness, much will be at risk if such an image of the judiciary persists. Except for an occasional undignified debate or two, we have had a good record in respect of the higher judiciary. Even in connection with the recent episode involving Justice Yashwant Varma of the Delhi High Court, comments by the Supreme Court have been level-headed and dignified. The same cannot be said of the lower judiciary where there have been vituperative exchanges across the country's courts. What Lokur said in Warsaw was not anything that we did not already know. It has also been repeatedly said that in no other country are judges chosen by the judiciary itself. India is different and the Supreme Court has given itself this unique privilege. There is no point in getting exercised about it, unless it is proved that a nominee of the collegium which chooses him or her is a known dubious individual with no credentials at all. Save for a few exceptions we have had decent — if not exactly brilliant — individuals populating the Bench at the Supreme Court and the high courts. The case of Justice Varma, formerly of the Delhi HC, is more an aberration than the norm. There is a reasonably sound system of vetting of candidates for appointment to the judiciary that ensures a bad choice does not get made. If a nominee decides to be dishonest, the fault is not that of the system but that of the frailty of human nature. The same applies to partisanship. In every high court, there are individual judges with a predilection, normally subtle and occasionally unconcealed. Here again, suspicion of a bias colouring a decision is not good enough to paint a judge as unworthy. It is only fair that we should look for the legal correctness of a decision rather than hunt for misdemeanour. RK Raghavan is a former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation. The views expressed are personal.
New Indian Express
06-06-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Justice is not a privilege but right of every child: Odisha HC judge
BHUBANESWAR: Justice is not a privilege but a right of every child, said Justice Savitri Ratho. Addressing a panel discussion on 'Advancing Child-Centred Justice' hosted by the National Law University Odisha (NLUO) and Child Rights and You (CRY) as part of the 5th World Congress on Justice with Children here recently, the Orissa High Court judge underscored the need for trauma-informed processes and regular monitoring under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015, especially for marginalised children. 'Justice is not a privilege to be earned; it is a promise to be kept for every child,' she affirmed. Speaking on the occasion, chairperson of the United Nations' Internal Justice Council and former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice Madan Lokur emphasised the need for meaningful access to justice for children - as victims, as accused, and as those in need of care and protection, in all their avatars. He highlighted the underreporting of violence against children, alarming backlog in inquiries, and revictimization faced by survivors during the trial due to systemic delays and inadequate support systems. While principal secretary of the Women and Child Development department Shubha Sarma shared the state's commitment through schemes like Subhadra and Ashirbaad, NLUO vice-chancellor Ved Kumari advocated for a broad, child-centred definition of justice. The World Congress on Justice with Children is a global platform that convenes every five years to further the policy, practice and discourse on child-centred justice.
