Topics In Demand
Notification
New

No notification found.

NASSCOM Feedback on the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill of 2022
NASSCOM Feedback on the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Bill of 2022

January 3, 2023

579

0

On January 2nd, 2022, we submitted our comments on the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2022 (Bill) to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY). In this blog post, we summarise the key points from our feedback on the Bill. These are in the sequence in which they appear in the Bill.

  • The Bill’s objectives: The Explanatory Note to the Bill recognises that processing must be carried out in a manner that is fair and transparent to the individuals concerned. This is an important principle, and we suggest inserting this into the Preamble as part of the objective.
  • Transition: the implementation of the Bill should follow a phased approach, where its provisions are brought into effect in a staggered manner, so that entities have adequate time to transition.
  • Scope (paper records): we recognise that the intention is to leave paper records out of scope of the Bill. However, the use of undefined terms (e.g., offline, online, digitised) or complex terms (e.g., “automated”) can make it difficult to interpret. We suggest simplifying the drafting by stating that the Bill does not apply to the processing of personal data that is not in electronic form.
  • Scope (anonymised data): the Bill only applies to the processing of personal data. However, unlike previous drafts, the exclusion of anonymised data, (i.e., data that is not or no longer personal data) is not explicitly stated. This should be stated in the Bill.
  • Definition (Data Principal): this definition should not conflate children and their guardians. Globally, a data principal is a term that refers to one individual. This should be reflected in the Bill.
  • Requirement for multiple languages: the blanket obligation to provide information in all the languages in the 8th Schedule of the Constitution will be onerous. Instead, only require data fiduciaries to provide information in English and one more language, taking into consideration the context of the principal.
  • Purpose limitation and data minimisation: these are recognised in the Explanatory Note but are not contained in the Bill’s text. To avoid any gaps, these should be in clause 5.
  • Consent collection: drawing from the Singaporean law, the Bill should clarify that consent will not be collected using false or misleading information or by using deceptive practices.
  • Withdrawal of consent in voluntary provision of personal data: the Bill recognises that consent can be withdrawn. This should also be in the case where a data principal is deemed to have provided consent by voluntarily providing her personal data, as contemplated in the circumstance in sub-section (1) of section 8.
  • Consent managers: the Bill should clarify that consent may be given either directly to a Data Fiduciary or through a Consent Manager. Either through rules or an illustration, the Bill should clarify what is meant by stating that the Consent Manager is a Data Fiduciary.
  • The term “deemed consent”: this term has been drawn from Singaporean law. However, there, the term is used to refer to the voluntary provision of personal data, which our Bill captures in clause 8(1). However, the rest of clause 8 are not situations of “deemed consent”, but rather, “additional grounds and purposes”. The Bill should use this term instead for the heading and drafting of clause 8.
  • The examples of “public interest” in clause 8(8) do not fit here. These should, instead, be shifting to the next clause 8(9) as examples of reasonable grounds of processing.
  • The scope of technical & organisational measures in clause 9(5) should be contextualised by linking them to the concept of data protection by design and by default.
  • The security safeguards required in clause 9(4) should be both reasonable and proportionate, so that entities can bring in a risk-based approach.
  • Data breach reporting: The obligations for data breach reporting by Data Fiduciaries and Data Processors should be segregated. Data Processors only being required to report breaches to Data Fiduciaries, while Data Fiduciaries report to the Board and principals.
  • Law enforcement access to personal data: The safeguard from the Explanation to Rule 6 of the SPDI Rules under the IT Act, for government entities to only seek personal data held by Data Fiduciaries or Data Processors via written requests, should be continued into this law. Additional safeguards may be brought in via rules.
  • Children’s data: introduce a principle that all rules under this clause shall be made in the best interests of the child. Also, drop the use of the word “verifiable”.
  • Duties of Data Principals: these duties are too broad and risk going into matters beyond personal data protection. They should only apply to Data Principals in proceedings before the Board or when exercising the right to correction and erasure and only when the Data Principals act knowingly.
  • Transfer restrictions: the clause on cross border data flow should recognise a range of transfer mechanisms, including bilateral or multi-lateral arrangements, as well as binding schemes that operate at the level of organisations, such as standard form contractual clauses.
  • Exemption for processing of personal data in the interest of investigation of offences: this should only be limited to the State and its agencies, and not be available to private actors, to prevent misuse.
  • Exemption for processing of foreign personal data in India should be limited to such processing by Data Processors in India, not by “any person”. This is to avoid unintentionally creating a protection gap. The goal of this exemption should be only to ensure the Bill does not apply to the foreign data controllers who are governed by their own laws, and to avoid conflicts between such foreign laws and Indian law as applied to the Indian Data Processor.
  • Functions of the Board: to create a feedback loop between the Board and the Central Government, the Board should be tasked with a specific function to make recommendations to the Central Government to further the objectives of this Act, including to recommend when the Central Government should issue guidance or modify rules.
  • Rulemaking: The Bill should clarify, in line with existing policy, that all rules will be subject to prior public consultation.

We attach below our feedback as submitted to the MyGov portal. Please contact varun@nasscom.in for any queries and concerns.


That the contents of third-party articles/blogs published here on the website, and the interpretation of all information in the article/blogs such as data, maps, numbers, opinions etc. displayed in the article/blogs and views or the opinions expressed within the content are solely of the author's; and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of NASSCOM or its affiliates in any manner. NASSCOM does not take any liability w.r.t. content in any manner and will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any kind of liability arising out of any act, error or omission. The contents of third-party article/blogs published, are provided solely as convenience; and the presence of these articles/blogs should not, under any circumstances, be considered as an endorsement of the contents by NASSCOM in any manner; and if you chose to access these articles/blogs , you do so at your own risk.


Download Attachment

2022dpdpb-nasscomsubm-portal.pdf

images
Varun Sen Bahl
Manager - Public Policy

Reach out to me for all things about data regulation, cybersecurity policy, and internet governance.

© Copyright nasscom. All Rights Reserved.