Reforming surveillance in India


In an article published in The Hindu earlier this week, the author (a lawyer) argues the case against telephone and electronic surveillance in India as it exists today, because according to him, its approvals are opaque, and grounds for surveillance are "vague and ambiguous".

He's also suggested that the approval in its existing form is a formality, and has suggested decentralisation of approvals for surveillance from Executive to Judiciary, surveillance requests mandating a documented "probable cause for suspicion" and lastly, a lawyer representing the case of target for surveillance without his/her knowledge.

Though well-intended, his suggestions of reform to the current approach to surveillance sound idealistic.

Based on figures from a single RTI (Right to Information) query, he's of the view that the 250 or so surveillance requests approved daily in India may not be scrutinised by the authority. Given that not a single person, but anyone above a certain rank from ten government agencies can approve, suggests a smaller number of requests per person. That the government has defined the set of approvers from among ten agencies and Joint Secretaries or above actually strengthens the surveillance mechanism.

Secondly, India's Judiciary is seriously under-staffed. How will they be placed to accommodate an added responsibility of reviewing 250 requests for surveillance?

Thirdly, he also makes an argument for a lawyer defending the target for surveillance without the latter’s knowledge. This seems just about impossible to achieve practically. Without the target giving his/her perspective, how is a lawyer supposed to defend their right to privacy? This seems like pushing the surveillance mechanism into the situation India’s courts are in since decades. If someone’s phone or mail need to be monitored, the need to do so quickly may be very important to, say, prevent a terrorist attack.

In my view, the current mechanism is good. What’s very important is documentation of the reasons for surveillance and approval or rejection based on the merit of those. Bypassing this check is dangerous, must never be allowed to happen (hope it has never happened!)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog