Tweet

Raman Chima

11 Nov, 14 tweets, 3 min read

Thread on Govt of India amendments to its allocation of business rules re: Ministry for Information & Broadcasting:

TL;DR: The Govt amended the rules that govern how the business of the Union Govt is conducted to say that MIB is the administrative lead on digital/online media

The operative part is below; they added to the list of business MIB is supposed to manage.

DIGITAL/ONLINE MEDIA
22A. Films and Audio-Visual programmes made available by online content providers.
22B. News and current affairs content on online platforms.

cabsec.gov.in/writereaddata/…

[Fun fact] This was drafted in a hurry. How I can tell that is that the notification for the amendment adding it to the existing rules of business is mis-numbered. They wanted to add it right after film certifications, and misunderstood how to write the roman numerals for it.

Does the current language mean that the Ministry of Info & Broadcasting can directly regulate OTT streaming media and online news? No.

It's about who is supposed to lead on an issue within the different Ministries of the Govt of India. Not regulatory power by itself.

The Govt of India Business Allocation rules basically outline what the Cabinet Secretariat says the different Ministries are supposed to. It's essentially the rules saying who will try to manage what. It binds the Union Govt to a particular structure of functioning.

By themselves, the Business Allocation Rules cannot create new duties on private citizens. They are an extension of Art 77 of the Constitution of India that allows the President (read, the PM + Council of Ministers) to specify how govt business is allocated across Ministers.

What this has done is basically state what the Union Govt's position is on who leads within the Govt of India on the issues of OTT media and online news content. Namely, that this Govt believes that is the job of the Ministry of Info & Broadcasting. Not other Depts.

IMP It also clearly indicates that the Govt would like the Ministry of Info and Broadcasting to do more on this topic. You don't designate a Ministry to lead on an issue unless you want it to govern/regulate/coordinate that issue further.

However, this doesn't mean that the Ministry of Info and Broadcasting can now issue directions and orders that legally compel non-govt actors to do or not do certain things in these sectors. For anything impacting fundamental rights, it needs to be issued under law.

In my considered view: Online streaming media does not automatically get regulated under the Cinematograph Act or Broadcasting regulations - those would have to be accordingly amended. For online news media, relevant laws would also have to be amended - or creatively interpreted.

Basically, while the Cabinet Secretariat can say X Minister and B Ministry are in charge of a topic, the Cabinet Secretariat cannot create new legal burdens or regulation unless covered by an existing law passed by Parliament - or get new laws passed by MPs.

It does indicate Govt intent. That is definitely worrying. This change was made without any proper public consultation - & there has been a lot of opposition from the creative industry, rights groups, & experts on the MIB applying its legacy regulatory approach to online media.

And remember folks,

[The] Winter [session of Parliament] is Coming!

And remember, it's not just about what finally gets passed in Parliament and approved by the courts.

Govt actors will be keen to point to the creative industry and online news groups that perhaps they should "restrain" themselves rather than the Govt do more... #selfcensorship

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @tame_wildcard

Raman Chima

@tame_wildcard

31 Aug

The Indian Government published a draft 'Health Data Management Policy' document for its new proposed National Digital Health Mission. They gave an immensely short window for public comments on it, which may have gotten extended today to next week. But, there's more.

@sunetrar

If you look at PDF of the document itself, you can see that it was finalised in a rush. Edit track change marks are still there.

If you then dig into the PDF, you can see that the final version was done on Microsoft Word by @sunetrar of @Vidhi_India & then uploaded by the NDHM.

@Vidhi_India

TL;DR: The Union Govt in India is rushing to finalise the docs for its National Digital Health Mission, including a Health Data Management Policy - even while the Data Protection Bill is pending. While giving little time for public comment, it appears to have engaged @Vidhi_India

Read 4 tweets

Raman Chima

@tame_wildcard

16 Jul

One set of perhaps less foreseen stakeholders should also be paying attention to today's judgment by the CJEU tearing up the EU-US Privacy Shield agreement on data transfers:
Asia-Pacific govts involved in EU data protection adequacy status: Japan, S. Korea, and India

With Japan, its about enforcement of its changes & if there really is remedy available to users on data protection harms, surveillance concerns.
S. Korea is still structuring its amended data protection legal framework. Also has taken radical surveillance steps during COVID19.

India perhaps most vulnerable - but could also do the most. While its Sup Court upheld privacy as a fundamental right, exec & legislature are dragging things. Data protection bill still in Parliament - current text gives wide powers to executive, fails to create independent DPA

Read 6 tweets

Raman Chima

@tame_wildcard

1 May

In the order just announced in India extending the lockdown, once can see the reckless assault on the constitution that the Union Home Ministry is mounting. Short thread.

In an order under the Natl Disaster Management Act (which the NDMA should be actually announcing), MHA is "ordering" state govts, others to issue orders under Section 144 of the CrPC. Leave alone the Union Home Ministry even State CMs are supposed to defer to District Magistrates

+ a range of other directions. The National Disaster Management Act is a law passed by the Union Parliament, mostly under the concurrent list and residuary powers of the Union under the Constitution. It cannot be used to legally compel state govts on issues under the states list.

Read 5 tweets

Raman Chima

@tame_wildcard

11 Dec 19

Currently the representative house for the world's largest democracy & the second largest internet market in the world is considering - for the 1st time - a data protection bill. MPs have rised in concern & opposition in the Lok Sabha to the bill that the Union Govt has proposed

After opposition by MPs, Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad reveals the Government's plan. Instead of letting it be referred in the normal process to the Standing Committee on IT, Minister Prasad is trying to push for it to be referred to a specific select committee formed for this.

For context, the current Standing Committee to the Indian Parliament on IT is coordinated by the Lok Sabha (House of the People) and chaired by an Indian National Congress MP Shashi Tharoor.

Read 8 tweets

Raman Chima

@tame_wildcard

8 Jan 19

In the Lok Sabha, Minister Harsh Vardhan has pushed the DNA Bill for consideration and passing. MPs have been responding with their concerns and comments.

@PremachandranNk

The House just finished hearing from @PremachandranNk. He supported concerns expressed by @ShashiTharoor , and added that though the Govt claimed the databank would be secure, how could it be secure if there was no data protection law?

He also flagged that the consent clauses were concerning, in how it allowed for accused citizens to give their consent while in police custody. Consent could easily be obtained from them - need to have safeguards. He pressed that the Bill be sent to a standing committee

Read 11 tweets

Raman Chima

@tame_wildcard

26 Sep 18

Been mostly at the Supreme Court today and then reading the Aadhaar judgement (1400+ pages). Expect clearer takeaways soon. Till then, a hot take - in no particular order - follows:

Even though judges disagreed on some points regarding Aadhaar and surveillance, they have ended up demanding much higher standards. Aadhaar Act data sharing & national security provisions assailed. And in a broader +ve move, demanded that HC judges be involved in oversight.

Private sector Aadhaar data sharing, eKYC, authentication unconstitutional. Any change would require new laws - which the Sup Ct has indicated they will review if enacted. So, looks like bye bye IndiaStack & many of the crony capitalist digital ID bad actors who have been active

Read 5 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Share this page!

Raman Chima

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @tame_wildcard

Raman Chima

Raman Chima

Raman Chima

Raman Chima

Raman Chima

Raman Chima

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?