Income Tax Bill, 2025, which was hastily pushed through Parliament without any debate, gazetted today. Included in the Act is a provision that grants sweeping powers to the tax authority to invade digital informational privacy of taxpayers. Thread 1/
Power to conduct search, seizure already delineated in section 132 of 1961 Act. One would’ve expected govt undertaking task of overhauling a sixty-year-old law to align such powers with recent privacy jurisprudence. Instead, new law renders it even more draconian. 2/
New law empowers tax authority to enter and search any place where computer system is located. "Computer system” is defined to include “virtual digital space,” covering personal and professional communications platforms, social-media accounts etc. 3/
The law extends traditional physical search powers to permit direct digital access, thereby significantly enlarging the scope of state intrusion into personal informational domains. This expansion raises immediate constitutional concerns. 4/
Several decades ago, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 132 while relying upon a decision handed down in the 1950s. These decisions do not stand in view of the nine-judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy. 5/
Law fails to withstand rigours of Puttaswamy. Social media accounts, for e.g., are not determinative of taxable income. Political dissent take place online and the law risks creating a chilling effect on political speech as taxpayers may self-censor for fear of surveillance. 6/
These sweeping powers are being justified on the ground that law contains in-built safeguards. So-called safeguards are empty ritual in practice. Tax officer isn't required to disclose reasons to taxpayer. In many cases, belief formed during or after, search & seizure exercise. 7/
Sanctioning authority acts mechanically without independent application of mind. Absence of judicial warrant makes the law constitutionally suspect. It is true that High Courts may examine satisfaction or sanction, but judicial review occurs after intrusion has taken place. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
