1. Data privacy and the Child (Indian Express)
2. The Growth Checklist (Indian Express)
3. The bureaucracy as prosecutor and judge (The Hindu)

Data Privacy and Child

Context:

• The reworked version of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 (DPDP Bill) in India is being discussed in Parliament.

• Amidst the conversation on data privacy, one often overlooked demographic is children, who constitute over 15% of active internet users in the country.

• The evolving internet usage patterns of children necessitate tailored provisions for their online safety and privacy within India’s data protection framework.

Children’s Data Protection Provisions:

• The DPDP Bill defines minors as individuals under 18 years of age and places specific conditions on data processing entities concerning children’s data.
• These conditions include obtaining verifiable parental consent, avoiding harm to children, and refraining from tracking or targeting ads at them.
• While the prohibition on harm and tracking is generally accepted, the focus is on the requirements of age-gating and parental consent.

Challenges of Blanket Age-Gating:

• The requirement for parental consent for all individuals under 18 can be burdensome, hindering young adults and adolescents from freely accessing the internet.
• This stands in contrast to existing practices, such as the US law allowing children above 13 to access certain platforms.
• The DPDP Bill’s one-size-fits-all approach disregards developmental nuances among children, leading to unnecessary barriers for older minors.

A Graded and Risk-Based Approach:

• A potential solution is adopting a graded and risk-based approach to children’s data processing.
• Certain low-risk digital services could have a lower age limit, enabling educational access while stricter age-gating mechanisms could apply to higher-risk services like video-streaming and e-commerce.
• The government could exercise discretion to lower age requirements for specific entities that demonstrate safe data practices.

Defining “Verifiably Safe Manner”:

• The latest DPDP Bill reportedly allows the government to lower the age of consent for entities processing children’s data in a “verifiably safe manner.”
• However, clarity is needed on what constitutes such safety.
• Core principles around this term should be articulated to prevent ambiguity and guide future implementation.

Age Verification and Parental Consent Mechanisms:

• Key questions remain on how data processing entities will verify children’s age and obtain parental consent.
• The current Bill lacks specifics, leaving these aspects to future implementation guidelines.
• Incorporating safeguards, such as knowledge-based tests and government identity documents, can ensure accurate age verification and secure parental consent.

Mitigating Unintended Data Collection:

• While future implementation guidelines could determine mechanisms for age verification and parental consent, potential unintended data collection must be addressed.
• Measures should adhere to data protection principles like data minimization and purpose limitation to prevent misuse of collected data.

Exemptions and “Best Interests of the Child”:

• The DPDP Bill provides flexibility to exempt certain entities from parental consent and tracking for specific purposes.
• However, these exemptions should explicitly prioritize the “best interests of the child” to ensure responsible implementation of such provisions.

Conclusion:

As India debates and crafts legislation to regulate various aspects of the internet, including data protection, it is essential not to overlook the rights and interests of children.

The DPDP Bill’s provisions must strike a balance between safeguarding children’s data privacy and enabling their educational and online experiences in a secure manner.

The Growth checklist

Context

• Prime Minister inaugurated the Bharat Mandapam, an international exhibition-cum-convention center and the venue for the upcoming G20 summit.
• During the event, he highlighted India’s remarkable economic growth under his government’s leadership since 2014.
• The country has progressed from being the 10th largest economy globally in 2014 to securing the 5th position by 2023.
• PM Modi expressed his ambition for India to ascend further, aiming to position the nation among the top three economies in the world during his government’s third tenure.

An Olympic Comparison:

• The Prime Minister’s declaration of India aiming for a top-three global economy is akin to winning the bronze medal in an economic development race, with the United States and China retaining the gold and silver positions, respectively.
• This analogy underscores India’s remarkable growth trajectory while recognizing the continued dominance of the two economic giants.

IMF’s Projections and G20 Leadership:

• The International Monetary Fund (IMF) supports the Prime Minister’s vision by projecting that India will indeed become the third-largest economy globally by 2027.
• This forecast aligns with India’s consistent achievement of the highest growth rate among G20 nations, outpacing even China for consecutive years.
• This accomplishment is particularly commendable given the prevailing global economic challenges.
• PM urged to maintain its focus on sustainable growth while simultaneously managing inflation.

Current and Future Economic Rankings:

• According to the IMF, India presently holds the fifth-largest economy spot, boasting a GDP of $3.7 trillion.
• This ranking places India behind the United States ($26.9 trillion), China ($19.4 trillion), Japan ($4.4 trillion), and Germany ($4.3 trillion).
• However, the IMF projects India’s GDP to reach $5.2 trillion by 2027, solidifying its position as the third-largest economy globally.
• This growth trajectory underscores India’s rapid ascent on the global economic stage.

Unprecedented Growth Trajectory:

• Analyzing the historical data from the IMF reveals an astonishing trend in India’s economic growth.
• It took India six decades, from 1947 to 2007, to cross the $1 trillion GDP mark.
• Subsequently, within a span of just seven years, the country achieved the $2 trillion milestone in 2014.
• By 2021, India added another $1.2 trillion to its GDP.
• If India reaches the IMF’s projected $5.2 trillion GDP by 2027, it would signify an unprecedented feat, with the nation adding an astonishing $2 trillion to its GDP in only six years.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Perspective:

• While GDP is a standard measure of an economy’s size, assessing real purchasing power and the welfare of a nation’s citizens requires considering GDP and per capita GDP in purchasing power parity (PPP).
• When viewed through this lens, India emerges as having the third-highest GDP at $13 trillion (PPP), following China at the top ($33 trillion, PPP) and the United States in second place ($26.9 trillion).
• This perspective further emphasizes India’s substantial economic presence in the global landscape.

Conclusion:

• Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s inauguration of the Bharat Mandapam symbolizes India’s growing economic influence and stature on the global stage.
• The nation’s remarkable journey from the 10th to the 5th largest economy, with aspirations to ascend even further, showcases its determination and resilience.
• As India targets becoming one of the world’s top three economies, its economic achievements mirror a competitive race for development where India is solidifying its place on the podium.

Source:Indian Express

The bureaucracy as prosecutor and judge

Context:

• The recently enacted Jan Vishwas Act, 2022, has stirred both applause and concerns due to its ambitious goal of enhancing the “ease of doing business” in India by transforming or decriminalizing offenses across a spectrum of 42 laws.
• While the government highlights its potential to replace criminal punishments with fines, the legislation’s finer points reveal a significant shift of authority from the judiciary to the bureaucracy.
• Underlying this shift is the amendment of various acts such as the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, replacing criminal penalties with monetary fines of up to ₹15 lakh, to be determined and imposed by designated bureaucrats.

Bureaucratic Empowerment and Constitutional Concerns:

• The Jan Vishwas Act marks a notable transition in administrative power by granting designated bureaucrats, such as Joint Secretaries, the authority to not only impose fines but also to conduct inquiries and order compensatory payments for damage.
• While concerns about bureaucratic control over adjudication and penalties have been raised, there is a lack of opposition, especially considering corporate complaints about excessive tax enforcement.
• However, the central question revolves around whether this shift undermines the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

Separation of Powers and Historical Context:

• While India’s Constitution doesn’t explicitly mandate a complete separation between the judiciary and the executive, Article 50 encourages gradual achievement of such a separation.
• This principle took time to materialize, as the criminal magistracy remained a part of the executive post-Independence.
• It wasn’t until around 1970 that some states, like West Bengal, initiated the separation of roles through legislation like the West Bengal Separation of Judicial and Executive Functions Act, 1970, segregating judicial and executive magistrates under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.

Bureaucracy’s Quest for Judicial Power:

• In the pursuit of power, the bureaucracy has pursued different avenues since the 1980s to assume more judicial authority.
• First, it established judicial tribunals that often-allowed bureaucrats to be appointed as “technical members.”
• Second, statutory regulators like the Securities and Exchange Board of India and the Competition Commission of India were created, frequently headed by senior bureaucrats, with the power to impose substantial fines on the private sector.
• Third, the government introduced adjudicatory officers in laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, who were also bureaucrats with the power to impose penalties.

Jan Vishwas Act and Constitutional Concerns:

• The Jan Vishwas Act continues this trend by placing “adjudicatory officers” within the bureaucracy to impose penalties.
• The constitutionality of this model, along with other instances of executive encroachment into judicial power, has led to legal challenges, especially when it comes to the definition of a “judicial function.”
• While existing case law debates whether penalties are civil or criminal in nature, there’s a lack of substantial precedent on whether imposing penalties constitutes a “judicial function.”
• The argument is made that fact-finding inquiries, application of law to facts, and determination of penalties or compensation inherently constitute judicial functions, necessitating independent judicial oversight.

Conclusion:

• The heart of the matter revolves around the principle of “rule of law,” which mandates that the government cannot be both a prosecutor and a judge in its own case.
• The Jan Vishwas Act’s provision that allows bureaucrats to conduct inquiries, impose penalties, and order compensation raises significant constitutional doubts.
• This development also signifies a potential regression in India’s commitment to the separation of powers, fueled by consistent bureaucratic efforts aided by elected officials.
• The larger concern is that the balance between government powers and citizens’ rights is tilting due to the growing influence of bureaucracy in judicial matters.