ALLAHABAD: Amid debate over Central executive granting "snooping' rights to 10 companies, the Allahabad high court docket on Friday directed the Centre to file its reply on or before February 1 in accordance with a PIL difficult the validity of Section 69 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 which, in line with the PIL, provides sweeping powers to the federal government to intercept or observe or decrypt any information through laptop resource.
Hearing a PIL filed by one Saurabh Pandey, a department bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice C D Singh directed the Centre to file the reply throughout the secretaries of home affairs and ministry of regulation and justice and others and fixed February 1 as the following date of hearing.
The primary floor of attack whilst difficult the constitutional validity of Section 69 was that it's violative of Article 14 (proper to equality) of the Constitution, as being arbitrary for the reason that it provides sweeping energy to the manager.
The petitioner, who seemed in person before the court docket, further contended that "Section 69 could also be violative of Article 19(1)(a) (proper to freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (proper to existence and private liberty) of the Constitution, because it provides arbitrary energy to the federal government to intercept or observe or decrypt any information through any laptop resource".
However, during the court docket proceedings, assistant solicitor normal of India Gyan Prakash, who represented the Central executive, antagonistic the PIL, announcing "this petition isn't maintainable because the petitioner has not disclosed the credentials and the necessities for its submitting which is needed below bankruptcy 22 of the rules of the court docket".
The court docket, alternatively, rejected the ASGI's submission and entertained the PIL, announcing that the High Court can refuse the technical objections whilst exercising the facility below Article 226 of the Constitution, which provides writ jurisdiction and tool to high courts to factor writs for the enforcement of elementary rights or some other criminal proper.
Hearing a PIL filed by one Saurabh Pandey, a department bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice C D Singh directed the Centre to file the reply throughout the secretaries of home affairs and ministry of regulation and justice and others and fixed February 1 as the following date of hearing.
The primary floor of attack whilst difficult the constitutional validity of Section 69 was that it's violative of Article 14 (proper to equality) of the Constitution, as being arbitrary for the reason that it provides sweeping energy to the manager.
The petitioner, who seemed in person before the court docket, further contended that "Section 69 could also be violative of Article 19(1)(a) (proper to freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (proper to existence and private liberty) of the Constitution, because it provides arbitrary energy to the federal government to intercept or observe or decrypt any information through any laptop resource".
However, during the court docket proceedings, assistant solicitor normal of India Gyan Prakash, who represented the Central executive, antagonistic the PIL, announcing "this petition isn't maintainable because the petitioner has not disclosed the credentials and the necessities for its submitting which is needed below bankruptcy 22 of the rules of the court docket".
The court docket, alternatively, rejected the ASGI's submission and entertained the PIL, announcing that the High Court can refuse the technical objections whilst exercising the facility below Article 226 of the Constitution, which provides writ jurisdiction and tool to high courts to factor writs for the enforcement of elementary rights or some other criminal proper.
Amid snooping row, HC seeks reply on IT Act
![Amid snooping row, HC seeks reply on IT Act]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
January 05, 2019
Rating:
