Tag: Supreme Court

Supreme Court flags privacy issues regarding WhatsApp, FB

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the central government’s response on a plea seeking to put in place regulation to protect the privacy of the messages of WhatsApp and Facebook users.

The court also issued notices to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), online messaging service WhatsApp and the social networking site Facebook, according to a report filed by news agency IANS.

Petitioners Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Singhal contended that under the new policy of WhatsApp, the online messaging service could access, read, share and use the contents for commercial purposes. A bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said, “It is a private person extending a private service. You take it or leave it — that is your right.”

Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Harish Salve told the court that it was the duty of the government to protect people’s rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and safeguard their privacy.
As he urged the court to intervene in the matter as new policy of WhatsApp affected the privacy of the people using the site, the bench observed whenever the messaging service will change their conditions, they will give a notice to its users, IANS reported.

Telling the court that private communication between two persons had to be protected, Salve said that TRAI was not doing anything about it and government was under duty to regulate the online messaging site and the social networking site. The court was told that TRAI has inserted a condition, which says that if you intercept a call without government permission, you would be prosecuted.

Sareen and Singhal have challenged Delhi High Court’s September 23, 2016 order by which it had allowed WhatsApp to roll out its new privacy policy but said it cannot share data of its users collected up to September 25, 2016 with Facebook or any other related company.

The High Court had further directed that WhatsApp would completely delete all data of users who chooses to opt out of the instant messaging app after the coming into force of its new privacy policy. While allowing WhatsApp to roll out its new privacy policy, it had said: “We have taken note of the fact that under the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the users are given an option to delete their WhatsApp account at any time, in which event, the information of the users would be deleted from the servers of WhatsApp. We are, therefore, of the view that it is always open to the existing users of WhatsApp, who do not want their information to be shared with Facebook, to opt for deletion of their account.”

The High Court had also asked the Centre to consider if instant messaging app WhatsApp and social networking site could be brought under the statutory regulatory framework.

TRAI is undertaking a consultation process, at the moment, to decide on Net Neutrality, which will at one point of time will also take into account services like WhatsApp, FB Messenger and other similar services offered by Indian companies too.

January 17, 2017
Supreme Court flags privacy issues regarding WhatsApp, FB

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the central government’s response on a plea seeking to put in place regulation to protect the privacy of the messages of WhatsApp and Facebook users.

The court also issued notices to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), online messaging service WhatsApp and the social networking site Facebook, according to a report filed by news agency IANS.

Petitioners Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Singhal contended that under the new policy of WhatsApp, the online messaging service could access, read, share and use the contents for commercial purposes. A bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said, “It is a private person extending a private service. You take it or leave it — that is your right.”

Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Harish Salve told the court that it was the duty of the government to protect people’s rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and safeguard their privacy.
As he urged the court to intervene in the matter as new policy of WhatsApp affected the privacy of the people using the site, the bench observed whenever the messaging service will change their conditions, they will give a notice to its users, IANS reported.

Telling the court that private communication between two persons had to be protected, Salve said that TRAI was not doing anything about it and government was under duty to regulate the online messaging site and the social networking site. The court was told that TRAI has inserted a condition, which says that if you intercept a call without government permission, you would be prosecuted.

Sareen and Singhal have challenged Delhi High Court’s September 23, 2016 order by which it had allowed WhatsApp to roll out its new privacy policy but said it cannot share data of its users collected up to September 25, 2016 with Facebook or any other related company.

The High Court had further directed that WhatsApp would completely delete all data of users who chooses to opt out of the instant messaging app after the coming into force of its new privacy policy. While allowing WhatsApp to roll out its new privacy policy, it had said: “We have taken note of the fact that under the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the users are given an option to delete their WhatsApp account at any time, in which event, the information of the users would be deleted from the servers of WhatsApp. We are, therefore, of the view that it is always open to the existing users of WhatsApp, who do not want their information to be shared with Facebook, to opt for deletion of their account.”

The High Court had also asked the Centre to consider if instant messaging app WhatsApp and social networking site could be brought under the statutory regulatory framework.

TRAI is undertaking a consultation process, at the moment, to decide on Net Neutrality, which will at one point of time will also take into account services like WhatsApp, FB Messenger and other similar services offered by Indian companies too.

January 17, 2017
Why can’t pvt FM channels have news, SC asks govt

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked the government to explain the continuing prohibition on FM radio stations and community radios from airing news and current affairs at par with private TV channels and the print media.

The observation by the chief justice of India J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud came on a public interest litigation filed in 2013 by Common Cause, and the Court asked why the government wanted to control news on radio, which covers almost the entire population including the rural masses.

The court directed the government to explain in four weeks the series of orders passed between 2008 and 2013 preventing private radio from airing their own news and current affairs broadcasts.

The government’s prohibition, Common Cause argued, was in clear violation of the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in 1995 in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vs Cricket Association of Bengal when the court had held that “airwaves are public property to be used to promote public good and expressing a plurality of views, opinions and ideas”. That judgment had led to the passing of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1995.

Common Cause counsel Prashant Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal said that policy Guidelines and of the Grant of Permission Agreements framed by the government which prohibit private FM radio stations and community radio stations from broadcasting their own news and current affairs programmes clearly violate the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

For more details: Why can private FM channels not have their own news bulletins, Supreme Court asks Govt.

Also Read :

‘Risk’ in FM stations airing news, apprehends Prasar head

TRAI: FM Radio ad revenues move up in Q2-17

Big Ganga strengthens weekend programming; four shows planned in Jan

January 17, 2017
Why can’t pvt FM channels have news, SC asks govt

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked the government to explain the continuing prohibition on FM radio stations and community radios from airing news and current affairs at par with private TV channels and the print media.

The observation by the chief justice of India J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud came on a public interest litigation filed in 2013 by Common Cause, and the Court asked why the government wanted to control news on radio, which covers almost the entire population including the rural masses.

The court directed the government to explain in four weeks the series of orders passed between 2008 and 2013 preventing private radio from airing their own news and current affairs broadcasts.

The government’s prohibition, Common Cause argued, was in clear violation of the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in 1995 in the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting vs Cricket Association of Bengal when the court had held that “airwaves are public property to be used to promote public good and expressing a plurality of views, opinions and ideas”. That judgment had led to the passing of the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1995.

Common Cause counsel Prashant Bhushan and Kamini Jaiswal said that policy Guidelines and of the Grant of Permission Agreements framed by the government which prohibit private FM radio stations and community radio stations from broadcasting their own news and current affairs programmes clearly violate the fundamental right of the freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution.

For more details: Why can private FM channels not have their own news bulletins, Supreme Court asks Govt.

Also Read :

‘Risk’ in FM stations airing news, apprehends Prasar head

TRAI: FM Radio ad revenues move up in Q2-17

Big Ganga strengthens weekend programming; four shows planned in Jan

January 17, 2017
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

NEW DELHI: Declining to stay proceedings in the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court today said the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India could continue with its work relating to consultation papers and tariff orders, but will not notify these without first referring them to the apex court.

The apex court direction came on an appeal by TRAI against an order of the Madras High Court. When contacted by indiantelevision.com, TRAI said it has no comments to make on the Supreme Court directive or on the course of action in the high court.

The high court had, on 12 January 2017, extended the status quo ordered by it on 23 December 2016 with regard to any tariff orders or regulations for the broadcast sector that related to copyrights issue. The HC was informed that India’s telecoms and broadcast regulator had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. After today’s apex court directive, the case filed by Star TV and Vijay TV will come up in the Madras High Court as slated on 19 January 2017.

The petitioner-broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders on tariff regulations were broadly in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. Pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guidelines for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, etc.

A few months ago, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff, interconnect and quality of service wherein it had suggested various parameters for stakeholders of the broadcast and cable sectors.

It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had said in a submission to the TRAI drafts last year that the exercise was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Copyright Act and other international copyrights laws, especially the Berne Convention. The IBF had said the Copyright Board is fully empowered to adjudicate upon disputes between any person and Content or Broadcast Reproduction Rights owners. Hence the Copyright Act and Rules provide for protection, monetisation, enforcement and adjudication procedures for all copyrightable work and broadcast reproduction rights.

Meanwhile, weighing in with the IBF, Asian pay TV industry body CASBA today in a statement said that it has long expressed concern about India’s previous rate regulations, which included a cable retail price freeze imposed in 2004 “until the market became more competitive” and never revoked.

Also read:   TRAI regulations threaten investment, warns CASBAA

Also read:   Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

Also read:   TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan

January 16, 2017
Tariff order: Don’t notify without SC nod, TRAI told; Madras HC case to continue

NEW DELHI: Declining to stay proceedings in the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court today said the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India could continue with its work relating to consultation papers and tariff orders, but will not notify these without first referring them to the apex court.

The apex court direction came on an appeal by TRAI against an order of the Madras High Court. When contacted by indiantelevision.com, TRAI said it has no comments to make on the Supreme Court directive or on the course of action in the high court.

The high court had, on 12 January 2017, extended the status quo ordered by it on 23 December 2016 with regard to any tariff orders or regulations for the broadcast sector that related to copyrights issue. The HC was informed that India’s telecoms and broadcast regulator had filed an appeal in the Supreme Court. After today’s apex court directive, the case filed by Star TV and Vijay TV will come up in the Madras High Court as slated on 19 January 2017.

The petitioner-broadcasters had sought to argue that the TRAI orders on tariff regulations were broadly in conflict with the Copyright Act 1957. Pending the full hearing of the case, TRAI would not be able to pass any guidelines for issues such as broadcast tariff, broadcast interconnect, etc.

A few months ago, TRAI had issued draft guidelines on tariff, interconnect and quality of service wherein it had suggested various parameters for stakeholders of the broadcast and cable sectors.

It may be recalled that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) had said in a submission to the TRAI drafts last year that the exercise was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Copyright Act and other international copyrights laws, especially the Berne Convention. The IBF had said the Copyright Board is fully empowered to adjudicate upon disputes between any person and Content or Broadcast Reproduction Rights owners. Hence the Copyright Act and Rules provide for protection, monetisation, enforcement and adjudication procedures for all copyrightable work and broadcast reproduction rights.

Meanwhile, weighing in with the IBF, Asian pay TV industry body CASBA today in a statement said that it has long expressed concern about India’s previous rate regulations, which included a cable retail price freeze imposed in 2004 “until the market became more competitive” and never revoked.

Also read:   TRAI regulations threaten investment, warns CASBAA

Also read:   Maintain status quo on broadcast guidelines, Madras HC tells TRAI

Also read:   TRAI tariff: Madras HC extends status quo; SC to hear regulator’s appeal on 16 Jan

January 16, 2017
SC to MIB: Get mechanism to deal with complaints on TV, radio shows

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Central Government to set up a statutory mechanism to deal with citizens’ complaints against TV and radio programmes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to use the power under section 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and set up a body to deal with complaints against television and radio channels, PTI reported.

The court considered the submission of the Centre that there was a mechanism to deal with such cases. “The Union of India said that there is a mechanism. We, however, feel that it needs adequate publicity so as to enable common public to seek redressal of grievance,” the court was quoted in the PTI report.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, said that “this business of self regulation business doesn’t work”.

At present while the News Broadcasters’ Association of India (NBA) has a self-regulatory mechanism to look into complaints received from citizens and viewers relating to its member-TV channels, there is no such set-up for the non-news TV channels in the country.

Broadcast and telecoms regulator TRAI oversees the carriage and tariff related issues pertaining to broadcast and cable. The content side of the industry is still regulated by MIB, which issues show-cause notices to various TV channels on content-related issues after receiving complaints or suggestions from viewers in general. The government also has a state-of-the-art on-air content monitoring facility in Delhi.

Most recently, MIB had asked NDTV India news channels to shutter for a day as a penalty for breaching content code as envisaged in various government rules and regulations and amended from time to time. NDTV India issue related to airing of programmes and information allegedly considered to compromise the nation’s security. However, under media and public pressure, the government kept the order in abeyance late last year.

ALSO READ : MIB puts NDTV India ban on hold until further notice

Govt hands NDTV India 24-hr ban for breach of content code

Content Regulation on Private TV Channels

January 13, 2017
SC to MIB: Get mechanism to deal with complaints on TV, radio shows

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Central Government to set up a statutory mechanism to deal with citizens’ complaints against TV and radio programmes.

A bench comprising Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud asked the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to use the power under section 22 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act and set up a body to deal with complaints against television and radio channels, PTI reported.

The court considered the submission of the Centre that there was a mechanism to deal with such cases. “The Union of India said that there is a mechanism. We, however, feel that it needs adequate publicity so as to enable common public to seek redressal of grievance,” the court was quoted in the PTI report.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, said that “this business of self regulation business doesn’t work”.

At present while the News Broadcasters’ Association of India (NBA) has a self-regulatory mechanism to look into complaints received from citizens and viewers relating to its member-TV channels, there is no such set-up for the non-news TV channels in the country.

Broadcast and telecoms regulator TRAI oversees the carriage and tariff related issues pertaining to broadcast and cable. The content side of the industry is still regulated by MIB, which issues show-cause notices to various TV channels on content-related issues after receiving complaints or suggestions from viewers in general. The government also has a state-of-the-art on-air content monitoring facility in Delhi.

Most recently, MIB had asked NDTV India news channels to shutter for a day as a penalty for breaching content code as envisaged in various government rules and regulations and amended from time to time. NDTV India issue related to airing of programmes and information allegedly considered to compromise the nation’s security. However, under media and public pressure, the government kept the order in abeyance late last year.

ALSO READ : MIB puts NDTV India ban on hold until further notice

Govt hands NDTV India 24-hr ban for breach of content code

Content Regulation on Private TV Channels

January 13, 2017
Maxis in trouble as SC summons its chief

MUMBAI: The Supreme Court of India has restrained the transfer of 2G licences from the Malaysian company Maxis which were allotted to Aircel originally. Chief Justice J S Khehar also proposed to restrain earning of any revenue by using the 2G spectrum licences. Maxis had allotted its licence to Aircel in 2006.

The bench said that the instant order was issued to bring to the notice of Malaysian business T Ananda Krishnan – the owner of Maxis group and to ensure he makes his appearance in the apex court. The bench also comprised of Justices N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud.

The apex court also declared that the 2G licences shall be seized if Krishnan and another Maxis executive Ralph Marshall fail to appear on 27 January. The bench has also asked the telecom ministry to devise ways to prevent adverse impact which can take place if the 2G licences are provided to the other service providers and not Aircel.

Krishnan added that they cannot tolerate a person using the national resource such as spectrum of India and not honouring the court notice. The court has also directed the government of India to publish the order instantly in two leading Malaysian newspapers. The court specified that, if the proposed order is passed, it would not be open to any of the accused to raise the issue of monetary losses.

BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy had alleged that FIPB clearance to Aircel-Maxis was granted illegally. Special 2G prosecutor Anand Grover said that hearing on framing of charges in the trial court is scheduled for 9 January. The bench has also added that the material for further hearing on 27 January and other charges made by the BJP spokesperson will be dealt at a later stage.

Also Read: Aircel-Maxis case: 2G court seeks to speed trial against Marans

January 6, 2017
Maxis in trouble as SC summons its chief

MUMBAI: The Supreme Court of India has restrained the transfer of 2G licences from the Malaysian company Maxis which were allotted to Aircel originally. Chief Justice J S Khehar also proposed to restrain earning of any revenue by using the 2G spectrum licences. Maxis had allotted its licence to Aircel in 2006.

The bench said that the instant order was issued to bring to the notice of Malaysian business T Ananda Krishnan – the owner of Maxis group and to ensure he makes his appearance in the apex court. The bench also comprised of Justices N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud.

The apex court also declared that the 2G licences shall be seized if Krishnan and another Maxis executive Ralph Marshall fail to appear on 27 January. The bench has also asked the telecom ministry to devise ways to prevent adverse impact which can take place if the 2G licences are provided to the other service providers and not Aircel.

Krishnan added that they cannot tolerate a person using the national resource such as spectrum of India and not honouring the court notice. The court has also directed the government of India to publish the order instantly in two leading Malaysian newspapers. The court specified that, if the proposed order is passed, it would not be open to any of the accused to raise the issue of monetary losses.

BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy had alleged that FIPB clearance to Aircel-Maxis was granted illegally. Special 2G prosecutor Anand Grover said that hearing on framing of charges in the trial court is scheduled for 9 January. The bench has also added that the material for further hearing on 27 January and other charges made by the BJP spokesperson will be dealt at a later stage.

Also Read: Aircel-Maxis case: 2G court seeks to speed trial against Marans

January 6, 2017