Why in the News?

In early January this year, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

What are the key criticisms of the draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025?

• Lack of Independence in the Data Protection Board (DPB): The Union government has full discretion in appointing DPB members, raising concerns about executive overreach and lack of independent oversight. Example: Since the DPB has quasi-judicial functions, government control over appointments could compromise its impartiality in handling data protection disputes.
• Inefficiency in the Appellate Mechanism: Appeals from DPB decisions will be heard by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), which is already overburdened with cases. Example: As of early 2025, 3,448 cases were pending in TDSAT, making it unrealistic to resolve data protection appeals within the required six-month timeline.
• Weak Digital Infrastructure for Appeals: The draft Rules require appeals to be filed digitally, but TDSAT’s website and case management systems lack efficiency and transparency. Example: The TRAI Annual Report (2023) mentioned a new legal case management system, but its effectiveness and implementation status remain unclear.

Why is the appointment of a technical member with expertise in data protection considered necessary for the TDSAT?

• Complexity of Data Protection Issues: Data protection cases involve legal principles like consent, data processing, storage, and unauthorized use, which differ from telecom disputes. Example: A case involving unauthorized data sharing by a tech company requires expertise in privacy laws, which a telecom specialist may not possess.
• Mismatch Between Existing Expertise and New Responsibilities: Section 14C of the TRAI Act, 1997 allows TDSAT members with expertise in telecommunications, technology, commerce, or administration, but not in data protection. Example: TDSAT is well-equipped for telecom disputes (e.g., spectrum allocation cases) but lacks specialists to handle data privacy violations under the DPDP Act, 2023.
• Need for a Legal Amendment to Ensure Specialization: Amending Section 14C of the TRAI Act to include data protection as a required expertise will help TDSAT make informed decisions. Example: If a social media platform misuses personal data, a technical member with privacy law knowledge can ensure proper adjudication.

How does the increasing caseload of the TDSAT impact its ability to handle appeals from the DPB within the stipulated six-month timeline?

• High Pending Case Load: As of early 2025, 3,448 cases remain unresolved in TDSAT, making it difficult to accommodate additional data protection appeals. Example: If a major data breach case is filed, it may face delays due to the backlog of telecom and broadcasting disputes.
• Burden of New Telecommunications Act Cases: The recently enacted Telecommunications Act, 2023 will increase TDSAT’s caseload, further stretching its resources. Example: Disputes over telecom licensing and spectrum allocation could slow down hearings on personal data protection violations.
• Limited Judicial and Technical Expertise: In January 2025, TDSAT had only one technical member and no judicial member, raising concerns about fair adjudication. Example: Without a judicial expert, appeals related to data misuse by companies may not receive proper legal scrutiny.
• Structural Capacity Constraints: TDSAT has a single bench, making it impossible to efficiently handle multiple categories of appeals simultaneously. Example: A delay in telecom tariff disputes could push back hearings on privacy-related cases filed under the DPDP Act, 2023.

Way forward: 

• Strengthening TDSAT’s Capacity: Increase the number of benches and appoint members with expertise in data protection and privacy laws to handle DPB appeals efficiently. Example: Amending Section 14C of the TRAI Act, 1997 to include data protection specialists can ensure proper adjudication.
• Independent and Efficient DPB: Ensure autonomy in DPB appointments and establish a dedicated appellate body for data protection cases to reduce TDSAT’s burden. Example: Setting up a Data Protection Appellate Tribunal (DPAT) with specialized judges and technical members can improve efficiency.

Mains PYQ:

 Q Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India. (2017)

Reason:  It touches upon the importance of the structure and appointment processes within judicial bodies, which is a relevant underlying theme also present in the discussion about the need for a data protection expert within the TDSAT.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now