Govt rolls back bid to make social media monitor hub SC no to intervening against Karti’s bail
Govt had faced flak for decision from Opposition as well as the top court
NEW DELHI: The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government has withdrawn it’s controversial proposal to create a ‘Social Media Communication Hub’ (SMCH) for monitoring online data, the Supreme Court was told on Friday.
Attorney general KK Venugopal, appearing for the government, informed a bench led by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that the government did not propose to go ahead with its request for proposal (RFP) — floated in April — for the supply of software for the project. He added that the government had decided to review the policy.
The government had come under severe criticism for its move, not just from the opposition parties, but also the SC which, two weeks ago, termed the move “as creating a surveillance state”.
The proposal came under challenge before the top court by Trinamool Congress legislator Mahua Moitra on June 18.
The court had, on the last hearing, sought Venugopal’s assistance on the issue.
During the previous hearing , Justice DY Chandrachud had noted: “If the government is seeking to monitor every single tweet and Whatsapp message that is sent, we will be moving towards becoming a surveillance state.”
In Friday’s hearing, Venugopal informed the bench that the government was taking advantage of Justice Chandrachud’s remarks from the last hearing. After taking the AG’S stand on record, the bench disposed of Moitra’s petition.
In her appeal, Moitra had alleged that monitoring of activity on social media was akin to personal surveillance of citizens by the state. She said that through the hub, the government intended to collect and analyse digital and social media content. She asked the court to stay the entire project on the grounds that it would violate an individuals right to privacy.
The government was trying to monitor social media content of individuals by tracking their Twitter, Facebook and Instagram accounts and their emails, Moitra contended.
The Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited (BECIL) a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) had floated the tender inviting bids for supply of software for the project.
According to the RFP document, a technology platform was needed to collect digital media chatter from all core social media platforms as well as digital platforms such as news, blogs. The platform was expected to provide automated reports, tactical insight and comprehensive work-flows to initiate engagement across digital channels.
Under the project, media persons were to be employed on contractual basis in each district to be the “eyes and ears of the government” and provide real-time feedback from the public on government policies on the ground. They were to also follow the news trending in their areas. NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court refused to interfere with Delhi high court verdict granting anticipatory bail to Karti Chidambaram, son of former union minister P Chidambaram in the INX Media case.
“We do not find any reason to interfere with the high court order,” said a bench of justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, declining to accept the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) plea to set aside the pre-arrest bail order in favour of Karti.
On additional solicitor general (ASG) Tushar Mehta’s insistence, the court noted that the observations made by the HC judge shall not influence other proceedings. Mehta illustrated how the judge had commented on the statement given by Indrani Mukherjea, co-founder of INX media, who is also facing charges of murdering her daughter.
Karti has been charged for alleged financial irregularities related to INX Media. Both Chidambaram and Karti have denied all the allegations made by the CBI, as well as the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Mehta also questioned Karti’s bail also on the grounds that he had invoked the concurrent jurisdiction of the trial court as well as the HC.
Karti’s lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, rebutted Mehta’s argument and said there is a judgement that concurrent jurisdiction of the trial court and high court can be invoked.
Meanwhile, the same bench gave relief to Nalini Chidambaram, wife of P Chidambaram, against whom the ED issued summons in connection with its money laundering probe into the Saradha ponzi scam.