The Supreme Court on November 7th expressed concerns over the arbitrary seizure of media professionals’ digital devices and stressed the need for better guidelines to protect their interests.

A public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals through Advocate-on-Record Rahul Narayan urging the court to establish safeguards against unreasonable interference by law enforcement agencies and create comprehensive guidelines for search and seizure of digital devices.

CONTENTION OF PIL

“There are hundreds of journalists whose digital devices are taken away en masse. The issues raised in this petition are very significant because there are no guidelines with reference to when and what may be seized, what can be accessed, what kind of protection is ensured for personal data, health data, financial data…The entire digital footprint is on that one device. Once an investigating agency is involved, it’s not like the person can have a back-up…”

SUPREME COURT OBSERVED 

Justice Kaul, however, stressed the importance of guidelines to protect journalists from arbitrary seizures –

“It’s a serious matter. These are media professionals who will have their own sources and other things. There must be some guidelines. If you take everything away, there’s a problem. You must ensure that there are some guidelines.”

Justice Kaul firmly said that guidelines were required to ensure that the powers of the agency were not misused in this respect –

“I’m finding it very difficult to accept some kind of all-within power that the agencies have…This is very dangerous. You must have better guidelines. If you want us to do it, we’ll do it. But my view is that you ought to do it yourself.

Quoted Example :

The Supreme Court issued its famous Vishaka guidelines on sexual harassment, the foundation has urged the court to issue guidelines to strike a balance between the right to privacy in the digital space and the legitimate interests of law enforcement, in line with established judgments.

By CJI D Y Chandrachud  (4 Nov 2023)

Judges don’t go by popular morality, but by constitutional morality. Constitutional morality consists of those values of the constitution that the courts are intended to espouse such as fraternity, human dignity, personal liberty and equality.

“Judges don’t look at how society would respond when they decide cases, that’s exactly the difference between the elected arms of government & the judiciary,” he said

While the elected arm of governance is intended to be responsive to the people, judges need to follow Constitutional morality.Courts are a platform for engagement, where people feel that they will atleast have a space to exchange views and ideas to produce a new synthesis of change within society, he added.

“There is a dividing line between what the legislature can and cannot do. If a judgment points out a deficiency in the law, it is open to the legislature to enact a fresh law to cure the deficiency. What the legislature cannot do is to overrule a judgment. But this is not happening for the first time. This has been happening in the tax arena. Validating acts are perfectly permissible, but directly overruling a judgment is completely impermissible,” 

“We can’t profess to be right. We are final not because we are right, but we are right because we are final.The work we do is open to criticism and broader social dialogue,” 

The Supreme Court observed that non-participation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights has civil consequences.

This observation was made while allowing a transfer petition filed by a wife seeking transfer of the a petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, pending before the Court of Ld. District Judge of Dadra & Nagar Haveli at Silvassa to the Family Court, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.

The court noted Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deals with the execution of decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction.

The provision reads as follows : Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both.

Taking note of this, the bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed:

“We are of the view that it cannot be said that nonparticipation in a proceeding of a restitution of conjugal rights, of the party who seeks for transfer of such proceeding is absolutely impactless. In fact, it has civil consequences as is evident from the aforesaid provision. In such circumstances and taking into account the distance of the court where the case sought to be transferred is pending and the place where the petitioner-wife is presently residing, we are inclined to allow the captioned transfer petition.”, the court said.

Come October 1, Birth Certificate will be considered as single document for availing several crucial services including admission to an educational institution, issuance of a driving licence, preparation of voter list, Aadhaar number, registration of marriage, appointment to a government job etc.

Announcing the implementation of Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023, Union Ministry of Home Affairs said “it will help create database of registered births and deaths which eventually would ensure efficient and transparent delivery of public services and social benefits and digital registration.”

“In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023 (20 of 2023), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of October 2023, as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force,” the notification said

Both the Houses of Parliament passed the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Bill, 2023, in the Monsoon Session concluded last month. The Rajya Sabha passed the the bill by voice vote on August 7 while the Lok Sabha has passed it on August 1.

• The Act grants authority to the Registrar General of India to oversee a national registry of births and deaths. State-appointed Chief Registrars and Registrars will be obligated to contribute data to this national database, while Chief Registrars maintain similar databases at the state level.
• Earlier, there was a requirement for certain persons to report births and deaths to the Registrar.
• For example, the medical officer in charge of a hospital where a baby is born must report the birth. Moreover, the Aadhaar number of the parents and the informant need to be provided. The rule also applied to in case of case of births in a jail, a hotel or lodge. Herein, the jailor and the hotel manager need to provide all the relevant information. 
• Under the new Act, the list has been further expanded and will now included  adoptive parents for non-institutional adoption, biological parents for births through surrogacy, and the parent in case of birth of a child to a single parent or unwed mother.
• The new legislation allows sharing of the national database with authorized authorities like population registers, electoral rolls, and others, subject to central government approval. Similarly, state databases can be shared with state-approved authorities.
• As per the Act, any person aggrieved by any action or order of the Registrar or District Registrar may appeal to the District Registrar or Chief Registrar, respectively. Such an appeal must be made within 30 days from receipt of such action or order. The District Registrar or Chief Registrar must give their decision within 90 days from the date of appeal.

Madras HC 21 August 

The court was hearing a plea filed by Abdul Rahman seeking to correct the birth date in his passport. Rahman informed the court that though his actual date of birth is September 18, 1960, it had been mentioned as February 12, 1960 in his passport which was valid till November 30 2023. He further informed that though he had given a representation to the concerned Passport authority, the same was not considered which prompted him to approach the court.

Justice GR Swaminathan of the Madurai bench observed as under:

“It is true that the passport is a solemn document and the applicant must offer correct particulars at the time of application. But some times, errors do happen. The petitioner has enclosed his certificate of birth issued by the competent authority and it is seen therefrom that the petitioner was born on 18.09.1960. When the birth certificate has been produced, the passport entry must conform to the brith certificate.”

Opposing this, the standing counsel for the Passport authority informed the court that Rahman ought to have been careful while furnishing the particulars at the time of filing the application. He added that the Passport is a solemn document of highest respect and if the particulars set out in the document are unreliable, it would have serious repercussions. Relying upon a decision of the Madurai bench, he insisted that the entries in a passport could not be casually corrected and sought for a dismissal of the petition.

The court relied on a 2016 decision whereby the High Court had taken a positive approach in a similar case and thereby it held that Rahman could submit a fresh application, even at the time of renewal of the passport. The court also directed Rahman to place a certified copy of the birth certificate before the authorities and directed the authorities to make the appropriate correction according to the birth certificate.