Activist Shreya Singhal plans to challenge govt's recent move to intercept data on computers

Shreya Singhal, the activist whose petition led the Supreme Court to strike down a draconian provision in the IT Act in 2015, plans to challenge two recent moves of the government – allowing 10 agencies to intercept data on computers and the draft intermediary guidelines that put the onus on internet and social media companies to trace messages and remove content.

The apex court had scrapped Section 66A of the IT Act and watered down Section 79 following the petition by Singhal.

In an exclusive interview to ET, Singhal – now a Delhi High Court advocate – called the home ministry notification allowing government agencies to intercept data on computers “shocking” and said the draft amendments to the intermediary guidelines of Section 79 were an indirect way of bringing back Section 66A, which the court had deemed unconstitutional. Singhal is currently prepping up to file a PIL in the Supreme Court against these two measures.


“Since Section 66A is not there anymore, the government is trying to get in more control through another way – it’s a guise,” said Singhal, who first filed a public interest litigation in 2012 against the section, which criminalised “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically and had led to several arrests on account of being vague and open to interpretation.

“If you are going at something, follow the due process of law. Why is the government circumventing it? Even if you are in America, for any kind of phone tap you require a warrant from a judge, Here, it is being left to sundry government agencies with provisions for a written review later on. It’s crazy,” she said.

Singhal said that while the government has a case when it comes to preventing fake news and rumours from causing law and order situations in the country, tighter controls are needed to make sure there is no misuse.

Instead of giving sweeping powers, the government should frame rules, have a review process and ensure that there are checks against unauthorised monitoring, she said.

“It is essentially making everyone a suspect. I understand if the government wants to pinpoint a particular person, but for that a warrant is required. But as per the current rules, they can just do whatever they like for 60 days and a review happens later,” she said.

Singhal said that just because countries such as the US have programmes to spy on their own citizens, it doesn’t mean that India should follow them blindly.

“We have to pick and choose good parts of the foreign policy and see whether it fits or not,” she added.