ABSTRACT
The article attempts to summarize the evolution of the basic structure doctrine and utilizing he understanding of the doctrine, it attempts to understand whether the DPDP Act, 2023 (Digital Personal Date Protection Act) is in any way violative of the basic features of the constitution as the legislation allows usage of data to certain classes of people. Further, such classes of people do not have to comply with the norms prescribed by the DPDP Act and DPDP rules.
INTRODUCTION
The basic structure doctrine stems from the concept that there are certain aspects of the constitution which are inalienable and are necessary to preserve the basic tenets that the constitution strives to protect, establish or prescribe the nation to follow. Hence, it is imperative to understand the origins of the doctrine from the view of the Constitutional debates and the judicial interpretations which formalized the same through a test that can be relied upon to identify the features of the constitution that form the heart and soul of the constitution and the same has to be preserved. Furter, no statute or legislation shall interfere, abridge or take away such feature and hence any legislation that may potentially do the same under guise of necessity has to viewed in the strictest sense to understand whether the legislation is interfering with the basic tenets of the constitution.
KEYWORDS
Digital Personal Data Protection Act, Privacy of digital data, basic structure doctrine.
MAIN BODY
The concept of basic structure doctrine was first discussed in the constitutional debates when the parliament’s amending power was presented for discussion. The debates specifically stated that there are certain features which cannot be taken away by any means, however, Dr. Ambedkar argued that will of the people takes precedence over any doctrine or article that is enshrined in the constitution. However, the view taken by Dr. Ambedkar is extremely utopic and if the same is implemented, the nature of the constitution will change drastically and at some point it will loose the spirit in which it was drafted. Therefore, it was much needed to establish what are the basic features of the constitution which cannot be abridged, amended or taken away for whatever noble reason, the parliament may have.
The judicial discussion on the basic structure of the constitution begun with the case of Shankari Prasad vs Union of India wherein the question of law involved validity of the amendment which took away a fundamental right to own land and further a legislation which reduced the significance of the right significantly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such amendment is perfectly in line with the power of parliament which can amend any part of the constitution through the process that was laid down within the Indian Constitution. The view is however flawed as it will allow the parliament to have substantial control over the contents of the constitution and it can one day decide to overhaul the whole constitution and the same will be within the power of the parliament. The correct or rather more suitable interpretation was first time provided in the case of Kesavananda Bharathi Vs State of Kerala wherein the court attempted to find list out exhaustively as to what constitutes basic features of the constitution.
The aforementioned landmark judgement did provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes the basic features of the constitution but the same was made through observations as the judgement did not rely on the reasoning provided within the judgement. Therefore, the judgement merely laid down the jurisprudence for the evolution of the basic structure doctrine and the same is not binding in nature. The later judgement of Minerva Mills Vs Union of India which relied on the reasoning provided within the Kesavananda Bharathi case to provide relief to the petitioner.
There was one issue which remained unresolved throughout the evolution of the basic structure doctrine was clearly the missing test which is capable of identifying actual violations of the basic structure of the constitution. The issue was solved through the case of I.R.Ceolho Vs State of Tamil Nadu which laid down twin test to see whether the issue at hand violated the doctrine. The twin test being effect test and direct test. These tests take into consideration the direct effect and the indirect effect of an action to determine whether the issue at hand is in violation of the doctrine or not.
Coming to the issue of DPDP act which allows exemptions from regulation and procedure established under the act if such data is collected and used for the purpose of research or education. The primary issue arising here being violation of the fundamental right of privacy which is a basic feature of the constitution and cannot be abridged without satisfying the three-fold test of basic structure, reasonability and due procedure of law. In the current case, the facet of sanctuary as established and defined in the case of K.S.Puttasamy Vs Union of India. The facet prohibits intrusive observation and the data collected being personal and private in nature clearly falls within the ambit of the facet discussed previously. Furthermore, the legislation and the rules allow exemption of due process of law. This is the primary reason as to why the statute can be considered to be in violation of the basic tenets established under the constitution when seen in a surface level or literal interpretation.
However, neither the stature nor the rules prescribed is in violation of the basic structure as the protection given under the facet of sanctuary refers to violation of a person’s private space through intrusive observation whereas the statute mandates the data to be held and processed through the data anonymization. This allows the institutions to have necessary data to perform research and allied functions while simultaneously protecting the private space through anonymizing the data and hence preventing intrusive observation of a single person. The statute cannot be held to be in violation of the doctrine for the reason that it neither attempts to abridge the right of privacy or reduce the importance of right of privacy and hence in compliance with the twin test prescribed in the case of I.R.Coelho.
CONCLUSION
The DPD act or the DPDP rules is not in violation of the basic structure doctrine as it simultaneously balances the sphere of privacy and the needs of research, educational institutes need. Further, it has managed to satisfy the twin test laid down in the case of I.R.Coelho, reasonability doctrine as laid down in Maneka Gandhi and the golden triangle doctrine as laid down in R.C Cooper. For these reasons it is evident that the legislation is in compliance with the constitution of India and the illusion of violation is seen only in surface level as the jurisprudence revolving around the issue is well settled and allows such interference.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY LALITHA SASANKA G
