Centre gets 6 weeks to reply on snooping'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging the government’s notification authorising 10 Central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any computer system. 

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Ashok Bhushan and S.K. Kaul sought the Centre’s response within six weeks and said it would hear arguments on the interim stay after the parties are served the notices. 

“Heard the petitioner appearing in person and the counsels for the petitioners and perused the relevant material. Permission to appear and argue in person is granted. Issue notice in all the writ petitions. Issue notice also on the prayer of interim relief/ application(s) for stay, returnable in six weeks. Interim prayer(s) will be considered after service of notice is complete,” the bench said. 

The court was hearing a batch of petitions, including those filed by advocates Manohar Lal Sharma and Amit Sahni, challenging the government’s December 20 notification. According to the government’s notification, 10 Central probe and snoop agencies are now empowered under the Information Technology (IT) Act for computer interception and analysis, home ministry officials had said.

The petitioners have claimed that the notification was “unconstitutional” and the “blanket surveillance” bad in law. 

The 10 agencies notified under the new order are the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for Income Tax Department), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, the Research and Analysis Wing, Directorate of Signal Intelligence (in service areas of J-K, North East and Assam) and Delhi Police commissioner. Sahni in his plea, filed through advocate Preeti Singh, claimed that the December 20 notification was liable to be set aside according to the mandate of the right to privacy judgment delivered by a nine-judge Constitution bench of the top court.

“The order dated December 20, 2018 is a blanket order and the same is against public at large, without any reasoning and the same is bad in law, therefore the same is liable to be set aside,” he said in his plea.