A Comparison of Indian Legislation to Draft International Principles on Surveillance of Communications

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

The Centre for Internet and Society is contributing feedback to the drafting of the principles. The principles are still in draft form and the most recent version along with the preamble to the principles can be accessed at: http://necessaryandproportionate.net/

The Principles:

1. Principle - Legality: Any limitation to the right to privacy must be prescribed by law. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary may adopt or implement a measure that interferes with the right to privacy without a previous act by the Legislature that results from a comprehensive and participatory process. Given the rate of technological change, laws enabling limitations on the right to privacy should be subject to periodic review by means of a participatory legislative or regulatory process.

Indian Legislation: In India there are two predominant legislations with subsequent Rules and Licenses that allow for access to communications by law enforcement and the government. Though the basic power of interception of communications are prescribed by law, the Rules and Licenses build off of these powers and create procedural requirements, and requirements for assistance.

2. Principle - Legitimate Purpose: Laws should only allow access to communications or communications metadata by authorized public authorities for investigative purposes and in pursuit of a legitimate purpose, consistent with a free and democratic society.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are no specific provisions requiring that access by law enforcement must be for a legitimate purpose and consistent with a free and democratic society. Instead, Indian legislation defines and lays out specific circumstances for which access would be allowed.

Below are the circumstances for which access is allowed by each Act, Rule, and License:

• In the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India,
• Defense of India
• Security of the state
• Friendly relations with foreign states
• Public order
• Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above
• For investigation of any offence

• Forecasting of imminent cyber incidents
• Monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resources
• Identification and determination of viruses or computer contaminant
• Tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents
• Tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus’s or computer contaminants
• Identifying or tracking of any person who has breached, or is suspected of having breached or being likely to breach cyber security.
• Undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resource.
• Accessing stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force.
• Any other matter relating to cyber security.

• Reasons defined in the Telegraph Act. (Section 41.20 (xix))
• National Security. (Section 41.20 (xvii))
• To counteract espionage, subversive act, sabotage, or any other unlawful activity. (Section 41.1)
• Trace nuisance, obnoxious or malicious calls, messages or communications transported through his/her equipment. (Section 40.4)
• In the interests of security. (Section 41.7)
• For security reasons. (Section 41.20 (iii))

• To counteract espionage, subversive act, sabotage, or any other unlawful activity. (Section 34.1)
• In the interests of security. (Section 34.4)
• For security reasons. (Section 34.28 (iii))
• Reasons defined in the Telegraph Act. (Section 35.2)

3. Principle - Necessity: Laws allowing access to communications or communications metadata by authorized public authorities should limit such access to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary, in the sense that an overwhelmingly positive justification exists, and justifiable in a democratic society in order for the authority to pursue its legitimate purposes, and which the authority would otherwise be unable to pursue. The onus of establishing this justification, in judicial as well as in legislative processes, is on the government.

Indian Legislation: Relevant Indian legislation do not contain provisions mandating that access to communications must be demonstrably necessary, and do not give details of the criteria that authorizing authorities should use to determine if a request is a valid or not. Relevant Indian legislation does require that all directions contain reasons for the direction. Additionally, excluding the ITA Procedure and safeguard for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information Rules, relevant Indian legislation requires that all other means for acquiring the information must be taken into consideration before a direction for access can be granted.

Below are summaries of the relevant provisions:

• TA Rules 2007: Any order for interception issued by the competent authority must contain reasons for the direction (Section 2). While issuing orders for direction, all other means for acquiring the information must be taken into consideration, and directions can only be issued if it is not possible to acquire the information by any other reasonable means (Section 3).
• ITA Interception and Monitoring Rules: Any direction issued by the competent authority must contain reasons for such direction (Section 7). The competent authority must consider the possibility of acquiring the necessary information by other means and the direction can be issued only when it is not possible to acquire the information any other reasonable means (Section 8).
• ITA Traffic Monitoring Rules: Any direction issued by the competent authority must contain reasons for the direction (Section 3(3)).
• UASL & ISP License: As laid out in the Telegraph Act and subsequent Rules.

4. Principle - Adequacy: Public authorities should restrain themselves from adopting or implementing any measure of intrusion allowing access to communications or communications metadata that is not appropriate for fulfillment of the legitimate purpose that justified establishing that measure.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are provisions that require direction for access to be specific, but there are no provisions that specifically prohibit government agencies from collecting and accessing information that is not appropriate for fulfillment of the stated purpose of the direction.

5. Principle - Competent Authority: Authorities capable of making determinations relating to communications or communications metadata must be competent and must act with independence and have adequate resources in exercising the functions assigned to them.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation it is required that directions for access to be authorized by "competent authorities". The most common authority for authorizing orders for access is the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, but authorization can also come from other officials depending on the circumstance. The fact that authorization for access to communications content is not from a judge has been a contested topic, as in many countries a judicial order is the minimum requirement for access to communication content.  It is unclear from the legislation if adequate resources are assigned to the competent authorities.

Below are summaries of relevant provisions:

6. Principle - Proportionality: Public authorities should only order the preservation and access to specifically identified, targeted communications or communications metadata on a case-by-case basis, under a specified legal basis. Competent authorities must ensure that all formal requirements are fulfilled and must determine the validity of each specific attempt to access or receive communications or communications metadata, and that each attempt is proportionate in relation to the specific purposes of the case at hand. Communications and communications metadata are inherently sensitive and their acquisition should be regarded as highly intrusive. As such, requests should at a minimum establish a) that there is a very high degree of probability that a serious crime has been or will be committed; b) and that evidence of such a crime would be found by accessing the communications or communications metadata sought; c) other less invasive investigative techniques have been exhausted; and d) that a plan to ensure that the information collected will be only that information reasonably related to the crime and that any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned. Neither the scope of information types, the number or type of persons whose information is sought, the amount of data sought, the retention of that data held by the authorities, nor the level of secrecy afforded to the request should go beyond what is demonstrably necessary to achieve a specific investigation.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are no comprehensive provisions that ensure proportionality of the surveillance of communications but there are provisions that contribute to ensuring proportionality. These include provisions requiring: time frames for how long law enforcement can retain accessed and collected material, directions to be issued only after there are no other means for acquiring the information, requests to contain reasons for the order, the duration for which an order can remain in force to be limited, and requests to be for specified purpose based on a particular set of premises. All of these provisions are found in the Telegraph Rules issued in 2007 and the ITA Procedures and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information Rules. None of these requirements are found in the UASL or ISP licenses, and many are missing from the ITA Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information Rules.

Though the above are steps to ensuring proportionality, Indian legislation does not provide details of how the proportionality of requests would be measured as recommended by the principle. For example, it is not required that requests for access demonstrate that evidence of the crime would be found by accessing the communications or communications metadata sought, and that information only related directly to the crime will be collected. Furthermore, Indian legislation does not place restrictions on the amount of data sought, nor the level of secrecy afforded to the request.

Below is a summary of the relevant provisions:

7. Principle - Due process: Due process requires that governments must respect and guarantee an individual’s human rights, that any interference with such rights must be authorized in law, and that the lawful procedure that governs how the government can interfere with those rights is properly enumerated and available to the general public.(9) While criminal investigations and other considerations of public security and safety may warrant limited access to information by public authorities, the granting of such access must be subject to guarantees of procedural fairness. Every request for access should be subject to prior authorization by a competent authority, except when there is imminent risk of danger to human life.(10)

Indian Legislation: In the relevant Indian legislation the only guarantee for due process is that every request for access must be subject to prior authorization by a competent authority.

8. Principle - User notification: Notwithstanding the notification and transparency requirements that governments should bear, service providers should notify a user that a public authority has requested his or her communications or communications metadata with enough time and information about the request so that a user may challenge the request. In specific cases where the public authority wishes to delay the notification of the affected user or in an emergency situation where sufficient time may not be reasonable, the authority should be obliged to demonstrate that such notification would jeopardize the course of investigation to the competent judicial authority reviewing the request. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the public authority to notify the individual affected and the service provider as soon as the risk is lifted or after the conclusion of the investigation, whichever is sooner.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are no provisions that require the government or service providers to notify the user that a public authority has requested his or her communication data.

9. Principle - Transparency about use of government surveillance: The access capabilities of public authorities and the process for access should be prescribed by law and should be transparent to the public. The government and service providers should provide the maximum possible transparency about the access by public authorities without imperiling ongoing investigations and with enough information so that individuals have sufficient knowledge to fully comprehend the scope and nature of the law, and when relevant, challenge it. Service providers must also publish the procedure they apply to deal with data requests from public authorities.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are no requirements that access capabilities of the government and the process for access must be transparent to the public. Nor are service providers required to publish the procedure applied to handle data requests from public authorities.

10. Principle - Oversight: An independent oversight mechanism should be established to ensure transparency of lawful access requests. This mechanism should have the authority to access information about public authorities' actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information, to assess whether public authorities are making legitimate use of their lawful capabilities, and to publish regular reports and data relevant to lawful access. This is in addition to any oversight already provided through another branch of government such as parliament or a judicial authority. This mechanism must provide – at minimum – aggregate information on the number of requests, the number of requests that were rejected, and a specification of the number of requests per service provider and per type of crime. (11)

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are requirements for a review committee to be established. The review committee must meet on a bi-monthly basis and review directions to ensure that they are in accordance with the prescribed law. Currently, it is unclear from the legislation if the review committees have the authority to access information about public authorities’ actions, and currently the review committee does not publish aggregate information about the number of requests, the number of requests that were rejected, and a specification of the number of requests per service provider and per type of crime. These standards are recommended by the principle.

The relevant provisions are summarized below:

11. Principles - Integrity of communications and systems: It is the responsibility of service providers to transmit and store communications and communications metadata securely and to a degree that is minimally necessary for operation. It is essential that new communications technologies incorporate security and privacy in the design phases. In order, in part, to ensure the integrity of the service providers’ systems, and in recognition of the fact that compromising security for government purposes almost always compromises security more generally, governments shall not compel service providers to build surveillance or monitoring capability into their systems. Nor shall governments require that these systems be designed to collect or retain particular information purely for law enforcement or surveillance purposes. Moreover, a priori data retention or collection should never be required of service providers and orders for communications and communications metadata preservation must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Finally, present capabilities should be subject to audit by an independent public oversight body.

Indian Legislation: In relevant Indian legislation there are a number of security measures that must be put in place but these are predominantly actions that must be taken by service providers, and do not pertain to intelligence agencies. Furthermore, many provisions found in the ITA Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information Rules, and the ISP and UASL licenses include requirements for service providers to provide monitoring facilities and technical assistance, require information to be retained specifically for law enforcement purposes, and require service providers to comply with a-priori data retention mandates. In the ISP and UASL license, service providers are audited and inspected to ensure compliance with requirements listed in the license, but it unclear from the legislation if the access capabilities of government or governmental agencies are audited by an independent public oversight body. This standard is recommended by the principle.

Relevant provisions are summarized below:

Provisions requiring the provision of facilities, assistance, and retention:

12. Principle - Safeguards for international cooperation: In response to changes in the flows of information and the technologies and services that are now used to communicate, governments may have to work across borders to fight crime. Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) should ensure that, where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications and communications metadata, the higher/highest of the available standards should be applied to the data. Mutual legal assistance processes and how they are used should also be clearly documented and open to the public. The processes should distinguish between when law enforcement agencies can collaborate for purposes of intelligence as opposed to sharing actual evidence. Moreover, governments cannot use international cooperation as a means to surveil people in ways that would be unlawful under their own laws. States must verify that the data collected or supplied, and the mode of analysis under MLAT, is in fact limited to what is permitted. In the absence of an MLAT, service providers should not respond to requests of the government of a particular country requesting information of users if the requests do not include the same safeguards as providers would require from domestic authorities, and the safeguards do not match these principles.

Indian Legislation: India currently has signed 32 MLAT treaties with other countries, each with its own provisions and conditions relating to access to information. The provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 apply to any contravention of the Act that is committed outside of India, thus the Rules related to interception, monitoring, decryption etc. would apply to any contravention of the Act outside of India. The provisions of the Indian Telegraph Act only apply to communications within India, but the licenses do specify when information held by service providers cannot be transferred across borders.

Below is a summary of the relevant provisions:

13. Principle - Safeguards against illegitimate access: To protect individuals against unwarranted attempts to access communications and communications metadata, governments should ensure that those authorities and organizations who initiate, or are complicit in, unnecessary, disproportionate or extra-legal interception or access are subject to sufficient and significant dissuasive penalties, including protection and rewards for whistleblowers, and that individuals affected by such activities are able to access avenues for redress. Any information obtained in a manner that is inconsistent with these principles is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, as is any evidence derivative of such information.

Indian Legislation: Though relevant Indian legislation does provide penalty for unauthorized interception or access, the penalty applies only to service providers, and does not hold governmental agencies responsible. Currently there are no avenues of redress for the individual, and there are no protections or rewards for whistleblowers. Both of these safeguards are recommended by the principle.

The relevant provisions are summarized below:

14. Principle - Cost of surveillance: The financial cost of providing access to user data should be borne by the public authority undertaking the investigation. Financial constraints place an institutional check on the overuse of orders, but the payments should not exceed the service provider’s actual costs for reviewing and responding to orders, as such would provide a perverse financial incentive in opposition to user’s rights.

Indian Legislation: In India, the ISP and the UASL licenses specifically state that the cost of providing facilities must be borne by the service provider. Though the ITA Interception and Monitoring Rules do require intermediaries to provide facilities, it is not clear from the Rules where the burden of the cost will fall. Currently, there are no requirements that the cost of access to user data should be borne by the public authority undertaking the investigation. This standard is recommended by the principle.

Below are summaries of relevant provisions: