wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Exclusive: P.P. Chaudhary answers the questions everyone’s asking about the Data Protection Bill 2021

In an interview, Chaudhary answered burning questions on topics ranging from Pegasus to the concept of state-level DPAs.

Source: Lok Sabha TV

The report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill was tabled in both Houses of Parliament on December 16, bringing us one step closer to India’s first data protection law.

Among its recommendations, the JPC has suggested keeping the minimum age of consent at 18, bringing governance of non-personal data within its ambit, etc. However, the report has also led to seven dissent notes being filed and objections from industry bodies like the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI).

Lok Sabha MP P.P. Chaudhary, chairman of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) on the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019, spoke to MediaNama in a wide-ranging interview on various provisions of his committee’s recommendations to the Bill. Here are the excerpts of that conversation.

On Children’s Data

MediaNama: One thing that is new in the report, is that the age of consent has been increased to 18. With the amount of digitisation we’re seeing, and young people are coming on to the internet now more than ever, especially when we look at above the age of 14, then wouldn’t it lead to a sort of disenfranchisement if they have to go back to their parents on how they use, explore the internet, how their data is collected?

P.P. Chaudhary: “Because now, during this digital age, so many things are to be found on the various type of websites that are there. So we have not changed the age, that bill, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha before the Parliament the age of the child, meaning of the child had been defined, which means the person who had not completed 18 years. So no doubt, various stakeholders at the time when they were giving their evidence before the Committee for hearings. The suggestion we were receiving was tat the age should be 16 years or some suggested 14 years. But that is the tender age. So medically, if we see all these things, the maturity comes only after 18 years. So everywhere it is followed that the person becomes mature at the age of 18 years. Then why it should be reduced from 18 to 16 in the data protection law? When everywhere, in all the law, we are treating the age of maturity as 18 years then why specific provisions should be made here in Data Protection Law? And this is more serious, look into the various websites. So therefore the consent of the parent is necessary and there after once the person attains maturity they can give their consent and the services will not be stopped. There is no point when everywhere in all the law connected to the content, do you think there is a majority is either ingenious then, where a specific prohibition should be made here to get the protection law? And this is a more serious look in the various medicine. So that would be consent of the and necessary. And then after wrestling the question, then the majority, then he can give his consent again and this service will not be stopped.”

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

MediaNama: Right but for someone that age, we explore the internet so much of that time, but coming back to their parents and each time to get consent for the data being collected. Wouldn’t that lead to hampering of business interests as well, with EdTech coming around?

P.P. Chaudhary: “No, not at all. We have to maintain the fine balance between business and social spectrum. We are not required to see- we are a society, we have to see the development of our children, we have to see the so many other social aspect of the issue. Not only the business. We are not concerned about the business of the companies, we are also concerned about the social aspect. We are not concerned about the business of the company. Therefore the age of 18 years, which is the age of maturity, not in this law of data protection it is available in all the laws so there is nothing wrong in it for keeping the age 18 years”

Support MediaNama’s endeavor to enable meaningful conversations around technology policy in India. Subscribe here.

MediaNama: We’ve seen 6-7 dissent notes, with allegations that big tech lobbying impacted the provisions for penalties on data fiduciaries. Would you like to respond to that?

P.P. Chaudhary: “Basically, I can tell you from the proceedings of the committee the involvement and contribution of all these members who have submitted their dissent notes their contribution is a great and I appreciate their role in the committee. Everywhere, we deliberated and everything we approved unanimously. But the dissent notea are politically motivated. And I would not like to say is whether the member is competent but to my mind these are not the D-I-S-S-E-N-T note, these are D-E-C-E-N-T notes. So I term these as they, if you remove the political outcome, then basically they are not dissent notes but decent notes.”

To know what else the Joint Committee chairman said, WATCH this video:

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Get our white paper on the Data Protection Bill 2021 in your inbox

We may also reach out occasionally with our coverage of the Data Protection Bill and more.
By filling out this form, you agree to receive a copy of MediaNama's white paper and further information about MediaNama's work and services.

Subscribe to MediaNama to get access to our ongoing coverage of the bill. Here is everything we have planned around the report:

Written By

I cover health technology for MediaNama, among other things. Reach me at anushka@medianama.com

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ