Home Ministry's order giving snooping powers to central agencies challenged in SC

The PIL has been filed by advocate ML Sharma.

Pic for representational use only

NEW DELHI: Challenging the constitutionality and legality of the Centres order empowering central agencies and the Delhi Police to snoop on all computers, two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) were filed before the Supreme Court on Monday seeking quashing of the December 20 order.

The order by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) authorised 10 central agencies, including the Intelligence Bureau (IB), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) as well as the Delhi Police to "intercept, monitor and decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer".

Filed by advocate M L Sharma, the PIL, contending that the MHA order was "illegal, unconstitutional and ultra-vires to the law" said it should be quashed in the interest of justice. 

"The blanket surveillance order must be tested against the fundamental right to privacy," the petition said. 

It also asked the court to prohibit the agencies from initiating any criminal proceedings or investigation against anybody under the provisions of the Information Technology Act based on the notification.

Incidentally, Sharma was recently reprimanded by the Supreme Court for filing "frivolous" PILs and was imposed a fine of Rs 50,000.

News agency ANI reported that another PIL seeking quashing of December 20 order of MHA allowing 10 central agencies to monitor any computer resource was filed in the apex court. The PIL was filed by advocate Amit Sahni.

Another PIL filed in Supreme Court seeking quashing of December 20th order of MHA allowing 10 central agencies to monitor any computer resource. The PIL has been filed by advocate Amit Sahni pic.twitter.com/BOxi7BLvCx — ANI (@ANI) 24 December 2018

While the Opposition has opposed the order accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of turning India into a "surveillance state", the BJP-led Central government has defended the decision citing national security and claiming that the order was a mere repetition of the rules passed during the UPA regime in 2009.

(With IANS inputs)