Don’t Leak Data Collected During ‘Survey’ At Newslaundry, Delhi High Court Issues Notice To I-T Department
(Judicial Quest News Network)
The Delhi High Court while hearing the petition filed by News laundry seeking a direction to the Income Tax department not to leak the data collected during ‘survey’ have issued notice to the Income Tax (I-T) Department not to leak any material seized during a recent survey at its office in South Delhi.
Newslaundry in its plea, stated I-T official impounded a hard disk and cloned the office desktop, laptop of Mr. Abhinandan Sekhri, CEO, his personal e-mails accounts and bunch of papers.
The Petition is filed through Advocate Nipun Katyal, it has been stated by the petitioners that they apprehend their private data, having no incriminating or relevant material for the purpose of Income Tax or any other legal proceedings, may be misused, leaked or illegally in public domain.
“This apprehension is well founded since the Respondent did not give
the hash value of the data after seizing it (which they were not entitled to do in a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Therefore, the Petitioners humbly submit, it is most imperative that this Hon’ble Court safeguards and preserves the right of privacy of the Petitioners and further prevents the Respondent from causing deliberate harassment by conducting repeated searches and surveys.”
A division bench of Justices Manmohan and Justice Naveen Chawla granted time to income tax Department to seek instructions while posting the matter for further hearing on September 21.
The Court remarked that “normally nobody’s data should be leaked. Its contrary to the public interest. It’s ethically and morally wrong,
Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave accompanied by Advocate Nipul Katyal submitted that sekhri’s personal phone and Mac Book was taken control of. The data downloaded by the I-T Department was 300GB, which also included Sekhri’s personal data. This amounted to a breach of his right to privacy, Dave contended.
The petitioners submitted that That the survey conducted under Section 133A (3) (ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ex-facie illegal, perverse and arbitrary. The Respondent authority failed to follow proper procedure set out in the Act. It is submitted that the Petitioners herein are disputing the action taken by the Respondent authority as it is illegal and without any cause of action or prima-facie case against the Petitioners.
Dave also argued it is the apprehension of the Petitioners, that the private/personal and professional data (includes personal photographs, chats, personal documents) could be leaked by the Respondent
authority. The said apprehension of leakage is strong because, the Respondent Authority ought to have refrained from taking the personal data of the Petitioners at the first place, as it does not concern the Income Tax Act and wholly outside the purview and scope of the Act. Therefore, the act of the Respondent Authority is blatantly illegal, violative of his right to privacy and reputation. The actions of Respondent No. 1. thus, violate Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Appearing on behalf of the Director General of Income Tax. Advocate Ajit Sharma submitted that the data will be used in accordance with law and there is no reason for them to apprehend any leakage of personal data.
He further said that it is a bald apprehension made by the petitioner that just because they are journalists, their data will be leaked.
The bench has listed the matter to be heard on September 21 and asked for a senior I-T official to be present for the purpose of undertaking.
