#FactCheck-Mosque fire in India? False, it's from Indonesia

Introduction

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) serves as the backbone of e-governance, enabling governments to deliver services more efficiently, transparently, and inclusively. By leveraging information and communication technology (ICT), digital governance systems reconfigure traditional administrative processes, making them more accessible and citizen-centric. However, the successful implementation of such systems hinges on overcoming several challenges, from ensuring data security to fostering digital literacy and addressing infrastructural gaps.

This article delves into the key enablers that drive effective DPI and outlines the measures already undertaken by the government to enhance its functionality. Furthermore, it outlines strategies for their enhancement, emphasizing the need for a collaborative, secure, and adaptive approach to building robust e-governance systems.

Key Enablers of DPI

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), the foundation for e-governance,  relies on common design, robust governance, and private sector participation for efficiency and inclusivity. This requires common principles, frameworks for collaboration, capacity building, and the development of common standards. Some of the key measures undertaken by the government in this regard include: 

1. Data Protection Framework: The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act of 2023 establishes a framework to ensure consent-based data sharing and regulate the processing of digital personal data. It delineates the responsibilities of data fiduciaries in safeguarding users' digital personal data.
2. Increasing Public-Private Partnerships: Refining collaboration between the government and the private sector has accelerated the development, maintenance, expansion, and trust of the infrastructure of DPIs, such as the AADHAR, UPI, and  Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture (DEPA). For example, the Asian Development Bank attributes the success of UPI to its “consortium ownership structure”, which enables the wide participation of major financial stakeholders in the country.
3. Coordinated Planning: The PM-Gati Shakti establishes a clear coordination framework involving various inter-governmental stakeholders at the state and union levels. This aims to significantly reduce project duplications, delays, and cost escalations by streamlining communication, harmonizing project appraisal and approval processes, and providing a comprehensive database of major infrastructure projects in the country. This database called the National Master Plan, is jointly accessible by various government stakeholders through APIs.
4. Capacity Building for Government Employees:  The National e-Governance Division of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology routinely rolls out multiple training programs to build the technological and managerial skills required by government employees to manage Digital Public Goods (DPGs). For instance, it recently held a program on “Managing Large Digital Transformative Projects”. Additionally, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions has launched the Integrated Government Online Training platform  (iGOT) Karmayogi for the continuous learning of civil servants across various domains. 

Digital Governance; Way Forward

E-governance utilizes information and communication technology (ICT) such as Wide Area Networks, the Internet, and mobile computing to implement existing government activities, reconfiguring the structures and processes of governance systems. This warrants addressing certain inter-related challenges such as : 

1. Data Security: The dynamic and ever-changing landscape of cyber threats necessitates regular advancements in data and information security technologies, policy frameworks, and legal provisions. Consequently, the digital public ecosystem must incorporate robust data cybersecurity measures, advanced encryption technologies, and stringent privacy compliance standards to safeguard against data breaches.
2. Creating Feedback Loops: Regular feedback surveys will help government agencies improve the quality, efficiency, and accessibility of digital governance services by tailoring them to be more user-friendly and enhancing administrative design. This is necessary to build trust in government services and improve their uptake among beneficiaries. Conducting the decennial census is essential to gather updated data that can serve as a foundation for more informed and effective decision-making.
3. Capacity Building for End-Users: The beneficiaries of key e-governance projects like Aadhar and UPI may have inadequate technological skills, especially in regions with weak internet network infrastructure like hilly or rural areas. This can present challenges in the access to and usage of technological solutions.  Robust capacity-building campaigns for beneficiaries can provide an impetus to the digital inclusion efforts of the government.
4. Increasing the Availability of Real-Time Data: By prioritizing the availability of up-to-date information, governments and third-party enterprises can enable quick and informed decision-making.  They can effectively track service usage, assess quality, and monitor key metrics by leveraging real-time data. This approach is essential for enhancing operational efficiency and delivering improved user experience.
5. Resistance to Change: Any resistance among beneficiaries or government employees to adopt digital governance goods may stem from a limited understanding of digital processes and a lack of experience with transitioning from legacy systems.  Hand-holding employees during the transitionary phase can help create more trust in the process and strengthen the new systems. 

Conclusion

Digital governance is crucial to transforming public services, ensuring transparency, and fostering inclusivity in a rapidly digitizing world. The successful implementation of such projects requires addressing challenges like data security, skill gaps, infrastructural limitations, feedback mechanisms, and resistance to change. Addressing these challenges with a strategic, multi-stakeholder approach can ensure the successful execution and long-term impact of large digital governance projects. By adopting robust cybersecurity frameworks, fostering public-private partnerships, and emphasizing capacity building, governments can create efficient and resilient systems that are user-centric, secure, and accessible to all. 

References

• https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/865106/adbi-wp1363.pdf 
• https://www.jotform.com/blog/government-digital-transformation-challenges/ 
• https://aapti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AaptixONI-DPIGovernancePlaybook_compressed.pdf 
• https://community.nasscom.in/sites/default/files/publicreport/Digital%20Public%20Infrastructure%2022-2-2024_compressed.pdf 
• https://proteantech.in/articles/Decoding-Digital-Public-Infrastructure-in-India/ 

‍

‍

Introduction

Misinformation is, to its basic meaning, incorrect or misleading information, it may or may not include specific malicious intent and includes inaccurate, incomplete, misleading, or false information and selective or half-truths. The main challenges in dealing with misinformation are defining and distinguishing misinformation from legitimate content. This complexity arises due to the rapid evolution and propagation which information undergoes on the digital platforms. Additionally, balancing the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression with content regulation by state actors poses a significant challenge. It requires careful consideration to avoid censorship while effectively combating harmful misinformation. 

Acknowledging the severe consequences of misinformation and the critical need to combat misinformation, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 has implemented key measures to address misinformation in India. These new provisions introduced under the new criminal laws in India penalise the deliberate creation, distribution, or publication of inaccurate information. Previously missing from the IPC, these sections offer an additional legal resource to counter the proliferation of falsehoods, complementing existing laws targeting the same issue.

Section 353 of the BNS on Statements Conducing to Public Mischief criminalises making, publishing, or circulating statements, false information, rumours, or reports, including through electronic means, with the intent or likelihood of causing various harmful outcomes. 

This section thus brings misinformation into its ambit, since misinformation has been traditionally used to induce public fear or alarm that may lead to offences against the State or public tranquillity or inciting one class or community to commit offences against another. The section also penalizes the promotion of enmity, hatred, or ill will among different religious, racial, linguistic, or regional groups. 

BNS also prescribes punishment of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both for offences under section 353. Interestingly, a longer imprisonment of up to 5 years along with a fine has been prescribed to curb such offences in places of worship or during religious ceremonies. The only exception that may be availed under this section is granted to unsuspecting individuals who, believing the misinformation to be true, spread misinformation without any ill intent. However, this exception may not be as effective in curbing misinformation, since at the outset, the offence is hard to trace and has multiple pockets for individuals to seek protection without any mechanism to verify their intent.

The BNS also aims to regulate misinformation through Section 197(1)(d) on Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration. Under this provision, anyone who makes or publishes false or misleading information, whether it is in the form of spoken words, written, by signs, in visible representations, or through electronic communication, therefore, results in jeopardising the sovereignty, unity, integrity, or security of India is liable to face punishment in the form of imprisonment for up to three years, a fine, or both and if it occurs in a place of worship or during religious ceremonies, the quantum of punishment is increased to imprisonment for up to five years and may include a fine. Additionally, Section 212 (a) & (b) provides against furnishing false information. If a person who is legally obligated to provide information to a public servant, knowingly or reasonably believes that the information is false, and still furnishes it, they now face a punishment of six months imprisonment or a fine up to five thousand rupees or both. However,  if the false information pertains to the commission or prevention of an offence, or the apprehension of an offender, the punishment increases to imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both.

Enforcement Mechanisms: CyberPeace Policy Wing Outlook

To ensure the effective enforcement of these provisions, coordination between the key stakeholders, i.e., the law enforcement agencies, digital platforms, and judicial oversight is essential. Law enforcement agencies must utilize technology such as data analytics and digital forensics for tracking and identifying the origins of false information. This technological capability is crucial for pinpointing the sources and preventing the further spread of misinformation. Simultaneously, digital platforms associated with misinformation content are required to implement robust monitoring and reporting mechanisms to detect and address the generated misleading content proactively. A supporting oversight by judicial bodies plays a critical role in ensuring that enforcement actions are conducted fairly and in line with legal standards. It helps maintain a balance between addressing misinformation and upholding fundamental rights such as freedom of speech. The success of the BNS in addressing these challenges will depend on the effective integration of these mechanisms and ongoing adaptation to the evolving digital landscape.

Resources:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf 
• https://www.foxmandal.in/changes-brought-forth-by-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/ 
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/spreading-fake-news-could-land-people-in-jail-for-three-years-under-new-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bill/articleshow/102669105.cms?from=mdr 

‍

Modern international trade heavily relies on data transfers for the exchange of digital goods and services. User data travels across multiple jurisdictions and legal regimes, each with different rules for processing it. Since international treaties and standards for data protection are inadequate, states, in an effort to protect their citizens' data, have begun extending their domestic privacy laws beyond their borders. However, this opens a Pandora's box of legal and administrative complexities for both, the data protection authorities and data processors. The former must balance the harmonization of domestic data protection laws with their extraterritorial enforcement, without overreaching into the sovereignty of other states. The latter must comply with the data privacy laws in all states where it collects, stores, and processes data. While the international legal community continues to grapple with these challenges, India can draw valuable lessons to refine the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP) in a way that effectively addresses these complexities.

Why Extraterritorial Application? 

Since data moves freely across borders and entities collecting such data from users in multiple states can misuse it or use it to gain an unfair competitive advantage in local markets, data privacy laws carry a clause on their extraterritorial application. Thus, this principle is utilized by states to frame laws that can ensure comprehensive data protection for their citizens, irrespective of the data’s location.  The foremost example of this is the European Union’s (EU) General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), 2016,  which applies to any entity that processes the personal data of its citizens, regardless of its location. Recently, India has enacted the DPDP Act of 2023, which includes a clause on extraterritorial application.

The Extraterritorial Approach: GDPR and DPDP Act

The GDPR is considered the toughest data privacy law in the world and sets a global standard in data protection. According to Article 3, its provisions apply not only to data processors within the EU but also to those established outside its territory, if they offer goods and services to and conduct behavioural monitoring of data subjects within the EU. The enforcement of this regulation relies on heavy penalties for non-compliance in the form of fines up to €20 million or 4% of the company’s global turnover, whichever is higher, in case of severe violations. As a result, corporations based in the USA, like Meta and Clearview AI, have been fined over  €1.5 billion and €5.5 million respectively, under the GDPR. 

Like the GDPR, the DPDP Act extends its jurisdiction to foreign companies dealing with personal data of data principles within Indian territory under section 3(b). It has a similar extraterritorial reach and prescribes a penalty of up to Rs 250 crores in case of breaches. However, the Act or DPDP Rules, 2025, which are currently under deliberation, do not elaborate on an enforcement mechanism through which foreign companies can be held accountable. 

Lessons for India’s DPDP on Managing Extraterritorial Application 

1. Clarity in Definitions: GDPR clearly defines ‘personal data’, covering direct information such as name and identification number,  indirect identifiers like location data, and, online identifiers that can be used to identify the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural, or social identity of a natural person. It also prohibits revealing special categories of personal data like religious beliefs and biometric data to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of the subjects. On the other hand, the DPDP Act/ Rules define ‘personal data’ vaguely, leaving a broad scope for Big Tech and ad-tech firms to bypass obligations. 
2. International Cooperation: Compliance is complex for companies due to varying data protection laws in different countries. The success of regulatory measures in such a scenario depends on international cooperation for governing cross-border data flows and enforcement. For DPDP to be effective, India will have to foster cooperation frameworks with other nations. 
3. Adequate Safeguards for Data Transfers: The GDPR regulates data transfers outside the EU via pre-approved legal mechanisms such as standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules to ensure that the same level of protection applies to EU citizens’ data even when it is processed outside the EU. The DPDP should adopt similar safeguards to ensure that Indian citizens’ data is protected when processed abroad.
4. Revised Penalty Structure: The GDPR mandates a penalty structure that must be effective, proportionate, and dissuasive. The supervisory authority in each member state has the power to impose administrative fines as per these principles, up to an upper limit set by the GDPR. On the other hand, the DPDP’s penalty structure is simplistic and will disproportionately impact smaller businesses. It must take into regard factors such as nature, gravity, and duration of the infringement, its consequences, compliance measures taken, etc.
5. Governance Structure: The GDPR envisages a multi-tiered governance structure comprising of   

• National-level Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) for enforcing national data protection laws and the GDPR, 
• European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) for monitoring the processing of personal data by EU institutions and bodies,  
• European Commission (EC) for developing GDPR legislation
• European Data Protection Board (EDPB) for enabling coordination between the EC, EDPS, and DPAs

In contrast, the Data Protection Board (DPB) under DPDP will be a single, centralized body overseeing compliance and enforcement. Since its members are to be appointed by the Central Government, it raises questions about the Board’s autonomy and ability to apply regulations consistently. Further, its investigative and enforcement capabilities are not well defined.

Conclusion 

The protection of the human right to privacy ( under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) in today’s increasingly interconnected digital economy warrants international standard-setting on cross-border data protection. In the meantime, States relying on the extraterritorial application of domestic laws is unavoidable. While India’s DPDP takes measures towards this, they must be refined to ensure clarity regarding implementation mechanisms. They should push for alignment with data protection laws of other States, and account for the complexity of enforcement in cases involving extraterritorial jurisdiction. As India sets out to position itself as a global digital leader, a well-crafted extraterritorial framework under the DPDP Act will be essential to promote international trust in India’s data governance regime.

Sources

• https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/ 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-150/ 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-51/ 
• https://www.meity.gov.in/static/uploads/2024/06/2bf1f0e9f04e6fb4f8fef35e82c42aa5.pdf 
• https://www.eqs.com/compliance-blog/biggest-gdpr-fines/#:~:text=ease%20the%20burden.-,At%20a%20glance,In%20summary 
• https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/ 
• https://www.legal500.com/developments/thought-leadership/gdpr-v-indias-dpdpa-key-differences-and-compliance-implications/#:~:text=Both%20laws%20cover%20'personal%20data,of%20personal%20data%20as%20sensitive. 

‍