The Telangana government on Thursday informed the Hyderabad High Court that the proposed Intensive Household survey on August 19 was a voluntary one and there was no element of compulsion. The judge recorded this undertaking and declared that the court was not inclined to stay the survey.
Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar of the Hyderabad High Court admitted the writ petitions field by Rajasekhar Tulasi and Seethalakshmi, called for records and posted the case for final disposal. R. Raghunandan Rao, senior counsel appearing for Seethalakshmi, contended that Parliament has already enacted the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 and the Collection of Statistics Rules 2011.
In view of the enactment, the field was totally under the purview of this Act and the State of Telangana would not have any residuary executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution.
He pointed out that the rules, prescribe the method and methodology to be used for collecting data and a nodal officer has to be appointed by the State for the purpose. “Whenever, any State government department wants to collect data, it would be required to first consult the nodal officer and he shall render advice as required to avoid unnecessary duplication,” he said .
‘Data protection laws non-existent in India’After consultation, a notification has to be issued with a gap of at least 15 days between the notification and the communication of advice. Raghunandan Rao asserted that no such notification has been issued by Telangana till date, before commencing the collection of data. The senior counsel reminded the court that laws for data protection were non-existent in India.
The information given by the citizens including the petitioners would be available in public domain as the respondents were seeking to utilise the said information for “weeding out” beneficiaries who are not entitled to various welfare schemes of the State. The State cannot obtain personal information of the petitioners in the guise of a survey for statistical purpose and then turn around and place that information in public domain where it can be misused.
Jandhyala Ravishankar appearing for Rajasekhar Tulsi pointed out that the manual circulated to enumerators required the officers to verify the bank passbooks, property details and sources of income. He said that this is dangerous and the government has to explain how it is entitled to intrude like this.
He said that the petitioners have a fundamental right of privacy which cannot be invaded by the State, by way of executive action, without any enacted law in support of such executive action.
K. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate General for Telangana State made it clear that the government has the power to conduct the survey to see how its welfare schemes were implemented. He asserted that this was voluntary and there was no coercion. He said the money meant for welfare schemes for weaker sections were being swindled and the government wants to ascertain the facts. He said that the propaganda unleashed against the survey was led by middlemen who have benefited from misuse of the schemes. He reminded that the government had undertaken similar survey in 1995 and 2011 and placed the earlier government orders.
Jandhyala Ravishankar said that these orders clearly stated that those surveys were conducted as per directions and in consultation with the central government. Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar asked B.Narayana Reddy , Assistant Solicitor General about the stand of the Union of India. Mr. Reddy said that prima facie, the survey was covered under the Central Act. The judge expressed a doubt whether the 2008 Act was only an enabling Act.
Justice Vilas dictated the brief order in open court at about 4.30 p.m. The judge said that important questions have been raised. The submission made by Advocate General was recorded and the miscellaneous petition seeking stay was rejected.
