New Delhi: After the Income Tax department gave an undertaking that it would not leak material seized from the Newslaundry office during a ‘survey’ carried out on September 10, the Delhi high court disposed of a writ petition filed by the news outlet, Bar and Bench has reported.
A division bench of Justices Manmohan and Naveen Chawla issued orders to the IT department, saying, “The data shall not be leaked. You must make an endeavour because the department is not an ordinary person, but a powerful entity. The concept of confidentiality enshrined under Section 138 of the IT Act shall be abided.”
The judges also told Newslaundry to approach the court again if there is a need and the court would consider the matter based on the merits of the petition.
During September 10 survey, Newslaundry‘s counsel, Siddharth Dave, claimed that IT officials had seized the personal phone and the laptop of CEO Abhinandan Sekhri along with a few office computers. All data present on devices, including that of Sekhri’s personal data, amounting to 300 GB was downloaded and taken away.
Dave told the court that Sekhri has misgivings that his personal data may be leaked to the media, in violation of his right to privacy. Also, he said since the ‘survey’ was conducted under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, it does not give officials power to seize the personal data of an individual.
Also read: Income Tax Department Conducts ‘Surveys’ at Offices of NewsClick, Newslaundry in Delhi
IT officials gave an undertaking before the court after it pointed out during the September 17 hearing of the case that there had been leaks from law enforcement agencies and had observed that it was “ethically, morally and legally wrong” to leak any personal information. The court then ordered IT officials to appear before it to give an undertaking that no data would be leaked.
Complying with the court’s orders, Ajit Sharma appeared for the IT department along with Digvijay Singh, deputy director of the Income Tax department. Recording his submissions, Sharma assured that the seized material is in “safe custody” and shall “not be leaked”, and it will be used in accordance with law.
“The said undertaking given by the respondent is accepted,” the court said, adding that the department is “held bound by the same”.
Meanwhile, Newslaundry‘s counsel, Dave, also urged the court to ensure that seized data is also not shared within various agencies of the department.
“They are not to cease my personal data in the first place,” Dave said. “They took 300 GB of my personal data. If we would have been allowed to delete it, we would not have come here. Once the leak happens, it’s impossible to be undone.”
On the issue of ensuring that data is not shared with other agencies of the department, the court said it wouldn’t be able to stop the department from doing so, but can ensure that data is only used for investigating purposes and that it is not leaked.
