Canonsphere

Category

Issue 1

Category

Vijay Kumar Verma, Research Scholar, Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India, and Dr. Radhey Shyam Jha, Professor, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India.

ABSTRACT

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023 marks a significant milestone in India’s evolving data governance framework, aiming to strike a balance between the fundamental right to privacy and the legitimate need for data processing in a digital economy. The Act, enacted in August 2023, establishes a comprehensive legal regime governing the collection, storage, processing, and transfer of digital personal data by introducing key concepts such as “data principal,” “data fiduciary,” and a consent-based processing mechanism, emphasizing individual autonomy over personal data. It grants individuals rights such as access to information, data correction and erasure, grievance redressal, and the ability to withdraw consent, while also requiring data fiduciaries to ensure lawful processing, data security, and breach notification, with significant penalties for noncompliance. Despite its progressive goal, the Act has faced criticism due to worries about extensive exemptions offered to government agencies, the Data Protection Board’s limited independence, and the potential erosion of openness rules. This study critically examines the structural framework, key provisions, and implications of the Act, highlighting both its strengths in enhancing data protection and its limitations in ensuring robust accountability. It also evaluates it in light of global standards such as the GDPR, emphasizing the need for stronger safeguards, clearer regulatory mechanisms, and effective enforcement to ensure meaningful data privacy protection in India’s rapidly digitizing society. 

Keywords: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; Data Privacy; Data Protection; Consent; Data Fiduciary; Data Principal; Right to Privacy; Cyber ​​Law; India; Data Governance; Information Technology Law

Powered By EmbedPress

This article is authored by Prakarsh Pandey, Advocate practicing before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Uttar Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT

In India, for a long time, the concept of prosecution sanction has been followed as a substantive constitutional safeguard, requiring the executive to apply its mind to the propriety of prosecuting a public servant for acts committed in the discharge of official duty. The Supreme Court of India has also built an elaborate jurisprudence around this and treats sanctions not as a mere formality. However, Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the “BNSS”) has changed the existing position. It added a new proviso to 218(1) imposing a 120-day time limit for the decision on sanction. The main change is that it provides that upon such failure, it will be deemed to have sanction been given. This research article discusses how deemed sanctions are counterproductive in that they do not provide substantive protection to public servants and do not create any accountability for subsequent prosecutions. Therefore, deemed sanctions create an unsound constitutional basis for all subsequent trials.

Keywords: Deemed Sanction, Section 218 BNSS, Application of Mind, Prosecution Sanction and Public Servant Accountability. 

Powered By EmbedPress

This short article is written by Ayush Mishra, a LLB student of Asian Law College, Noida.

Abstract

Health law and medical jurisprudence together form a dynamic interface between the
disciplines of medicine and justice, addressing the ethical, legal, and regulatory challenges
that arise in healthcare delivery. This field explores how legal frameworks safeguard patient
rights, regulate medical practice, and ensure accountability in cases of negligence,
malpractice, and bioethical dilemmas. At the same time, medical jurisprudence provides the
evidentiary and scientific basis for adjudicating disputes, guiding courts in matters such as
forensic medicine, consent, confidentiality, and emerging issues like biotechnology and
digital health. The intersection highlights the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, where
law interprets medical complexities and medicine informs legal reasoning. By bridging these
domains, health law and medical jurisprudence not only protect individual and public health
but also strengthen justice systems in adapting to evolving medical innovations and societal
expectations. This interface underscores the pursuit of fairness, ethical governance, and
human dignity in the administration of healthcare and justice.