“Amicus Can’t Run The Govt, CBI Administration”:SG Tushar Mehta Requests Court To Demarcate Role Of Amicus Curiae

first_imgTop Stories”Amicus Can’t Run The Govt, CBI Administration”:SG Tushar Mehta Requests Court To Demarcate Role Of Amicus Curiae Srishti Ojha17 March 2021 4:35 AMShare This – xSolicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday while addressing Supreme Court’s Bench led by Justice NV Ramana urged the Court to demarcate lines upto which the Court can be assisted by Amicus.”I request Your Lordships to demarcate lines upto which the Court can be assisted by Amicus. I’ll move an application. We’ve been seeing this for decades” SG Mehta submitted.SG Mehta also said “I’m not…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginSolicitor General Tushar Mehta on Monday while addressing Supreme Court’s Bench led by Justice NV Ramana urged the Court to demarcate lines upto which the Court can be assisted by Amicus.”I request Your Lordships to demarcate lines upto which the Court can be assisted by Amicus. I’ll move an application. We’ve been seeing this for decades” SG Mehta submitted.SG Mehta also said “I’m not imputing motives on any Individual. But role & ambit of their assistance needs to be decided by Court. They cannot be running the government “SG Mehta made these statements while making submissions before the Top Court in a PIL regarding killings in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform of the armed forces of the Union.With regards to the issue of discharge of an officers from SIT probing the alleged extra judicial killings, SG Mehta said ‘On these issues, the Amicus can have nothing to say.””They’ve been appointed by the Court” the Bench said.”They are for purpose of assisting when assistance is required. They cannot run CBI’s administration. I am a little blunt, but deliberately blunt. Your Lordships can they can’t. ” SG Mehta submitted.”They can assist on question of law, and they have assisted substantially ” He added.SG Mehta further submitted that the Amicus cannot run CBI, and their role should be demarcated.SG Mehta added ” This is not in this matter, this is happening every day in every matter with everyone. The amicus is a concept where your lordships needs some assistance on proposition of laws, when there are divergent views. They are not supposed to be telling that you shouldn’t do this or that”The Bench asked SG Mehta to reserve that argument for when he makes submissions.”You are a senior counsel, Solicitor General of India. We know, the Amicus also knows what extent they can make submissions. Don’t bring other things to this present day matter.” the Bench observed.SG Mehta clarified that his statements are general statements and were not about Sr Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, the amicus curiae in the present matter.”What’s the interest of Amicus. They’ve been appointed by the Court” the Bench asked.”I’m not imputing motives on any Individual. But role & ambit of their assistance needs to be decided by Court. They cannot run the govt” Mehta said.The Supreme Court was hearing applications filed in the PIL regarding killings in fake encounters by police personnel and personnel in uniform of the armed forces of the Union.The Bench was considering request of Senior Superintendent of Police Mahesh Bhardwaj in the NHRC seeking discharge from the SIT formed to investigate alleged fake encounters in ManipurA three judge Bench led by Justice Ramana allowed the officer to he discharged to his parent department to join on his promoted post, and has directed the Centre provide a suitable officer to the NHRC expeditiously.Next Storylast_img read more

Application before Kerala High Court In Sprinkr Petition Seeks Release Of Madhavan Nambiar Report On Sprinklr Deal

first_imgNews UpdatesApplication before Kerala High Court In Sprinkr Petition Seeks Release Of Madhavan Nambiar Report On Sprinklr Deal Lydia Suzanne Thomas4 May 2021 7:22 AMShare This – x(Image Courtesy : Kerala Kaumudi)”My application is to call for the Committee report which is very helpful for me in the adjudication of my writ petition”Nearly a year after the Kerala High Court last took up petitions challenging the agreement between the Kerala Government and US-based Sprinklr Company processing of data related to COVID-19 patients, the High Court heard the batch of petitions again today. A Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Kauser Edappagath initially expressed surprise at the listing of the pleas today.However, Advocate T Asaf Ali for the Kerala Leader of Opposition, one of the petitioners informed the Court that he had filed an Interim Application in his petition. He sought the production of the Report tabled by a Committee headed by Madhavan Nambiar which probed the Sprinklr deal. “My application is to call for the Committee report which is very helpful for me in the adjudication of my writ petition”, he said.The Counsel for Sprinklr submitted that the company had yet not received a copy of the application. Again, Advocate Asaf Ali stressed that the Report “is essential for the just adjudication of the case” and urged the Court to consider his application.Without venturing a remark, the Court proceeded to direct that the matter be posted after the vacation. Last year, a Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and TR Ravi issued a slew of directions in an interim order that stated these – Government of Kerala is directed to anonymize all data that have been collected and collated so far, and allow Sprinklr to access data only after such anonymization is completed.Sprinklr is restrained from committing any act which will be in breach of confidentiality of data entrusted with them by Kerala Govt under the impugned contract.Sprinklr shall not directly or indirectly deal with the data entrusted to them by the Kerala Govt in conflict with the confidentiality clauses in the contract, and will return the data as soon as their contractual obligations are over. They should not disclose or part with the entrusted data to any third-party entity.Sprinklr is injuncted from advertising or representing to any third party that they have access to data relating to COVID-19 cases.Sprinklr is restrained from exploiting directly or indirectly any data entrusted with it for commercial purposes.Sprinklr is further injuncted from using the name or logo of Government of Kerala for its promotional acts.Government has to take informed consent from individuals that their data will be processed by a third-party foreign company. The petitions, filed by lawyers Balu Gopalakrishnan and Krishna Prasad N, programmer Binosh Alex Bruce, Kerala Leader of Opposition Ramesh Chennithala, assailed the decision of the Pinarayi Vijayan-government to choose the services a foreign-private company Sprinjlr for storing and analyzing COVID-19 data. The decision to entrust the job with a foreign company, overlooking state entities like the C-DIT and NIC, was specifically brought in question. Additionally, the pleas further pointed out that the agreement with Sprinklr was executed without seeking approval of the Council of Ministers or other concerned departments of the State including the Law Department, which is empowered to prepare agreements on behalf of the government. The petitioners averred that the data of citizens were collected without their informed consent, and was stored in a foreign server. According to the petitioner, more than 1.5 lakh sensitive medical information of the COVID -19 patients are with the company. Notably, M Sivasankar, the-then IT Secretary, admitted that the opinion of legal department was not taken before the contract, due to the emergency situation, when he appeared in interviews last year. Following the highly-publicised challenges to the deal, the Government constituted a two-member committee to examine the issues in relation to the deal. M Madhavan Nair IAS (retired), former Civil Aviation Secretary & IT Secretary, Government of India and Rajeev Sadanandan IAS (retired), former Additional Chief Secretary (Health and Family Welfare Department) Government of Kerala were declared members of the committee. According to a New Indian Express Report, the Committee led by M Madhavan Nair found that former IT secretary M Sivasankar unilaterally signed the deal keeping even the Chief Minister in the dark, giving a “clean chit to the Chief Minister”. The New Indian Express’s story explained that the Madhavan Nambiar committee was of the view that the proposal for installing a digital platform for analyzing a crisis situation like COVID-19 should have been discussed with the Crisis Management group. The Crisis Management group, headed by the Chief Secretary along with the Secretaries of finance, revenue, health, law and IT, should have been closely involved. It has been revealed that the Sprinklr proposal was not discussed with the then Chief Secretary Tom Jose. Health and Family Welfare Secretary Dr Rajan N Khobragade too has confirmed that no formal consultation was taken with the health department, the story stated.The New Indian Express story also quoted the Report as stating,”The committee would like to point out that the approval of the Chief Minister who is also the IT minister was not taken before the agreement was executed with Sprinklr Inc. Since we are dealing with date security issues and entrusting sensitive data to a foreign company, this could be detrimental to the interest of the state and its citizens,” said the report.”TagsSprinklr COVID -19 Data Protection Law Data Sharing Justice Kauser Edappagath Justice Devan Ramachandran Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 Next Storylast_img read more