top of page
Search

Digital Surveillance and the Crisis of Accountability

  • Writer: Admin
    Admin
  • 47 minutes ago
  • 6 min read


Srishti Jain, LLB student, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi


Abstract


This article looks at how digital surveillance in India has grown rapidly in recent years and the

problems this creates for accountability. The government now has many tools to monitor

citizens, from central monitoring systems to facial recognition and AI-based predictive policing.

While these are said to be needed for national security and public order, they raise serious

questions about who watches the watchers. The article examines several legal developments that

show this tension. Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act give the government broad

powers to block or remove online content, but the safeguards meant to prevent misuse are often

bypassed. The 2025 amendments to the IT Rules try to fix some of these issues by requiring

senior officials to issue takedown orders and providing reasons, but they still keep the process

secret from users and the public. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 was supposed to

protect privacy, but it actually gives the government more power through exemptions for

national security. The amendment to the RTI Act makes it harder to expose wrongdoing by

blocking access to personal information, even when disclosure serves the public interest. Recent

Supreme Court judgments acknowledge that digital surveillance is different and more invasive

than older forms of monitoring, but the legal framework has not caught up. Without independent

oversight, there is a real risk that security measures will be used to suppress dissent rather than

protect citizens. The article argues that transparency and accountability must be built into

surveillance systems to maintain the balance between security and democratic rights.


Introduction

In the contemporary digital world, there has been a fundamental shift in the state's approach to

monitor its citizens. The dissolution of physical boundaries in the digital world has led to a

significant expansion in the surveillance infrastructure of India, which includes different

mechanisms varying from the Central Monitoring System to AI-powered predictive policing and

facial recognition networks. On one hand, these tools are positioned as necessary for national

security and public order; on the other hand, they have birthed the issue of accountability.

Absence of an independent supervision over the state initiatives towards security risks is harming

the democratic values it seeks to protect.


Conflict in Statutory Law: Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b)

The government's ability to block online information has raised accountability concerns among

the public. Earlier, Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, allowed the

government to block information following certain strict safeguards. The Supreme Court had

upheld this section, crediting its built-in procedural safeguards, such as inter-departmental

reviews and reasoned orders. However, in recent years, a similar power has been granted under

Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which allows the government to issue notices to intermediaries to

remove unlawful content. This step was legally challenged by X Corp (formerly Twitter) in the

Karnataka High Court. The company argued that the state was using Section 79(3)(b) as a

mechanism to override the safeguards given under Section 69A. It stated that several ministries

were issuing notices to take down content that was criticizing the political leaders. This section

was being misused for political purposes. Despite these concerns, the High Court eventually

upheld the state's authority, stating that it is essential to combat cybercrime. The transparency

issue still remains a crucial point of concern.


Administrative Bar: The 2025 IT Rule Amendments

Considering the growing criticism regarding the misappropriation of power by government

officials, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) notified the

Information Technology Amendment Rules 2025. These amendments represent a significant step

towards ensuring procedural fairness in the takedown framework. A seniority mandate was

finally introduced through these amendments, stipulating that takedown orders can only be

issued by officers not below the rank of Joint Secretary or equivalent. Legislators have also

attempted to reduce the vagueness in the law by redefining various terms; for example, the term

notification has been replaced with the requirement for a reasoned intimation. It is now stipulated

under the law that every order should specify the legal basis, the nature of the alleged violation,

and the exact digital identifier of the content to be removed. A monthly review of all the orders

issued by an officer of Secretary rank is mandated. While these changes ensure inspection of the

administrative power, the issue of secrecy still prevails. Despite all these measures, there is still

no statutory obligation to notify the affected user or the public about the censorship, which

undermines the constitutional right to receive information.


The DPDP Act 2023: Privacy or more power?

The enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 was regarded as

fulfillment of the mandate to establish a privacy regime as laid down under the case of K.S

Puttuswamy. The provision of state exemptions given under this Act has become a new radar of

contention. This Act allows the Central Government to exempt State or any of its department

from complying with any obligation under this Act if it is in the interest of national security and

public order. The DPDP Rules have further empowered the executive. It confers power to the

state to demand personal data from platforms like WhatsApp and Meta without the consent of

the individuals involved. This state-favoured mechanism cannot form a privacy regime. Besides

this, possible retention of metadata on the state's demand for a minimum of one year, enables a

form of blanket monitoring.


The RTI Amendment: Impact on transparency

Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to prohibit the disclosure

of personal information by default. Originally, the RTI Act contained a provision that allowed

the disclosure of information in situations where public interest in disclosure outweighed the

privacy of the individual. This exposed the corruption in the departments and irregularities in

administration. By eliminating this provision, the state has created a shield from scrutiny for

itself while hampering the privacy of citizens through surveillance.


Conclusion

The Supreme Court has recently recognized the fact that digitalization has intensified the depth

and scale of intrusion, which necessitates a stricter scrutiny of state actions. The Bench reinstated

that national security cannot be used as an excuse by the state to avoid judicial review. The

concentration of surveillance and censorship powers with the state, without independent checks,

has led to the origin of the accountability crisis. In order to uphold the constitutional mandate,

the surveillance framework must evolve to become more transparent, restoring the objective of

public interest. Security and privacy are not repugnant objectives; rather, they are the twin pillars

of a functioning democracy. As we move into the digital age, the question which needs to be

answered is whether the state is protecting our rights or simply managing our data? True security

shouldn't come at the cost of the transparency that keeps a democracy alive.


References

1. Kushal Sanyal and Kesar Dass, Government Data Access under the DPDP Act: Key Risks,

KS&K Legal (2024), available at: https://ksandk.com/data-protection-and-data-

privacy/government-data-access-under-the-dpdp-act-key-risks/

2. Digital Surveillance and Privacy Rights in India, 11(1) International Journal for

Multidisciplinary Research (2026), available at: https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2026/1/67398.pdf

3. Algorithmic Discrimination in India's Legal System: Constitutional Challenges and Policy

Reform, Virtuosity Legal (2024), available at: https://virtuositylegal.com/algorithmic-

discrimination-in-indias-legal-system-constitutional-challenges-and-policy-reform/

4. PRS Legislative Research, Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 (2023), available at:

5. Data Privacy and Surveillance: A Critical Analysis, 1(1) Shodh Samajik (2024), available at:

6. Judicial Interpretation and Data Rights in India: From Puttaswamy to the DPDP Act 2023,

Indian Journal of Integrated Research in Law (2025), available at: https://ijirl.com/wp-

content/uploads/2025/04/JUDICIAL-INTERPRETATION-AND-DATA-RIGHTS-IN-INDIA-

FROM-PUTTASWAMY-TO-THE-DPDP-ACT-2023.pdf

7. Centre for Internet and Society, Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital

Evidence in India (2024), available at: https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-

news-items-and-cases-on-surveillance-and-digital-evidence-in-india.pdf/view

8. International Association of Privacy Professionals, India's Surveillance Landscape After the

dpdpa

9. Argus Partners, Revisiting India's Digital Intermediary Framework: Insights from the 2025

digital-intermediary-framework-insights-from-the-2025-amendment/

10. Right to be Forgotten: Supreme Court to Examine if it Applies to Online News, The Indian

supreme-court-to-examine-if-it-applies-to-online-news-10518268/

11. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Information Technology (Intermediary

Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2025 (2024), available at:

2766.pdf


Note - The information contained in this blog is for general information purposes only. We endeavour to keep all the information up to date and try our level best to avoid any misinformation or any kind of objectionable content. If you found any misinformation or objectionable contents in this website please report us at editors.ilw@gmail.com

Comments

bottom of page