There is no longer any respect for civil rights, but only a one-minded claim of irresponsible right
Gasping for breath – this is how our investigative agencies spare our citizens and now the press. The two recent cases clearly demonstrate that our investigative agencies are a face without heart.
Income Tax Department officials on 10 September 2021 Visited the premises of Newsclick and Newslaundry. According to the Editors Guild of India, Newsclick and Newslaundry are news websites. The officials’ visits were styled as a survey and were confirmed by the department to a private news channel. A survey conducted by the officers of the Income Tax Department is governed by Section 133A of the Income Tax Act.
Read also | We do business with honesty and integrity, says Newslaundry after IT department survey
Access that is limited, exclusive
Section 133A authorizes an income tax authority to enter the premises where any business or profession is carried on. The purpose of admission is limited and specific – to inspect books of account or documents, to examine or verify cash, stock or other valuable article or thing that may be found on the premises and to furnish such information as may require authorization . Survey is not a fishing operation. A survey can be done only during the time when the premises are open for the conduct of business or profession.
A statement released by Newslaundry indicated that officers arrived at his premises at around 12:15 pm and left at 12:40 pm the next day. Question 1: Are the premises of these news websites usually open for business at midnight with the same staff? If not, the authorities violated the law by continuing the survey without much effort, for a long time.
Some side issues also arise. For example, what do officers do for lunch, dinner and snacks when there is a 12-hour survey? Do they carry their own tiffin boxes and water bottles? What about people on campus – can they go out for a bite or are they expected to go hungry? Can they even tell their family that they have been locked up for several hours and cannot come home?
Section 133A authorizes officers to inspect books of accounts, put identification marks on them and on other documents, and even make copies. They may confiscate the books of account or other documents inspected by them for reasons to be recorded in writing. They are also entitled to make an inventory of cash, stock or other valuables verified by the authorities. Finally, they are authorized to record the statement of any person on the premises surveyed, though not on oath.
Court opinion
The Orissa High Court has held that the primary object of survey is to inspect and if confiscation is necessary, specific reasons (not general reasons) should be recorded; The reason must be recorded at the time of confiscation and not even after a day, otherwise confiscation would be bad in law.
Section 133A has a specific prohibition that officers “shall not remove or remove, on any account, at any place, any cash, stock or other valuable article or thing”. How much more injunction can it get?
Read also | Delhi High Court notice to IT Department on Newslaundry’s petition
The legal Lakshman Rekha has been painted, what happened during the survey on September 10, 2021? The IT department’s version is not in the public domain, so it is not known, and may never be known.
two cases
In its statement, Newslaundry informed us that its CEO was not allowed to use his phone to contact his attorney. In fact, he was asked to hand over his phone to the authorities. They were asked to follow on-the-spot instructions without seeking legal advice. Even a criminal is entitled to contact his lawyer and family. Second question: Under what authority was the CEO asked to hand over his phone and refrain from contacting his lawyer? The books of account can be confiscated, but the use of mobile phones can also be temporarily banned?
Personal mobile phones, laptops and office machines (possibly desktops) were taken over and data was downloaded on or into them. Usually a search warrant is required for this. Apart from anything else, this is a classic case of violation of the fundamental right to privacy. The CEO was not given a copy of the downloaded data, which is his property and entitled to the same. On the contrary, he was asked to delete his personal data from his mobile phone within an hour so that they could take it (which he did). Question 3: Why should they delete their personal data?
The IT department has admitted before the Delhi High Court that it has “confiscated” the material (probably including his mobile phone and laptop) and that it is in safe custody. under which the law has not been interpreted. Fourth question: Are the officers of the IT department entitled to violate the law without any accountability?
The sequence of events clearly shows that Newslaundry employees were subjected to some form of detention or arrest in office, cut off from the world for 12 hours and deprived of their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. was given. Is this allowed?
Newsclick’s fate is no better. Newsclick issued a statement to the effect that 30 employees and support staff were ‘locked’ for the duration of the survey, that is, for 12 hours and their phones were confiscated. If a family member had to face an emergency during those 12 hours, it is bad luck. To make matters worse, he was prevented from accessing his computer and actually working. Why? And under what law? It seems quite clear that the staff and employees were arrested in the office, which was something like being under house arrest. Fifth Question: Have the Fundamental Rights of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Privacy been suspended during the survey of books of accounts by the IT Department? Certainly our fundamental rights are not so meaningless.
The editor-in-chief’s phone was also confiscated which contained personal, personal and confidential data. It appears that the fundamental right to privacy is innate in relation to some people, especially journalists. He may have received information from a source that he does not wish to disclose. In law, having privileged information cannot compel it to disclose the source, but a well-planned survey can achieve that purpose. Journalists beware or don’t care – the choice is yours.
Took loose papers from the surveyed premises. It appears that no inventory of these letters was maintained and there were no copies of open papers supplied to the concerned employees. The editor-in-chief and editor’s e-mail dumps were taken. Question Six: Was the survey an excuse for some other purpose? No one will know till the next ‘raid’.
more ideal now
These two surveys raise many questions and they give clear answers, but no one cares. The issue is not what Newslaundry and Newsclick have done or haven’t done in terms of complying and complying with the law. The issue is whether the rule of law prevails and how easy it is for officials to harass citizens if they want to. The second issue is that government officials can avoid any abuse of their powers, including unlawful house or office arrests, and this is becoming the norm rather than the exception. There is no longer any respect for civil rights, including that of journalists; Only one-minded claim of irresponsible authority.
one last question. Are officials accountable for their actions at any time, or must journalists resign themselves to see the erosion of their rights? Harassed journalists and vulnerable targets may take the path of least resistance. After all, they have families to feed. They did not become test cases for democratic flexibility. Constitutional offices, on the other hand, have a duty not to look away. Have the authorities forgotten that the citizens of India, journalists included, deserve humane treatment under the law or is it that they do not have a heart?
Madan B Lokur is a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India
.