SC case against Data Protection Bill dismissed

The petition filed by the Young Journalists Association against the Personal Data Protection Bill was taken up for hearing and dismissed by the Supreme Court this week.

The petition filed under Article 121 of the Constitution claimed that the Bill had not provided for provisions to protect rights of journalists to investigate facts and for fair comments by journalists and therefore was inconsistent with the Constitution.

The Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, filed papers as Intervenient Petitioner in support of the Data Protection Bill. The Intervenient Petitioners stated in their intervention filings that the Data Protection Bill aims to safeguard the rights of individuals and ensure consumer trust in information privacy in online transactions and information networks resulting from growth and innovation in the digital economy. Therefore, it was stated that the Bill addresses a timely issue and is a very progressive and a pragmatic step towards protecting the right to privacy of the citizens of Sri Lanka.

The Intervenient Petitioners stated that the Bill applies to the processing of personal data and primarily to data controllers and processors, which includes any natural or legal person, public authority, non-governmental organisation, agency, or any other body or entity established by or under written law. As such, the Bill prescribes measures to protect the personal data of individuals held by banks, telecom operators, hospitals, and other personal data aggregating and processing entities.

In the application submitted by Intervenient Petitioner it was stated that the Bill had gone through a torturous process of deliberations and consideration and public consultations, before it evolved into the present Bill. There were as many as seven rounds of public consultations and over 30 written submissions were received since the original bill was published online in June 2019 and all version changes were published on the Ministry website or the ICTA website. 

There was also considerable publicity given to the version’s changes. There were legal opinions given by the Attorney General at three distinct stages of the iterations of the draft. In short, this was one of the pieces of draft legislation that were meticulously considered by all quarters. It was pointed out that the petitioners never made representations in respect of the same.

At the hearing, preliminary objections were taken both by the Attorney General and the Intervenient Petitioners, that the Petition was not filed within the timeframe prescribed by the Constitution, as stipulated in Article 121 of the Constitution. Considering these submissions, the Court dismissed the Petition. Sanjeeva Jayawardene, PC with Rukshan Senadheera appeared for the Intervenient Petitioner, while Nerin Pulle, ASG with Dr. Avanti Perera appeared for the AG.

When contacted by the Daily FT, Chair of the Drafting Committee and General Counsel ICTA Jayantha Fernando said that the concerns of the Petitioners would be looked at and emphasised that the Bill provided for safeguards and fundamental freedoms, such as right of expression and right to information.