Three months after withdrawing a bill that sought to impose restrictions on cross-border transfers of personal data, the Indian government has had a rethink, publishing a new bill with fewer localisation requirements.
On Friday (November 18), India鈥檚 Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published the of its Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.
Unlike in previous versions, the bill makes clear that personal data may be transferred to jurisdictions outside India for the purpose of 鈥減rocessing鈥, if a jurisdiction is so designated by the central government.
The bill also applies extraterritorially to the processing of personal data outside India 鈥渋f such processing is in connection with any profiling of, or activity of offering goods or services to Data Principals within the territory of India鈥.
The bill defines the act of 鈥減rocessing鈥 data as an 鈥渁utomated operation or set of operations鈥 that may include collection, recording, storage, retrieval, indexing and use, among other examples.
The bill also proposes the establishment of a Data Protection Board of India by the central government, which would determine cases of non-compliance and impose penalties accordingly.
Dr Gabriela Zanfir-Fortuna, vice president of global privacy at the Future of Privacy Forum, a US-based think tank, the latest bill is similar to the EU鈥檚 General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
鈥淭he bill operates with the concepts of Fiduciary for Controller and Principal for Data Subject,鈥 said Zanfi-Fortuna.
鈥淎nd it defines personal data in relation to identifiability 鈥榖y or in relation to such data鈥, so quite broadly and similar to the GDPR.鈥
Zanfir-Fortuna also pointed out that, unlike many data protection laws, the bill provides a clear definition of 鈥渉arms鈥 that can be inflicted on data principals and sanctions against them.
These include: bodily harm; distortion or theft of identity; harassment; and prevention of lawful gain or causation of significant loss.
Finally, the scope of the bill is limited to digitised and online personal data only, while non-automated processing and 鈥渙ffline personal data鈥 are specifically excluded. Digitised personal data in files older than 100 years are also excluded.
Evolution of the bill
In 2019, when the first draft of the was published, Chapter VII outlined two prohibitions on the processing of personal data outside India.
鈥淐ritical鈥 personal data was to be processed only in India, while 鈥渟ensitive鈥 personal data could be transferred outside India for processing, but only when 鈥渆xplicit consent鈥 was given by the data principal.
Additionally, the 2019 bill maintained that 鈥渟ensitive personal data may be transferred outside India, but such sensitive personal data shall continue to be stored in India鈥.
After the 2019 bill was published, it faced strong opposition from both local and multinational technology companies, which described its provisions as 鈥渙nerous鈥 and said it would endanger the ease of doing business in India.
When the bill was by a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) in 2021, concerns among tech and software companies remained, which have only grown stronger as further amendments were added.
For example, the JPC recommended that 鈥渕irror copies鈥 of sensitive personal data already held by foreign entities should be 鈥渕andatorily鈥 brought back to India.
In January 2022, the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), a lobby group that represents Meta, Google, Amazon and other bigtechs, wrote to MeitY and the JPC to express its concerns.
鈥淩obust cross-border data flows are essential for the success of any emerging economy in this era of globalisation 鈥 all of which will be hampered due to restrictive data localisation requirements under the Data Protection Bill 2021,鈥 said the AIC.
鈥淐ross-border transfer decisions should be free from executive or political interference, and should ideally be minimally regulated.
鈥淐onditions for privacy safeguarding cross-border data flows must be based on established legal principles, and technical feasibilities/requirements.鈥
The AIC argued that increasing the role of the central government in cross-border transfer decisions would undermine confidence in the country鈥檚 regulators, and would increase the risk and cost of doing business in India.
鈥淧lacing restrictions on cross-border data flows is likely to result in higher business failure rates, introduce barriers for start-ups, and lead to more expensive product offerings from existing market players,鈥 said the AIC.
鈥淯ltimately, [this] will affect digital inclusion and the ability of Indian consumers to access a truly global internet and quality of services.鈥
The AIC urged the MeitY to reconsider the bill鈥檚 provisions on cross-border transfers.
鈥淚nstead of mandating explicit consent from individuals for cross-border transfers, alternate options like requiring a company to demonstrate to an independent third-party certifier the robustness of its privacy practices (including security) can be implemented,鈥 said the AIC.
鈥淎fter certification, cross-border transfers need not require consent.鈥
In effect, the AIC鈥檚 suggestions on cross-border transfers have been adopted in the latest draft of the bill.
However, as noted by Zanfir-Fortuna, the bill still contains checks and balances that may disappoint the most ardent data libertarians.
鈥淭he lawful grounds for processing are not ideal, with notice, consent and deemed consent playing central role,鈥 she said.
Th MeitY is now inviting feedback on the draft Bill until December 17, which can be submitted via the government website.
