Author: Parnika N Abhilash, Asian law College
Abstract
In 2025, India witnessed the emergence of several legislative proposals that have sparked nationwide debate and controversy. Among the most discussed is the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDPB) 2025, which aims to regulate the collection, processing, and storage of citizens’ data by both government and private entities. While the bill seeks to enhance data security and establish a legal framework for digital privacy, critics argue that its broad exemptions for government agencies could enable unchecked surveillance. The lack of clarity on the roles and accountability of the proposed Data Protection Board, along with minimal parliamentary oversight, has further intensified concerns among privacy advocates and civil society groups.
Another significant area of contention involves new legislative efforts to reform India’s agricultural market system. Following the repeal of the controversial 2020 farm laws, the government has proposed fresh reforms aimed at modernizing agrarian trade, promoting interstate transactions, and encouraging private investment through digital marketplaces. However, farmer unions remain skeptical, fearing the erosion of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system and increased corporate influence in rural economies. Despite efforts at consultation, the absence of binding MSP guarantees in the proposed framework continues to fuel protests and negotiations across several states.
Additionally, proposed amendments to existing national security laws, particularly the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other procedural codes, have reignited debates around civil liberties and human rights. These amendments seek to tighten bail provisions, expand surveillance powers, and broaden the scope of offenses classified under “anti-national” activities. Critics warn that such provisions risk stifling dissent and may lead to arbitrary arrests, especially in politically sensitive regions. Legal experts and human rights organizations have called for greater judicial scrutiny and safeguards to prevent misuse.
Together, these legislative developments reflect a complex interplay between national interests, individual rights, and institutional power. While aimed at modernizing governance and security frameworks, the 2025 legislative agenda in India continues to draw sharp criticism for its perceived overreach and insufficient democratic consultation. As these bills move through parliamentary and public review, their eventual form and implementation will play a critical role in shaping India’s legal and social landscape in the years ahead.
Use of Legal Jargon
Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2025
A. Definitions and Interpretative Clauses
The Bill employs expansive definitional clauses by delineating “personal data,” “sensitive personal data or information (SPDI),” and “critical personal data.” These definitions are set forth in Section 2, utilizing purposive interpretation principles consistent with statutory construction jurisprudence. Developers and data fiduciaries must parse these terms through the lens of ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis to ascertain regulatory scope.
B. Consent Regime and Lawful Basis for Processing
Under Section 8, data fiduciaries must obtain “explicit and informed consent” prior to processing. The statutory phrase “explicit” is qualified by Section 7(b), mandating affirmative action (e.g. digital signature or written acknowledgment), while judicial scrutiny may demand the implementation of dynamic consent mechanisms to ensure ongoing authorization—not merely pretextual checkboxes.
C. Exemption Clauses and Sovereign Imperatives
The Bill incorporates a robust exemption framework in Section 26, permitting processing without consent for “sovereign functions,” including national security, public order, and enforcement of any law. Such provisions echo the State’s doctrine of police power, but legal scholars argue they vest the Executive with unfettered discretion absent parliamentary or judicial review. This legislative architecture invokes doctrinal balancing between individual autonomy and collective security imperatives.
D. Data Localization and Cross-Border Transfer Restrictions
Using the principles of data sovereignty, Section 29 forbids the transfer of personal data outside of India, unless it is to authorized recipients or jurisdictions. The provision includes a two-tiered mechanism: first, a blanket prohibition on critical personal data; second, permissions for non-sensitive categories upon certification by the Data Protection Board. The concurrency of mandatory data localization and sectoral carve-outs has spurred comparative law critique (e.g., GDPR adequacy vs. India’s adequacy assessment mechanism).
E. Regulatory Architecture and Enforcement Sanctions
Established under Chapter VII, the Bill institutes a quasi-judicial Data Protection Board with powers to issue takedown orders, impose financial penalties up to ₹500 crore, and refer criminal violations to designated authorities. The Board’s jurisdiction includes adjudicatory powers, raising questions about separation of powers, given its hybrid nature—neither exclusively administrative nor judicial. Moreover, provisions allowing for interim injunctive relief and audit mandates suggest an enforcement regime guided by proportionality tests.
III. Agricultural Market Reform Bill, 2025
A. Market Framework and Inter-State Trading Infrastructure
The Bill proposes to establish “electronic trading platforms (ETPs)” and to whitelist “approved private trading areas (APTAs),” as articulated in Section 5. By delineating a legal framework outside the ambit of state-run APMCs, these provisions seek to introduce competitive federalism through vertical integration. Still, farmer unions raise constitutional concerns under Entry 14 of the State List (regulation of markets), invoking the Doctrine of Pith and Substance to challenge central encroachment.
B. Minimum Support Price (MSP) Non-negotiable Clause
The Bill notably lacks a “statutory guarantee of MSP.” While Section 9 encourages MSP-based procurement, it states MSP is “indicative” and not enforceable through civil suit, employing precatory language. Critics argue this illusory promise lacks justiciability and contravenes equitable expectations under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation may thus be invoked by affected stakeholders.
C. Dispute Resolution and Grievance Redressal Mechanisms
Chapter IV introduces “Market Dispute Resolution Councils (MDRCs),” each comprising representatives from farmers, traders, and platform operators. These councils can issue orders carrying the status of quasi-judicial awards that are enforceable through the District Court’s Civil Procedure Code (Order 21, Rule 58). However, absence of an appeal mechanism beyond State Civil Courts diminishes procedural safeguards.
D. Regulatory Oversight and Penalty Provisions
Section 15 provides for administrative sanctions, including revocation of licenses, monetary fines, and closure orders. The use of “may” throughout suggests discretionary enforcement, but the inclusion of minimum penalty floors (e.g., ₹25,000 for non-compliance with platform rules) invokes the principle of non-arbitrariness per Supreme Court jurisprudence.
IV. Amendments to National Security & Criminal Procedure
A. UAPA—Expanding Grounds for Unlawful Activity
The Amendment broadens Section 15’s ambit to include “advocacy of cession,” “formation of secessionist groups,” and “online glorification of terrorism.” Under Sections 16A–C, bail applicants must now prove “exceptional reasons” to secure release—a shift from the pre-existing “reasonable ground” test. This heightens the prosecutorial burden, though it risks institutionalizing extended pre-trial incarceration absent bail benchmarks set in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab.
B. Enhanced Surveillance and Digital Interception
Bulk metadata preservation, real-time traffic analysis, and centralized decryption requirements are made possible by the proposed change to Section 69 of the Information Technology Act. These amendments remove prior provisions for judicial oversight—in lieu of executive-issued warrants under emergent circumstances, conditioned only by later review from the Appellate Tribunal. The Maneka Gandhi doctrine (sections 21/22 of the IT Act in relation to Articles 19 and 21) may be invoked in a constitutional challenge.
C. Procedural Reforms in Criminal Jurisprudence
Concurrently, amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) tighten the timeline for judicial review of remand orders (from 14 to 7 days), modify threshold for anticipatory bail to “reasonable possibility of conviction” instead of “reasonable apprehension of arrest,” and provide executive the power to access personal communication under Section 91A. Collectively, they shift the criminal adjudicatory framework toward administrative pre-emptive powers, derived from Model Criminal Law Committee recommendations, but raising concerns over due process erosion.
V. Constitutional and Doctrinal Counterpoints
A. Proportionality, Reasonable Classification, and Intent
While these bills are defended as necessary for policy reform and national interest, opponents underscore judicial tests of proportionality (as in K.S. Puttaswamy II, 2017) and reasonable classification (State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, 1952). Specific clauses—e.g., data localization mandates—must pass both stages of inquiry, which include nexus with legislative objective and absence of arbitrary differentiation.
B. Separation of Powers and Judicial Review
The creation of statutory bodies (Data Protection Board, MDRCs, security tribunals) equipped with adjudicatory powers but limited appeal channels raises Article 32/226 implications. The Supreme Court’s precedent in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) underscores the enforceability of judicial review, which critics argue is undermined by these specialized fora.
C. Federalism and Legislative Competence
The central assertion of domain over agriculture could confront challenges under Articles 245–247. The federal tenor of IPP (Interstate Commerce) reforms must survive Pith and Substance and Ancillary Powers Doctrine, especially in light of agriculture’s foundational impact on state policy autonomy.
Solutions suggested for the ongoing legislative developments
1. Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDPB)
✅ Solutions:
a) Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms
- Establish an independent appellate tribunal or empower existing bodies like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) for appeal against decisions of the Data Protection Board.
- Ensure judicial oversight for surveillance and data access by government agencies, to maintain checks and balances.
b) Narrow Government Exemptions
- Limit the government’s power to process personal data without consent only to well-defined, proportionate, and necessary circumstances.
- In matters pertaining to public order and national security, use the “least intrusive means” principle.
c) Improve Transparency and Accountability
- Mandate annual transparency reports from the government and private entities on data collection, processing, and breach incidents.
- Provide for user redressal mechanisms with enforceable timelines.
d) Balance Localization with Global Standards
- Allow conditional cross-border data transfers based on international adequacy and reciprocal safeguards, rather than full localization.
- Collaborate with global frameworks like GDPR to maintain interoperability.
2. Agricultural Market Reforms
✅ Solutions:
a) Legal Guarantee for Minimum Support Price (MSP)
- Introduce a statutory mechanism to ensure MSP, either through guaranteed procurement or a compensation mechanism if prices fall below MSP.
- Enforce through a central price stabilization fund or MSP insurance scheme.
b) Federal Consultation and State Participation
- Promote cooperative federalism by including state governments and farmer unions in the design and implementation of reforms.
- Create State-level opt-in models to accommodate local crop and market diversity.
c) Transparent Market Ecosystem
- Regulate private and electronic platforms via an independent regulatory authority, ensuring fair price discovery and anti-monopoly norms.
- Integrate APMCs and digital platforms under a common regulatory code.
d) Dispute Redressal Strengthening
- Provide for binding arbitration or fast-track agri courts in case of disputes between farmers and private buyers.
- Legal aid and grievance officers should be made mandatory at district levels.
3. Amendments to National Security and Criminal Procedure Laws
✅ Solutions:
a) Safeguards Against Misuse of UAPA and Surveillance
- Define “terrorist activity” and “unlawful association” more narrowly to prevent arbitrary arrests.
- Require pre-arrest judicial authorization for UAPA cases, with mandatory review within a defined period (e.g. 15 days).
b) Bail and Pre-trial Rights
- Restore presumption of innocence and adopt time-bound bail hearings, especially in non-violent cases.
- Introduce maximum time limits for investigation and trial under UAPA and similar laws to prevent indefinite detention.
c) Independent Review Committees
- Establish judicial or quasi-judicial review boards for authorizing and reviewing electronic surveillance and preventive detention.
d) Parliamentary and Public Accountability
- Mandate annual parliamentary reporting on the use of national security powers and detentions under special laws.
- Create channels for civil society participation in reviewing and proposing amendments to these laws.
4. General Democratic and Legal Reforms
✅ Cross-Cutting Solutions:
a) Public Consultation and Legislative Transparency
- Institutionalize pre-legislative public consultation, publish draft bills in multiple languages, and invite public and expert feedback.
- Mandate detailed standing committee reviews before bills are passed, avoiding rushed legislation.
b) Constitutional Alignment
- Apply “proportionality test” to all laws that impact fundamental rights—ensuring they serve legitimate aims and use the least restrictive means.
- Strengthen adherence to Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (life and liberty) through impact assessments and judicial vetting.
c) Digital and Legal Literacy Campaigns
- Launch awareness campaigns on digital rights, legal procedures, and farmer-market regulations to empower citizens.
- Collaborate with NGOs, bar associations, and universities for outreach and capacity-building.
Conclusion
However, these efforts have also triggered widespread public concern over constitutional rights, democratic transparency, and federal balance. Key bills—such as the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, agricultural market reforms, and amendments to national security laws—exemplify the tension between policy efficiency and civil liberties.
While these laws aim to address legitimate challenges in data governance, food supply chains, and internal security, they often lack sufficient safeguards, oversight mechanisms, and public consultation. Broad exemptions for government agencies, the absence of statutory guarantees like MSP, and provisions that restrict bail or expand surveillance powers have led to fears of executive overreach and erosion of individual freedoms.
The path forward lies not in rejecting reform, but in refining legislation through inclusive, transparent, and rights-conscious processes. Strengthening judicial and parliamentary oversight, embedding accountability, ensuring legal clarity, and engaging stakeholders—especially farmers, civil society, and privacy advocates—are essential to ensuring that these laws uphold both national interests and constitutional values.
In conclusion, the controversies of 2025 highlight a crucial lesson: effective legislation must not only be operationally sound but also democratically legitimate and constitutionally justifiable. Balancing state power with citizen rights remains the cornerstone of a healthy democratic legal order.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDPB) 2025, and why is it controversial?
Answer:
The DPDP Bill aims to control how both public and commercial organizations gather, store, and use personal data.
It has been criticized for:
- Granting broad exemptions to government agencies without adequate oversight.
- Allowing surveillance without strong judicial checks.
- Lacking transparency in how user data can be processed or transferred.
🔹 2. What are the key concerns of the farming community regarding agricultural market reforms?
Answer:
Farmers are concerned that:
- The reforms weaken the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system by not providing it statutory backing.
- Corporate entry into agriculture could undermine small and marginal farmers.
- Dispute resolution mechanisms lack independence and enforceability.
🔹 3. How do amendments to national security laws like the UAPA and CrPC affect individual rights?
Answer:
Amendments have:
- Expanded the definition of “unlawful activities” to include vague terms like “glorifying terrorism”.
- Made bail harder to obtain, even in cases without direct violence.
- Introduced enhanced surveillance powers with little to no judicial oversight, risking privacy and due process.
