Manufacturing Shock Therapy

Arjit Benjamin

23 Jun 2025

Manufacturing Shock Therapy

India is uniquely positioned to benefit from the ongoing global realignment of supply chains, especially amid the US–China trade tensions. The Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for electronics plays a pivotal role in India’s attempt to emerge as a credible alternative to China. By offering targeted incentives for mobile and component manufacturing, India is strengthening its appeal to multinational companies pursuing a “China plus one” strategy.

Industry experts believe that India’s focused push into electronics manufacturing–especially components and value-added products–offers a chance to build legal and regulatory infrastructure that can support long-term industrial growth. This includes standardised frameworks for contracts, licensing, and dispute resolution tailored specifically for the electronics value chain, allowing India to support not just manufacturing but also design and innovation.

The scheme’s success could lead to a surge in exports, especially as Indian-made components gain a competitive edge in global markets. With supportive demographics, rising domestic demand, and favourable policy direction, India has the potential to shift from being a low-cost assembly hub to a value-driven manufacturing destination.

What sets India apart, as reflected in broader expert opinion, is its strategic focus on nurturing an ecosystem that encourages local innovation, IP creation, and upstream component production. This long-term vision goes beyond replicating China’s model of large-scale assembly and aims to create a sustainable and self-reliant electronics sector.

As Arjit Benjamin notes, “The PLI scheme must be matched with a strong legal backbone and contract enforcement infrastructure. Without such legal underpinnings, manufacturing incentives may only yield short-term gains.” His view reinforces the idea that legal certainty, streamlined compliance, and dispute resolution tailored to the manufacturing sector are essential pillars for India’s ambition to become a trusted global electronics hub.

Court grants bail to CBI’s Prosecutor arrested in a corruption case

Harsh K. Sharma and Lakshya Parasher

20 Jun 2025

Court grants bail to CBI’s Prosecutor arrested in a corruption case

New Delhi [India], April 28 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Monday granted regular bail to CBI’s public prosecutor arrested in a corruption case. This case is linked with the alleged demand of a bribe of Rs 35 lakh by the accused from the complainant to get a favourable order for him.

The complainant is an accused in another case.

Special CBI Judge Mukesh Kumar granted bail to Anil Kumar Tanwar after considering the submissions and facts that no recovery has been effected from the accused during custodial remand. He was arrested on April 10.

The special judge Mukesh Kumar said, “Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant/accused is entitled for grant of bail.”

“Accordingly, accused Anil Tanwar is admitted on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with one surety of like amount,” the special judge ordered on April 28.

While granting bail, the court considered the facts and circumstances, and that the accused has been in Judicial custody for the last around more than 15 days, and no recovery has been effected at the instance of the accused Anil Tanwar. 

And he is not keeping well.

“It is also to be noted that no verification related to the present accused has been made by the IO, accused Anil Tanwar is a CBI official and he was not caught red handed and no incriminating material has been recovered from his possession,” the court said.

Accused Anil Kumar Tanwar alongwith two other accused persons was produced after police custody of two days as granted by the Delhi High Court.

The court noted that despite the fact that the accused has been interrogated in the police custody nothing new material has been brought on record by the Investigation Officer (IO) which indicates that the presence of the accused is no more required for the purpose of investigation.

Advocate Harsh Sharma, along with Lakshay Parashar, appeared for accused Anil Tanwar and submitted that the officials of the CBI had falsely implicated Tanwar and had prepared forged documents showing the involvement of
The accused.

Court declines police custody of CBI’s Prosecutor in corruption case

Harsh K. Sharma and Lakshya Parasher

16 Apr 2025

Court declines police custody of CBI’s Prosecutor in corruption case

New Delhi [India], April 16 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court has declined police custody remand of CBI’s Prosecutor Anil Tanwar and two others arrested in a corruption case. All three were sent in judicial custody on Tuesday evening.

Special CBI judge Mukesh Kumar refused to grant police custody of Anil Tanwar, Avnish Kumar and Jyotimon Dethan after hearing contention and rival contention of the lawyers.
“In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration facts and circumstances, the prayer of investigating agency seeking police custody is declined,” Special judge ordered on April 15.
All the three accused persons are remanded to judicial custody till 29.04,2025 and be produced on 29.04.2025.

During the hearing the court perused the case diary and signed it.

Accused persons were produced from Judicial custody before the court. They were sent in judicial custody on April 10.
The court had kept the application seeking police custody pending and asked to collect the incriminating evidence against the accused persons.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the CBI’s counsel sought 10 days custody of all three accuse persons. He submitted that from the Car of Avnish Kumar expired identity cards of many department were found. An ID card of an retired officer has also been found.

Court declines police custody of CBI’s Prosecutor in corruption case

Harsh K. Sharma and Lakshya Parasher

16 Apr 2025

Court declines police custody of CBI’s Prosecutor in corruption case

The Rouse Avenue court has declined police custody remand of CBI’s Prosecutor Anil Tanwar and two others arrested in a corruption case. All three were sent in judicial custody on Tuesday evening.
Special CBI judge Mukesh Kumar refused to grant police custody of Anil Tanwar, Avnish Kumar and Jyotimon Dethan after hearing contention and rival contention of the lawyers.
“In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration facts and circumstances, the prayer of investigating agency seeking police custody is declined,” Special judge ordered on April 15.All the three accused persons are remanded to judicial custody till 29.04,2025 and be produced on 29.04.2025.

During the hearing the court perused the case diary and signed it.

Accused persons were produced from Judicial custody before the court. They were sent in judicial custody on April 10.

The court had kept the application seeking police custody pending and asked to collect the incriminating evidence against the accused persons.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the CBI’s counsel sought 10 days custody of all three accuse persons. He submitted that from the Car of Avnish Kumar expired identity cards of many department were found. An ID card of an retired officer has also been found.

CBI’s counsel submitted that it is not a single case, it is tip of iceberg. It is a pan India racket for Extortion by the accused persons.

It was argued that the custody of accused persons required to confront the accused persons with evidence collected, digital data and collection of voice samples.

When brands cross the line: Moment marketing and athlete rights in India

Arjit Benjamin

9 Sep 2024

When brands cross the line: Moment marketing and athlete rights in India

In the aftermath of the Paris Olympics, India’s celebrated pistol shooter, Manu Bhaker, found herself at the crossroads of a challenge far away from the shooting range. Having bagged two bronze medals, Manu became a sensation and the face of numerous brands eager to ride the wave of her success—with only one twist—without her permission. Reports emerged that her image had been splashed across congratulatory posts on social media, with no consent from Manu or the agency managing her.

These unauthorized endorsements didn’t sit well with her team. An Economic Times Report suggests that Sports marketing agencies like Baseline Ventures and IOS Sports & Entertainment have issued legal notices to various brands on behalf of sports personalities PR Sreejesh and Manu Bhaker. In 2021 also, Baseline Ventures, which was the marketing agency for badminton player PV Sindhu, sent legal notices to 20 brands that used her name and pictures in ads to congratulate her on winning a bronze medal at the Tokyo Olympics.

In times where digital marketing strategies evolve rapidly, brands increasingly engage in “moment marketing” – a practice of capitalizing on trending events, particularly in sports, to promote their products or services. Congratulatory posts for sports stars like Neeraj Chopra and Manu Bhakher have become common, but they also raise important questions regarding the legal boundaries of publicity and personality rights. While such posts may seem innocuous, they can potentially violate the athlete’s publicity and personality rights. In this article, the author examines whether such practices infringe on the rights of athletes.

Publicity and Personality – Rights emerging from evolving jurisprudence

The right to publicity empowers individuals, especially celebrities like athletes and sportspersons, to control how their name, image, and other personal attributes are used commercially. ‘Publicity Rights’ aren’t specifically defined in Indian laws, but over the course of the evolving jurisprudence on the subject, several courts have recognized it as an extension of the Right to Privacy. Similarly, ‘Personality Rights’ are not explicitly codified in statutes, but have been recognized by courts under the Right to Privacy and the Right to Publicity, both of which are extensions of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Further, aspects pertaining to personality rights can also be found under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Comparison and Interplay between Publicity and Personality Rights

While publicity rights focus on the economic value of one’s persona, granting individuals the exclusive right to commercially exploit their name or persona, personality rights are more focused towards an individual’s right to dignity, privacy and reputation. However, despite catering to different aspects, both safeguard against unauthorized endorsements, the misuse of a celebrity’s image, and the commercial exploitation of a person’s identity. They empower individuals to control and profit from the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, or other identifiable aspects of their persona. These rights are particularly significant for celebrities and sports personalities, whose public image is often a valuable asset.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Titan Industries v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers outlined, 

“When a prominent person’s name is exploited in advertising without their consent, the objection isn’t that no one should commercialize them; rather, it’s that they should have the power to decide when and how their identity is utilized. The right to publicity is the ability to limit how one’s identification is used for commercial purposes.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Justice KS Puttuswamy (Retd) v Union of Indiarecognised the concept of the ‘inviolate personality of an individual’ as an integral part of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The recognition of personality rights could be traced back to the famous Auto Shankar Case [R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu], where the apex court recognized an individual’s right to control the ‘commercial use of their identity’. Laying the foundation for the emergence of personality and publicity rights, this case acknowledged that individuals who are public figures have a right to protect the commercial value of their identity and prevent its unauthorized exploitation. In particular, the Hon’ble Court observed,

The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a ‘right to be let alone.’ A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.

Moment Marketing: A Legal Tightrope

Moment marketing, particularly seen in the context of sports, involves using the success or achievements of athletes to create marketing content. Brands often post congratulatory messages on social media platforms, leveraging the athlete’s popularity to enhance their visibility and brand value. At first, sharing a congratulatory message might seem harmless, however, in the said process, brands also often tend to project to the public at large a sort of an association with such sports personalities, let alone the use of their names and persona. In fact, in view of the above, back in 2021, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) even discouraged the featuring of Olympic winners by brands in their advertisements without the athletes’ explicit approval. In order to avoid such a situation, brands need to tread carefully to avoid potential pitfalls. There are certain aspects which are required to be considered in the ambit of moment marketing:

1. Commercial exploitation: When a brand uses a sports star’s name or image to market its products or services, it can be considered commercial exploitation. Even if the intent is to merely congratulate, the underlying objective of enhancing brand recognition cannot be ignored. This could amount to unauthorized use of the athlete’s persona, infringing on their publicity rights.

2. Consent matters: The key legal issue is whether the brand has obtained the athlete’s consent for such use. Without explicit consent, the use of an athlete’s persona for commercial gain is likely to be deemed an infringement. Consent not only legitimizes the use but also often involves financial remuneration, which is part of the athlete’s right to control and benefit from their persona. In this regard, it is worthwhile to note that Clause 1.3 of the ASCI Code on Misleading Advertisements states,

Advertisements shall not, without permission from the person, firm or institution under reference, contain any reference to such person, firm or institution, which confers an unjustified advantage on the product advertised or tends to bring the person, firm or institution into ridicule or disrepute. If and when required to do so by The Advertising Standards Council of India, the advertiser and the advertising agency shall produce explicit permission from the person, firm or institution to which reference is made in the advertisement.

3. Deceptive association or misrepresentation: Another concern is the potential for misleading consumers into believing that the athlete endorses the brand. This can lead to a deceptive association or misrepresentation, which not only violates the athlete’s rights but can also constitute unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Best practices for brands

Given the legal risks associated with moment marketing, brands should adopt best practices to avoid infringing on publicity and personality rights:

  1. Obtain consent: Always seek explicit consent from the sports personality before using their name, image, or likeness in any marketing material. This consent should be documented and, where necessary, include financial compensation.

  2. Use generic messaging: If consent is not feasible, consider using generic congratulatory messages that do not directly associate the brand with the athlete. This reduces the risk of violating publicity rights while still allowing the brand to participate in the trending conversation.

  3. Legal consultation: Before launching any campaign that may feature a sports personality, a consultation with legal experts is paramount to ensure compliance with publicity and personality rights laws. This can prevent potential legal disputes and safeguard the brand’s reputation.

  4. Transparency with consumers: Ensure that any association with a sports personality is clear and transparent to consumers. Avoid creating any misleading impressions that could lead to deceptive association claims.

Best Practices for Athletes and Celebrities

While there may be no sure-shot way or a straightforward solution to prevent misuse, trademark registration in the appropriate class may help these athletes claim ownership of their names. It will also allow them to license the names to ensure no unauthorised use of the same.

Section 2(m) of the Trademark Act, 1999 includes ‘names’ in its definition of ‘trademark’ which allows celebrities to register their names as trademarks to avoid misuse. Additionally, the Copyright Act of 1957, while protecting the rights of performers and authors, also extends its reach to sportspersons and celebrities. By granting them control over the reproduction and public dissemination of their work, the Act indirectly protects aspects of their personality tied to their public image and achievements. For athletes and celebrities, this means they have the legal backing to prevent unauthorized use of their persona in commercial ventures, ensuring that their identity and the value it holds are respected and preserved.

Conclusion

Moment marketing is an effective strategy for brands to connect with their audience, but it must be executed with a keen awareness of the legal implications. Publicity and personality rights are critical considerations, especially when leveraging the achievements of sports personalities. Brands must tread carefully, ensuring that they respect the rights of these individuals while engaging in moment marketing. Failure to do so could lead to legal repercussions, including claims for damages and injunctions against unauthorized use.

About the author: Arjit Benjamin is an Associate Partner at Prosoll Law.

If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar &
Bench, please fill in the form available here.

This article was first published in Bar & Bench.

Interviews “When we speak of white-collar crime and criminal law, I firmly believe that everyone deserves a chance to be represented vigorously and fairly”- Vaibhavi Sharma, Associate Partner, Prosoll Law

Vaibhavi Sharma

9 May 2024

Interviews “When we speak of white-collar crime and criminal law, I firmly believe that everyone deserves a chance to be represented vigorously and fairly”- Vaibhavi Sharma, Associate Partner, Prosoll Law

Can you share what inspired you to pursue a career in law, particularly focusing on criminal law and white-collar crime?

I would be honest to confess that law was not my first choice. Initially, I did not aspire to become a lawyer, considering the inherent expectations that come with being a second-generation lawyer. For all the years I was growing up, I had observed my Father from close quarters, putting his soul into the profession and it seemed overwhelming at that time. I also deeply admired all my teachers in school and realized the power of academics in shaping an individual’s life. Therefore, I was inclined towards being an educator and I started pursuing Bachelors in Commerce from Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi, thinking that would be my path. The course got me deeper insights into the ecosystem of commerce, and some of the subjects including contracts, commercial law, and taxation piqued my interest. With this new-found interest, law as a subject started pulling me towards it and after a discussion at home, I finally took the plunge to pursue law. You can say it was a ‘what you seek is also seeking you’ moment for me!

During my tenure in law school, I developed a profound affinity for criminal law, a passion that led me to delve deeper into its various facets. The background in commerce had anyway sharpened my faculties in the field of economics and financial matters, which finally led to my focus gravitating towards white-collar crime. This was also the field where I could get the best mentor in my father who is renowned for his impeccable body of work in this area. I couldn’t have asked for more. So here I am, not where I thought I would be, but definitely where I am meant to be. Turns out, the unexpected detour into law was exactly what I needed.

VIEWPOINT: Decoding India’s IP Landscape in the Digital Age

Arjit Benjamin

1 Jan 2024

VIEWPOINT: Decoding India’s IP Landscape in the Digital Age

India’s intellectual property framework operates amidst a rapid technological transformation – spanning AI, data analytics, software innovation, and platform ecosystems. The traditional IP system, focused on physical goods and manual creations, now confronts challenges like software patentability, online infringement, data ownership, and AI-generated works.

Observers highlight the need for modernizing IP laws to address digital-age realities. This includes clarifying whether software, algorithms, and data-driven inventions qualify for protection – and on what terms. Licensing and contract law must evolve to facilitate cross-border access, cloud computing, and platform-based innovation, while maintaining proper incentives and flexibility.

Debates also center on whether existing concepts like “copy” or “invention” still make sense in digital contexts. Experts argue that techno-legal tools (e.g. DMCA-style protection mechanisms), clear distinctions between ephemeral and permanent data, and well-defined exceptions (such as for text-and-data-mining) are needed to strike a balance between rights and legitimate use.

Arjit Benjamin notes that India’s IP regime must go beyond reactive policy-making and instead evolve its doctrinal framework to provide robust protection for AI-generated inventions and digital architectures. He emphasizes that “unless we align with global IP best practices, our innovators will continue to face uncertainty, slowing the very innovation we aim to promote.” His perspective highlights the legal urgency of building a future-ready IP ecosystem that can sustain India’s digital ambitions.

Ultimately, India’s IP strategy must become more holistic and adaptive. This means integrating clear patentability criteria for digital innovations, enabling transparent licensing practices, reinforcing exceptions for research and innovation, and adopting technology-neutral laws. Such reforms would help unlock India’s vast creative and technical potential in a globally competitive environment.

AD-VANTAGE: The Interplay between Ad Words and Trademarks

Arjit Benjamin

22 Dec 2023

AD-VANTAGE: The Interplay between Ad Words and Trademarks

“This article discusses how modern digital marketing has given rise to new legal considerations, as businesses grapple with the delicate balance between brand protection and the freedom to advertise in the online sphere.”

The evolving nature of online platforms

In the era of online empires and click-driven commerce, the humble trademark has transcended its physical confines. No longer simply a brand stamped on a product, it has become a potent force in the digital battlefield of search engines and advertisements. Businesses now wield “ad words” – strategic keywords that trigger their ads when users hunt for specific terms – not just for visibility, but as potential weapons to claim dominance in the virtual marketplace. This potent force, however, has brewed a potent storm. The very practice that fuels reach and recognition – keyword advertising – now stands accused of trademark infringement and unfair competition. The recent tussle between Google and MakeMyTrip in India has pushed the boundaries of legal precedent and has left the courts grappling with the question: Does using another company’s trademark as an ad word constitute a malicious assault on brand identity, or a fair play tactic in the digital marketplace?

IP protection and fostering innovation in era of competition: Walking a tightrope

The interplay between ad words and trademarks requires a delicate balance to be maintained between brand protection and competitive agility as it involves the balance between the rights of trademark owners, the interests of advertisers, and the freedom of expression and competition on the internet. The key issues that arise while discussing whether the use of trademarks as ad words by competitors or third parties constitutes trademark infringement or unfair competition include:

  • The likelihood of confusion between ad words and trademarks. The use of ad words may create confusion among consumers regarding the source of goods or services.

  • Advertisements using similar or identical ad words may dilute the distinctiveness of trademarks. This can harm the reputation and value associated with a brand.

  • The concept of fair use and the descriptive nature of certain terms – whether the use of ad words is genuinely descriptive or if it is an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill of established trademarks?

  • What are the responsibilities of online advertising platforms, such as Google, in monitoring and regulating the use of ad words? These platforms may often find themselves caught between facilitating commerce and preventing trademark infringement.

Nuanced understanding of trademark issues in digital advertising: Evolving jurisprudence

In India, the courts have dealt with the issue of ad words and trademarks by adopting a case-by-case approach, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the recent and prominent cases on this topic is Google LLC v. MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited and Ors., which has contributed to the evolving jurisprudence on this subject.

Since its launch, the Google Ads program, formerly known as Google AdWords, stirred concerns among brand owners due to its inclusion of trademarks as bidding keywords. Under this program, advertisers can bid on keywords, including trademarks, to enhance the visibility of their goods and services by securing top positions in Google search results. This led to legal action initiated by the well-known Indian travel portal, MakeMyTrip (referred to as ‘MMT’ hereafter), against Booking.com and Google. MMT’s primary grievance revolved around the use of its registered trademarks, namely ‘MakeMyTrip,’ ‘MakeMy,’ ‘MyTrip,’ and ‘MMT,’ as keywords offered by Google to third parties, including the defendant, Booking.com. According to MMT, the utilization of these trademarks in the Google Ads program provides a significant commercial advantage, positioning the user’s attention towards them as top results in the advertising category. The legal action brought forth by MMT also sought a directive against Google, restraining them from offering MMT’s registered marks as keywords.

While granting an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff in June 2022, a single judge of the Delhi High Court (‘DHC’) held that the use of a competitor’s registered trademark as part of the Google Ads program, is violative of the registered proprietor’s rights and would amount to trademark infringement.

Through this interim injunction, DHC restrained the defendants from using MMT’s registered trademarks as ‘keywords’ on the Google Ads Program, as this would amount to trademark infringement. Relying on the jurisprudence developed while deciding DRS Logistics (P) Ltd & Ors. v. Google India Pvt. Ltd., DHC held that a perusal of Section 29(9) (of the Trademarks Act) makes it clear that an infringement of a trademark can be by way of spoken use, which is different from printed or visual representations of the mark. That is, invisible use of the mark can also infringe a trademark. DHC also added that there is practically no difference between use of trademark as a ‘meta-tag’ or as a ‘keyword’ in Google Ads Program, in as much as even if a trademark is being used in a hidden manner, it still constitutes ‘use’ of the trademark for the purpose of advertisement and therefore is violative of Sections 29(6)(d) and 29(7) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Nothing illegal in using trademarks as keywords if it did not result in any confusion or mislead internet users

According to a report by IAMAI, the active internet base in India is expected to grow to 900 million by 2025. With such a high active user base on the internet, companies keen to grow their market share online undoubtedly sought more clarity on the subject. This was perhaps one of the reasons why Google filed an against the order of the DHC single judge.

In an interesting turn of events, a division-bench of the DHC vacated the interim injunction against Google and Booking.com in the case in December, 2023. While removing the injunction, the division bench of DHC held that “there was nothing illegal in Google using the trademarks as keywords for display of advertisements if it did not result in any confusion or mislead internet users to believe that sponsored links or ads displayed were associated with the proprietors of the trademarks.

Also Read

The division bench of the DHC relied on its judgment in Google LLC v. DRS Logistics (P.) Ltd. and Ors., where it was held that the use of marks as keywords would not amount to use as trademarks and, therefore, use of such marks as keywords does not constitute infringement under Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act.

In addition, it was noted that the Court had held that the use of the trademarks as keywords is use in connection with goods and services of the advertiser. Thus, if the goods and services advertised and covered under the sponsored link and those covered under the trademark are similar, Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act would have no application.

The Court also stated that there was nothing illegal in Google using the trademarks as keywords for the display of advertisements if it did not result in any confusion or mislead internet users to believe that sponsored links or Ads displayed were associated with the proprietors of the trademarks. Thus, the use of trademarks as keywords without there being any confusion or unfair advantage, would not infringe the trademark. The services offered by Booking.com are similar to the services covered by MIPL’s trademarks. In these circumstances Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act would have no application, the High Court held.

A balancing act

In summary, as the digital landscape undergoes rapid transformations, the legal frameworks and court rulings significantly shape the future of online business and intellectual property protections. This particular case serves as a valuable lesson for businesses and online platforms, urging them to address trademark considerations in advertising practices with utmost care. Balancing legal obligations and evolving consumer expectations is crucial. The case reinforces the need for robust measures to avert consumer confusion and promote transparency in online advertising.

The Delhi High Court’s decision permitting the resumption of Google and Booking.com’s use of AdWords associated with MakeMyTrip is accompanied by specific conditions aimed at preventing consumer confusion. While the use of trademarks as key words by competitors, absent any confusion or deceit, does not per se amount to infringing use, this case highlights the challenges tied to trademark protection in the digital age and stresses the importance of striking a harmonious balance between upholding IP rights and fostering equitable competition in online advertising space.

About the author: Arjit Benjamin is an Associate Partner at Prosoll Law.

This article was first published in Bar & Bench.

From vulnerable to virtually invincible: Digital Personal Data Protection in action

Arjit Benjamin

20 Oct 2023

From vulnerable to virtually invincible: Digital Personal Data Protection in action

“This article is an attempt to examine the recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDA), 2023 and discuss how it is the guardian of our privacy.”

Earlier this year, a CNBC TV-18 news report caught the public eye when it quoted that according to Tenable, a cybersecurity company based in the US, India suffered from the second-most tech exposure breaches in 2022, with around 450 million records exposed.

The research report also found that a large number of security breaches happened due to old existing vulnerabilities and flaws that dated back to 2017. The organisations, however, had failed to apply the relevant security patches for these flaws, which led to an increased risk of breaches.

Around the same time in the first quarter of 2023, India also saw a sharp increase in cyber attacks, with over 500 million attacks blocked out of a billion globally, as per a news piece by The Economic Times which covered the State of Application Security Report by Indusface, a Security SaaS Company funded by Tata Capital Growth Fund.

These incidents exposed the personal data of millions of Indians to various risks, such as identity theft, fraud, cyberattacks, phishing, spamming, and other malicious activities. But more than that, they also violated our fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, association, and movement, due to surveillance, profiling, targeting, or censorship based on their data. Are we aware of how these attacks infringe on our dignity and autonomy as human beings due to the commodification and manipulation of our data for commercial or political interests?

This article is an attempt to examine the recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDA), 2023 (“The Act” or “DPDA, 2023”), and discuss how it is the guardian of our privacy.

What inspired the enactment of a powerful legislation?

The idea of enacting legislation like the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDA), 2023, was inspired by the need to protect the privacy and rights of individuals over their digital personal data in India. Before the passing of the Act, the common man was susceptible to various risks related to their digital personal data, such as: 

  • Lack of transparency and control over how their data was collected and used by various entities, such as social media platforms, e-commerce sites, online service providers, etc.

  • Exposure to identity theft, fraud, cyberattacks, phishing, spamming, and other malicious activities that could compromise their personal information and financial security.

  • Violation of their fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression, association, and movement due to surveillance, profiling, targeting, or censorship based on their data.

  • Discrimination or exclusion from accessing essential services or opportunities based on their data attributes, such as gender, caste, religion, health status, etc.

  • Infringement of their dignity and autonomy as human beings due to the commodification and manipulation of their data for commercial or political interests.

The Supreme Court of India declared privacy as a fundamental right on August 24, 2017, in the case of Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India. The Court held that privacy is an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court’s decision was a landmark moment in the history of privacy in India. It gave individuals the right to control their personal information and to challenge the collection, use, and disclosure of their data by the government and private entities.

The apex court’s decision was also based on a number of factors, including laying down the triple test for judging the permissible limits for invasion of privacy while testing the validity of any legislation. The decision was passed in view of the increasing collection and use of personal data by governments and private entities, the growing threats to privacy posed by new technologies, and the fundamental importance of privacy to human dignity. The Court held that privacy is essential for the development of the individual personality, for the ability to form relationships with others, and for the ability to participate in society. The decision also paved the way for the passing of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDA), 2023.  

The Act was also influenced by global developments in data protection laws, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The Act was drafted by a committee of experts headed by Justice BN Srikrishna, who submitted their report and draft bill in July 2018. The bill was then introduced in the Parliament in December 2019 and underwent several revisions and consultations before being passed on 11 August 2023. The Act aims to provide a legal framework for the protection of digital personal data in India and to enhance the trust and confidence of individuals in the digital economy and society.

The DPDA, 2023 aims to address these risks by providing a legal framework for the protection of digital personal data in India. It is expected that the Act will enhance the trust and confidence of individuals in the digital economy and society.

Privacy at the core of DPDA, 2023

The DPDA, 2023 is a landmark legislation that aims to protect the privacy and rights of individuals over their digital personal data. The Bill protects digital personal data, that is, the data by which a person may be identified. Three key areas that are addressed by DPDA, 2023, are:

  1. The rights of Data Principals, i.e., the persons to whom the data relates.

  2. The obligations of Data Fiduciaries, i.e., the persons, companies and government entities who process data by way of collection, storage or any other operation on personal data.

  3. Financial penalties for breach of rights, duties and obligations.

Empowering the Data Principals

While the Act regulates how organizations can collect, process, store, transfer, and use such data for lawful purposes, it also empowers individuals with various rights over their data, such as:

  • The right to be informed about the purpose, manner, and extent of data processing.

  • The right to access, correct, update, and erase their data.

  • The right to restrict or withdraw consent for data processing at any time.

  • The right to data portability, that is, to receive their data in a structured, commonly used, and machine-readable format and to transfer it to another data fiduciary.

  • The right to object to data processing that is likely to cause harm or discrimination.

  • The right to seek compensation for any harm caused by data breach or misuse.

The Act also establishes a Data Protection Authority (DPA) to oversee and enforce the compliance of the data fiduciaries with the provisions of the Act. The DPA has the power to issue codes of practice, conduct audits and investigations, impose penalties and compensation, and take any other action as may be necessary.

Making Data Fiduciaries accountable

The Act makes a Data Fiduciary responsible for having security safeguards to prevent personal data breach. They are required to intimate personal data breaches to the affected Data Principal and the Data Protection Board. To fix end-to-end responsibility, the Data Fiduciary is required to erase personal data when it is no longer needed for the specified purpose or upon withdrawal of consent of the Data Principal. They are also required to have in place a grievance redressal system and an officer to respond to queries from Data Principals.

Additionally, Data Fiduciaries are required to fulfill certain additional obligations if they are Significant Data Fiduciaries, such as appointing a data auditor and conducting periodic Data Protection Impact Assessment to ensure a higher degree of data protection.

With respect to the personal data of children, DPDA, 2023, casts heavier responsibilities on the Data Fiduciaries. It allows a Data Fiduciary to process the personal data of children only with parental consent and does not permit any processing detrimental to the well-being of children or if it involves their tracking, behavioral monitoring, or targeted advertising.

The two Cs of Consent andCompliance

The DPDA, 2023, empowers Data Principals with a suite of rights, from information and access to data portability and the right to seek compensation for breaches. It instils accountability in Data Fiduciaries, demanding stringent security measures, redressal systems, and heightened responsibilities for Significant Data Fiduciaries. The two Cs of Consent and Compliance are at the heart of this Act, enabling individuals to manage their data and setting high standards for organizations’ privacy practices.

Under the Act, the Data Principal may give, manage, review, or withdraw their consent to the Data Fiduciary directly or through a Consent Manager. In the case of children, consent shall be obtained from the parent or the lawful guardian. No separate consent, however, is required for “legitimate uses” recognized under the Act, which include data provided voluntarily by the Data Principal, personal data processed for any function under any law or judgment issued under law, for responding to a medical emergency involving a threat to the life of the Data Principal or other individual, for maintaining public order and ensuring safety; and lastly, for purposes related to employment.

Further, in terms of compliance by the Data Fiduciaries, they are required to design and implement privacy policies and procedures, including privacy notices to inform the Data Principals about the types of personal data collected and the purpose of the collection.

With the enactment of the DPDA, 2023, the Data Fiduciaries are required to take steps towards implementing technical and organisational measures and reasonable security safeguards to prevent data breaches. They will also be required to strictly enforce procedures to handle rights, requests and grievances of Data Principals. With respect to “Significant Data Fiduciaries”, there are some more compliances required with respect to undertaking Data Protection Impact Assessment, appointing a DPO and publishing business contact information. They are also required to perform periodic audits.

In conclusion

In conclusion, the DPDA, 2023, emerges as a formidable guardian of our digital privacy in an era where data breaches and cyber threats loom large. This legislation stands as a beacon of hope, addressing the vulnerabilities that ordinary citizens face in the digital realm. It reflects the commitment to safeguarding personal data, ensuring transparency, and empowering individuals with the right to control their information.

As we navigate the ever-evolving digital landscape, the DPDA, 2023, serves as a robust shield, transforming common individuals from being vulnerable to virtually invincible, ensuring that their digital lives are protected, their rights are respected, and their dignity is preserved. It’s not just a legal framework; it’s a promise of a safer and more secure digital future for all of us.

About the author: Arjit Benjamin is an Associate Partner at Prosoll Law.

This article was first published in Bar & Bench.

Unveiling the Dynamics of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Lakshya Parasher

5 Oct 2023

Unveiling the Dynamics of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

“As a cornerstone of India’s criminal justice system, Section 319 of the CrPC addresses the complexities that arise when the truth unfolds incrementally, compelling the court to adapt and expand its purview.”

In the realm of criminal justice, the essence of fairness and equity lies not only in the prosecution and trial of known offenders but also in the pursuit of justice against those whose involvement in an offence becomes evident during legal proceedings. Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) stands as a legal provision that embodies this principle. It bestows upon the courts the power to extend the boundaries of justice beyond the initially accused individuals, allowing them to summon and try other individuals who, in the eyes of the court, appear to be complicit in the crime under investigation.

As a cornerstone of India’s criminal justice system, Section 319 of CrPC addresses the complexities that arise when the truth unfolds incrementally, compelling the court to adapt and expand its purview. This article delves into the multifaceted dynamics of Section 319, shedding light on its key provisions, underlying principles, judicial interpretations, and the delicate balance it strikes between protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that justice is not truncated due to inadvertent omissions.

At its core, Section 319 embodies the fundamental principle that the search for truth should not be hindered by procedural confines. It grants the court the authority to summon individuals who have not been originally charged but whose involvement surfaces as the trial progresses. This provision prevents the inadvertent exclusion of potentially guilty parties and safeguards against the miscarriage of justice that could arise from limiting the trial to only the initially named accused.

The application of Section 319 CrPC is a delicate matter that requires a judicious assessment of the available evidence and a balanced consideration of the rights of both the accused and the society at large. Courts must meticulously weigh the necessity of summoning additional accused persons against the potential prejudice it might cause to the accused’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, this provision also acts as a bulwark against the misuse of the legal process to harass individuals who might be tenuous in the situation.

Through a comprehensive analysis of case law and scholarly interpretations, this article elucidates the instances where Section 319 CrPC has been invoked, the threshold of evidence required, and the jurisprudential principles guiding its application. Additionally, it explores the challenges and debates surrounding the discretionary power vested in the courts, the balance between protecting the accused and ensuring justice, and the evolution of this provision in response to changing legal dynamics.

In simple words, Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to the power of a court to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offense. This section allows a court to add additional accused persons to a case if it appears to the court that they are involved in the offence being tried.

Essentials of Section 319 CrPC:

Additional Accused Persons: Section 319 empowers the court to summon and try other persons, in addition to those already named as accused in the case, if it appears that they have also committed the offence being tried.

Evidence During Trial: The court can exercise this power either on its own or based on an application by the prosecution or the defense. This means that if during the trial, the court becomes aware of the involvement of other individuals, it can summon them for trial.

Sufficient Evidence: The court must have sufficient evidence against the additional accused persons to justify summoning them for trial. The provision doesn’t allow the court to act solely on suspicion; there must be some prima facie evidence connecting them to the offense.

Opportunity to be Heard: Before summoning any additional accused, the court should provide them with an opportunity to be heard. This ensures that they can present their side of the story and contest the decision to add them as accused.

Joined in the Same Trial: Once the additional accused are summoned and brought before the court, they will be tried along with the original accused in the same trial.

Separate Trial if Necessary: In case the court finds that the evidence against the additional accused requires a separate trial, it may direct such a separate trial.

Protection of Rights: The rights and safeguards available to the original accused, including the right to fair trial and legal representation, also extend to the additional accused.

Discretion of the Court: The decision to summon additional accused persons rests on the discretion of the court. The court will consider factors such as the nature of the offense, the evidence available, and the interests of justice before making a decision.

Preventing Injustice: Section 319 is aimed at preventing a miscarriage of justice by ensuring that all individuals involved in an offense are brought to trial and held accountable.

Procedure outlined in Section 319 CrPC:

During Trial: The provision can be invoked during trial by the court at any time after the trial has begun but before the judgment is pronounced.

Evidence against Another Person: If, during a trial, it appears from the evidence that any person other than the accused has committed an offense for which that person could be charged, the court may proceed against that person as if they had been accused. This means that the court can treat that person as an additional accused and include them in the trial.

Procedure: The court can take several actions under this section:

  • Summon the newly implicated person and proceed against them.

  • Re-call and re-examine any witness.

  • Assess any evidence or material produced against the newly implicated person.

  • Notice to Newly Implicated Person: Before summoning the newly implicated person, the court must give them a notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding their involvement in the offense.

Rights of the Newly Implicated Person: The newly implicated person has the same rights in the trial as an original accused, including the right to legal representation, cross-examination of witnesses, and producing evidence in their defense.

Discharge: The court can also discharge the newly implicated person if it finds that there is insufficient evidence against them to warrant a trial.

In essence, Section 319 CrPC empowers the Sessions Judge to prevent miscarriage of justice by adding individuals who might have been involved in the commission of the crime but were not initially charged. This ensures that all relevant parties are brought to trial and held accountable for their actions.

In case of Hardei vs State of Uttar Pradesh, it was held that FIR is not expected to be encyclopaedia even of facts already known and may not contain all details of occurrence or names of all accused. Details of some crimes like conspiracy, economic offences or cases not found on eye-witness accounts can be unfolded only by detailed expert investigation. Facts that Police chose not to send suspect to face trial does not affect power of trial court under Section 319 CrPC to summon such person on basis of evidence recorded during trial.

In Hardeep Singh (Supra)

“95. At the time of taking cognizance, the court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, held that on the objective satisfaction of the court a person may be “arrested” or “summoned”, as the circumstances of the case may require, if it appears from the evidence that any such person not being the accused has committed an offence for which such person could be tried together with the already arraigned accused persons.

106. Thus, we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if “it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence” it is clear from the words “for which such person could be tried together with the accused”. The words used are not “for which such person could be convicted”. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused.

In Conclusion

Through the intricate interplay of statutes, case precedents, and jurisprudential considerations, Section 319 has demonstrated its capacity to harmonize the rights of the accused with the overarching goal of justice. While walking the tightrope between summoning additional accused and safeguarding fair trial rights, courts have displayed discernment and deliberation, ensuring that this provision doesn’t morph into a tool of harassment, but remains a shield against miscarriage of justice.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, Section 319 CrPC remains adaptable, responding to emerging challenges while upholding its fundamental principles. The provision underscores the importance of a holistic and dynamic approach to criminal proceedings, reminding us that the pursuit of truth is not bound by the confines of initial charges but flourishes through the illumination of emerging facts.

Lakshya Parasher is a Principal Associate and Rishabh Sharma is an Associate at Prosoll Law.

This article was first published in Bar & Bench.