Comments
The Telangana Government has informed the Hyderabad High Court that the intensive household survey proposed in the State is voluntary and there is no element of compulsion.
Justice Vilas Afzulpurkar recorded this undertaking and declared that the court is not inclined to stay the survey to be taken up on August 19.
The Hyderabad High Court admitted the writ petitions field by Rajasekhar Tulasi and Seethalakshmi and then called for records and posted the case for final disposal.
K Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate General of Telangana, said the Government has the power to conduct the survey to see how its beneficial schemes are implemented. He said this is voluntary and there is no coercion. The money meant for welfare of weaker sections is being swindled and the Government wants to ascertain the facts.
R Ragunandan Rao, Senior Counsel appearing for Seethalakshmi, contended that Parliament has already enacted the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 and the Collection of Statistics Rules 2011. In view of the enactment, the field is totally occupied by this Act and Telangana would not have any residuary executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
The senior counsel reminded the court that laws for data protection are non existent in India. The information given by the citizens, including the petitioners, would be available in the public domain as the respondents (Government) are seeking to utilise the said information for allegedly weeding out beneficiaries who are not entitled to various welfare schemes of the State Government.
The State cannot obtain the personal information of the petitioners under the guise of a survey for statistical purposes and then turn around and place that information in the public arena where it can be misused.
Jandhyala Ravishankar, appearing for Rajasekhar Tulsi, pointed out the manual circulated to enumerators required the officers to verify the bank passbooks, property details and sources of income. He said this was dangerous and the Government had to explain how it was entitled to intrude in such a manner.
He said the petitioners had a fundamental right of privacy which cannot be invaded by the State, by way of executive action, without any enacted law in support of such action.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.