In light of the PIL filed by Justice Puttaswamy for the right to privacy as an independent right, the Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC) unanimously affirmed status of the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The SC further laid out a three-fold test of legality, legitimacy and proportionality that a strong data protection law must satisfy. While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“Act”) passes the test of legality and legitimacy, draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (“Rules”) that made the first weekend of 2025, need to pass the test of proportionality. This article primarily deals with important Rules and our analysis on the same.
- Notice for consent: Rule 3: Notice provided by the Data Fiduciary (“DF”) to the Data Principal (“DP”) must be clear, standalone and understandable on its own, without any other information. Notice shall include a detailed list of personal data; specific purpose of processing and mention description of goods or services to be provided or enabled, based on such processing. Notice must include communication link for DF’s website/app, and describe other means for DP to withdraw consent with ease, exercise rights under the Act and file complaints with the Data Protection Board (“Board”). As per the Act, DF is also required to issue a similar notice to DP, who would have earlier given consent for processing his/her personal data before commencement of the Act. But the Rules are silent on timelines for issuance of such notice by DF to DP. Further, no specific format is prescribed for issuance of such notice as it will be on-going and dynamic process. Lastly, Rules are silent about specific timelines within which DF must act upon for withdrawal of consent upon receipt of instructions from DP.
- Verifiable Consent for Child or differently abled person: Rule 10 and 11: DF are required to obtain verifiable consent of parent or lawful guardian before processing personal data of a child or a differently abled person, respectively. To ensure authenticity, age and identity of the parent must be validated using government-issued identity proof. Authenticity of guardian is verified based on appointment of guardian through court order or by designated committee or appointed under law applicable to guardianship. However, health and mental health establishments, educational institutions and daycare centres are exempted from obtaining such verifiable consent of parent or lawful guardian. The Rules do not put any obligation on DF to conduct mandatory periodic audit for processing personal data of a child and do not provide clarity on obtaining consent of child upon turning into adults. While the Rules consider long-term physically differently abled persons, they do not make a distinction of some physically differently abled persons who have the ability to provide consent on their own. There will be a need for DFs to establish robust processes to verify identity of individuals claiming to be parents to prevent children from circumventing these measures. In this regard, best practices can be drawn from frameworks such as the GDPR, the COPPA of USA, and the PDPA of Singapore.