--- layout: default title: "Spy Agencies, IB and RAW, Put Spanner in Proposed Privacy Law" description: "A Hindustan Times report documenting intelligence agencies' efforts to weaken the Right to Privacy Bill 2013, with the Intelligence Bureau and RAW seeking exemptions that would compromise protections against unauthorised data access." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2013-11-02 authors: ["Nagendar Sharma", "Aloke Tikku"] source: "Hindustan Times" permalink: /media/intelligence-agencies-privacy-law-opposition-hindustan-times/ created: 2025-12-31 --- **Spy Agencies, IB and RAW, Put Spanner in Proposed Privacy Law** is a *Hindustan Times* report by Nagendar Sharma and Aloke Tikku published on 2 November 2013. The article reveals how the Intelligence Bureau and Research and Analysis Wing lobbied to weaken the Right to Privacy Bill 2013, arguing for complete exemption from provisions criminalising leaks of sensitive personal information, prompting national security adviser Shivshankar Menon to call for revisions despite civil society insistence on due process and oversight mechanisms. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) 4. [External Link](#external-link) ## Article Details
📰 Published in:
Hindustan Times
📅 Date:
2 November 2013
👤 Authors:
Nagendar Sharma, Aloke Tikku
📄 Type:
News Report
📰 Newspaper Link:
Read Online
## Full Text

The country's intelligence agencies are out to scuttle a law that's being drafted to protect your privacy.

The Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) have told the government to water down the proposed law that makes it a crime to leak sensitive personal information collected by government departments and the private sector.

The agencies conveyed their views to national security adviser Shivshankar Menon at a recent meeting at the prime minister's office. With home secretary Anil Goswami backing the spooks, even arguing that "the very need for such a bill" should be reviewed, Menon has called for revisiting the provisions the agencies have objected to.

The Right to Privacy Bill 2013 lays down privacy principles and standards, and stipulates jail terms and fines for leak of sensitive personal data.

"If such a bill was to be considered, intelligence agencies should be exempted from its purview," Goswami argued at the meeting.

The intelligence agencies also spoke about how the bill would "adversely affect or compromise" the functioning of many agencies and projects, such as the Central Monitoring System that is used to intercept phone calls and internet communication, and the National Intelligence Grid that would give law enforcement agencies access to information to combat terror threats.

The proposed privacy law was initially conceptualised to address data privacy, particularly in the context of data handled by the Indian IT industry for foreign clients.

But the Department of Personnel and Training – that drew up the bill – expanded its scope to cover information collected by the government and interception by intelligence agencies.

Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-headquartered advocacy group, said the security establishment's attempts to scuttle the privacy law were a step back.

"Civil society isn't against surveillance by security agencies. All that we ask for is due process and oversight," Abraham said.

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background This report was published at a critical moment in India's early attempts to legislate privacy protections. The Department of Personnel and Training had drafted the Right to Privacy Bill 2013, initially to address data privacy concerns arising from India's IT outsourcing industry, where companies handled sensitive personal information belonging to foreign clients. The decision to expand the bill's scope to cover government data collection and intelligence interception brought it into direct conflict with national security agencies. At a meeting at the Prime Minister's Office, intelligence agencies, supported by the home secretary, argued that the bill would constrain their operational functioning and questioned the need for such legislation altogether. Their objections focused particularly on surveillance infrastructure projects such as the Central Monitoring System and the National Intelligence Grid, both of which involved large-scale interception and aggregation of personal data for security purposes. Civil society organisations did not oppose surveillance in principle but argued that it should be governed by clear legal standards, due process, and independent oversight. As articulated by Sunil Abraham, the debate centred on accountability rather than prohibition. The episode highlighted a fundamental tension between privacy safeguards and security practices, and marked an early instance in which intelligence agencies successfully resisted statutory limits on surveillance in India. ## External Link - Read on Hindustan Times