Madras HC cites privacy, stays Oraniyil campaign’s OTP collection
During the hearing, the bench asked why the cadre were asking for OTP when the police have been spreading awareness about the dangers of sharing such details.
Madras High Court
MADURAI: Raising concerns about privacy, accountability, and transparency on how the data collected from people across the State would be used, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court ordered an interim stay on OTP-based verification for ruling DMK’s Oraniyil Tamil Nadu campaign.
In his public interest litigation, Rajkumar from Tiruppuvanam in Sivaganga urged the division bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and AD Maria Clete to declare the collection and use of Aadhaar card details of the public by the DMK and its cadre for political propaganda as unconstitutional and a violation of the fundamental right to privacy.
During the hearing, the bench asked why the cadre were asking for OTP when the police have been spreading awareness about the dangers of sharing such details. To this, the government counsel said this was a membership campaign by the DMK, prompting the court to ask if the counsel was representing the government or the ruling party.
In his order, Justice Subramaniam said digital membership drives by the political parties were a new area of study. “Hence, the bearing it has on the data privacy of the individual is a concern that has to be addressed… clarity is required as to the means and infrastructure adopted by the political parties to collect, process and store data from the public,” he said, and granted interim injunction to the limited extent of restraining the DMK from sending OTP verification messages till the issues of right to privacy and data protection are examined in detail.
Penning a separate order, Justice Maria Clete agreed the overarching significance of the right to privacy and the seriousness of data protection concerns, especially in light of OTP-linked authentication and possible violations of informational privacy, but stressed that the stay was extended with circumspection, particularly in the absence of a counter-affidavit and without full knowledge of the programme’s operational framework.