A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni was hearing a PIL filed by Shashank Posture. Posture further said he had impleaded the Union government, the Maharashtra government, the state IT department, Truecaller international LLP, ICICI Bank, and the National Payment Corporation as respondent parties in the case
Truecaller app. File Pic
The Bombay High Court has issued notices to the Union and Maharashtra governments, among others, over public interest litigation (PIL) claiming that the Truecaller mobile application "shared" user data breaching legal norms of the country.
ADVERTISEMENT
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni was hearing a PIL filed by one Shashank Posture. "The Truecaller app collects data of all users. It shares such data with some of its partners without the consent of users, and dumps the liability on the user," the petitioner told the court. "This is a manipulative set up because the user has no choice. The app also registers users for a Unified Payments Interface service without their consent, or without due process," Posture alleged. When the court asked who were these partners benefitting from Truecaller, Posture named "Google India, Bharati Airtel, ICICI Bank", and claimed that several loan providing companies were also the beneficiaries of such data leaks by the app.
Posture further said he had impleaded the Union government, the Maharashtra government, the state IT department, Truecaller international LLP, ICICI Bank, and the National Payment Corporation as respondent parties in the case. The government authorities approved Truecaller app "without proper checks and in contravention of the information security practices rules", Posture alleged. The High Court said this was a fit case for issuing notices.
Also Read: CBI should widen probe into FIR against Anil Deshmukh: Bombay High Court
"The case of the petitioner is that Truecaller through its mobile application has indulged in an absolute breach of data privacy of citizens. He submits that such breach is contrary to data protection laws," the court said. "We have heard the petitioner for some time and we are of the opinion that a notice is required to be issued to respondents," it said, directing the respondent parties to reply to the notice within three weeks.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
