<p>CPI(M) MP John Brittas has written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar asking them not to allow the tabling of a Parliamentary Standing Committee report, saying that the panel has gone beyond its remit to examine a Bill on data privacy that has not been introduced in Parliament or referred to it.</p>.<p>The letter submitted on Friday came after Opposition MPs Karti Chidambaram, Jawahar Sircar, Mahua Moitra and Brittas himself walked out of the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology and Communications when it went ahead with adopting a report that spoke about the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.</p>.<p>The MPs had objected to the demand of BJP lawmakers Nishikant Dubey and Anil Agarwal in this regard when the report ‘Citizen’s Data Security and Privacy’ was considered for adoption on Wednesday. </p>.<p><strong>Also read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/airports-owe-rs-470776-crore-to-cisf-for-security-services-parliamentary-panel-report-1242168.html">Airports owe Rs 4707.76 crore to CISF for security services: Parliamentary panel report</a></strong></p>.<p>In his identical letters to Birla and Dhankhar, the CPI(M) MP said he has learnt that the panel in which he is a member has adopted the report and it contains recommendations on the new Digital Personal Data Protection Bill. He wanted the Chair to send the report back to the panel.</p>.<p>"It is imperative to note that the said Digital Personal Data Protection Bill had neither been introduced before either of the Houses of Parliament till date, nor was it referred to the Standing Committee by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker…for examination," Brittas wrote.</p>.<p>Referring to Rules 331E (1) (b), 331H (a) and 331H (b) of Lok Sabha Rules and Rules 270 (b) and 273 (a) of the Rajya Sabha, he said the Standing Committees are "explicitly prohibited" from examining any Bills that have not been referred to them by the Chairman or the Speaker after their introduction in either House.</p>.<p>"Hence, it is evident that the above Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, said to be adopted on 26th July 2023, is void ab initio and is ultra vires of the powers of the Standing Committee conferred by the Rules," he said.</p>.<p>Brittas said that the rules do not allow the Parliamentary panel to examine a bill which is yet to be introduced in Parliament.</p>.<p>"It can be found beyond an iota of doubt that the impetuous action of the Committee in including comments and recommendations on this Bill is far beyond its jurisdiction and as such, rendering the report liable to be nullified," he said, adding that he had boycotted the meeting on Wednesday protesting over the "illegalities".</p>.<p>"In these circumstances, I may crave your indulgence to refrain from giving permission to present/lay the aforementioned report of the Standing Committee" in both the Houses, he wrote in the letters while demanding that the report should be sent back to the panel citing the rules. </p>
<p>CPI(M) MP John Brittas has written to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar asking them not to allow the tabling of a Parliamentary Standing Committee report, saying that the panel has gone beyond its remit to examine a Bill on data privacy that has not been introduced in Parliament or referred to it.</p>.<p>The letter submitted on Friday came after Opposition MPs Karti Chidambaram, Jawahar Sircar, Mahua Moitra and Brittas himself walked out of the meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology and Communications when it went ahead with adopting a report that spoke about the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.</p>.<p>The MPs had objected to the demand of BJP lawmakers Nishikant Dubey and Anil Agarwal in this regard when the report ‘Citizen’s Data Security and Privacy’ was considered for adoption on Wednesday. </p>.<p><strong>Also read | <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/airports-owe-rs-470776-crore-to-cisf-for-security-services-parliamentary-panel-report-1242168.html">Airports owe Rs 4707.76 crore to CISF for security services: Parliamentary panel report</a></strong></p>.<p>In his identical letters to Birla and Dhankhar, the CPI(M) MP said he has learnt that the panel in which he is a member has adopted the report and it contains recommendations on the new Digital Personal Data Protection Bill. He wanted the Chair to send the report back to the panel.</p>.<p>"It is imperative to note that the said Digital Personal Data Protection Bill had neither been introduced before either of the Houses of Parliament till date, nor was it referred to the Standing Committee by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker…for examination," Brittas wrote.</p>.<p>Referring to Rules 331E (1) (b), 331H (a) and 331H (b) of Lok Sabha Rules and Rules 270 (b) and 273 (a) of the Rajya Sabha, he said the Standing Committees are "explicitly prohibited" from examining any Bills that have not been referred to them by the Chairman or the Speaker after their introduction in either House.</p>.<p>"Hence, it is evident that the above Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, said to be adopted on 26th July 2023, is void ab initio and is ultra vires of the powers of the Standing Committee conferred by the Rules," he said.</p>.<p>Brittas said that the rules do not allow the Parliamentary panel to examine a bill which is yet to be introduced in Parliament.</p>.<p>"It can be found beyond an iota of doubt that the impetuous action of the Committee in including comments and recommendations on this Bill is far beyond its jurisdiction and as such, rendering the report liable to be nullified," he said, adding that he had boycotted the meeting on Wednesday protesting over the "illegalities".</p>.<p>"In these circumstances, I may crave your indulgence to refrain from giving permission to present/lay the aforementioned report of the Standing Committee" in both the Houses, he wrote in the letters while demanding that the report should be sent back to the panel citing the rules. </p>