Editorial

The tabling of the Digital Privacy Bill 2025 in Parliament marks a pivotal moment for India’s digital future. After years of operating in a regulatory grey area, the promise of a comprehensive data protection framework is undeniably a step forward. The proposed dedicated Data Protection Board and stringent norms for tech giants signal an intent to empower the citizen in an increasingly datafied economy. However, as the Lok Sabha debates the landmark legislation, we must move beyond rhetorical applause and engage in rigorous scrutiny. The devil, as always, will be in the details—details that will define the fine balance between privacy, innovation, and state power.

The core promise of the Bill is to check the unbridled power of data harvesters. By imposing strict limitations on data collection, mandating clear consent, and enforcing penalties for breaches, it seeks to hold domestic and global corporations accountable. This is a necessary corrective to the exploitative “surveillance capitalism” model. The creation of an independent Data Protection Board is crucial, but its true efficacy will depend on its design. Will it be an autonomous, technically proficient body with real teeth and investigative freedom? Or will its composition and functioning be susceptible to executive influence, rendering it a paper tiger? The debates must ensure its operational independence is ironclad.

Yet, the most significant debates must centre on the exemptions carved out for the state. Past drafts have rightly drawn criticism for granting sweeping powers to the government and its agencies to bypass consent for vaguely defined purposes like “national security” and “public order.” Without robust oversight, judicial safeguards, and necessity-proportionality tests, these exceptions risk creating a chilling architecture of surveillance, undermining the very rights the Bill seeks to protect. Privacy is not a right only against corporations; it is a fundamental right against all powerful entities, including the state. Parliament must ensure the law does not become a tool for legitimising mass data collection by the government.

Furthermore, the Bill’s impact on the startup ecosystem and the cost of compliance for MSMEs cannot be an afterthought. The framework must be robust yet tiered, ensuring it does not stifle innovation or become a burden for small Indian businesses while being stringent for data giants.

India stands at a digital crossroads. We have the opportunity to craft a world-class privacy regime that sets a global standard for protecting citizen autonomy while fostering responsible innovation. This requires a legislative process characterised not by haste or partisan victory, but by thoughtful deliberation, expert testimony, and a unwavering commitment to constitutional values. The Lok Sabha must rise to the occasion. The goal is not just a Bill, but a just and equitable digital future for every Indian.

The grim news from Belem is a wound to global climate justice. Two years after the landmark agreement to establish a "Loss and Damage" fund—celebrated as a moral victory for the developing world—COP30 has revealed it to be little more than an empty vault, its door locked by the very nations whose historical emissions created the crisis. This is not a mere negotiating impasse; it is a profound failure of conscience and solidarity.

The dispute follows a tragic script. Vulnerable nations, from sinking Pacific islands to drought-stricken African states, arrived in the Amazon seeking operational clarity and, crucially, new, additional, and predictable finance in the form of grants. They are facing existential bills for climate catastrophes they did not cause. The response from many developed countries has been a masterclass in evasion: pushing for an expanded donor base to dilute their own responsibility, advocating for loans over grants (thereby indebting the victims), and haggling over administrative details to delay substantive commitments.

This deadlock is catastrophic for trust. How can there be a united front on ambitious emission cuts when the core promise of supporting those already suffering is broken? The negotiations in Belem, surrounded by the fragile and vital Amazon, highlight a devastating irony: we are failing to fund resilience in the ecosystems and communities that are our first line of defence.

The "Loss and Damage" fund was never charity; it is a pillar of climate justice and a pragmatic necessity for global stability. To allow it to wither now is to accept a world where the poorest pay the ultimate price for the carbon-fuelled prosperity of others. Developed nations must move beyond technical obfuscation and provide clear, scaled-up capitalisation. Without this, COP30 will be remembered not for its setting in the heart of the natural world, but for the moment the world chose to abandon its most vulnerable people to the rising tides and burning forests. The clock on the climate crisis is ticking, but the clock on political credibility has already run out.

• SAS Kirmani