Those pesky calls may finally dry up. Reacting to a common complaint of millions, the Supreme Court on Thursday maintained that the year-old National Do-Not-Call Registry (NDNCR) has just not worked as telemarketers have continued to breach the citizen’s right to privacy, and suggested that NDNRC should be replaced by a “call registry” — that is, those wishing to receive telemarketers’ calls should register themselves for the purpose.
Remarkably, a little over eight months ago, this newspaper in its Times View had made precisely this suggestion. On the front page on November 18, 2007, we had said, ‘‘There’s a better way out of this mess than trying to make the do-not-call registry work — have a “call registry” instead. In other words, the default option should be that telemarketers cannot make unsolicited calls. Those who wish to receive calls can register themselves on the call register.’’
In response to the suggestion of a bench comprising Justices A K Mathur and Dalveer Bhandari, additional solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam said the Centre would consider it in all seriousness and get back to the court within six weeks. Subramaniam appeared to have been impressed by the suggestion, which he termed as ‘‘weighty’’.
On the issue of pesky calls, the SC has not just been concerned but proactive. Last year it had virtually forced the government to operationalize the “do-not-call registry” while dealing with a PIL filed by one Harsh Pathak accusing service providers of selling their data base to telemarketers who made unsolicited calls.
“In the last one year, we have experienced such calls galore. At least we are victims of it. A year back, you (the Centre) were not willing to implement the regulations. They were implemented after we threatened to do it through our order. After one year, we feel something more needs to be done,” the court said.
CALL DROPPED A year after the “do-notcall registry” got under way, nearly 8.3m cellphone users have registered Yet pesky calls continue. It’s time to launch a new registry of people who wish to receive commercial calls, says the Supreme Court Govt says it is difficult to take action against telemarketers not registered with DoT
SC asks govt to bar unregistered telemarketers from operating
Right to privacy is primary: SC
The SC on Thursday maintained that the yearold ‘National Do-Not-Call Registry’ (NDNCR) has just not worked as telemarketers have continued to breach the citizen’s right to privacy. ‘‘It is time to rechristen the ‘Do-Not-Call Registry’ as ‘Call Receivers Registry’,’’ said the court and explained that those who registered in the latter would only be entitled to receive calls from telemarketers. “Persons interested in commercial calls must volunteer and get registered. Those who do not wish to register should not be disturbed,” it said.
Additional solicitor-general Gopal Subramaniam said the government was finding it difficult to take action against many telemarketers, who were not registered with the telecom department and continued to escape the rigours of the rule banning unsolicited commercial calls. On this, the SC directed the government to stop the operations of unregistered telemarketers right away. When the government informed the court that till date, nearly 8.3 million mobile phone subscribers have registered in NDNCR, it wondered how could these pesky calls be still so rampant and bother so many people.
Subramaniam said the government has control over registered telemarketers, who come under the purview of penal regulations for making unsolicited calls. So it was imperative that no telemarketer be allowed to operate unless it is registered, he said. Considering the impact of the SC’s views on their marketing strategy, banks and service providers were adequately represented before the court. Their counsel, senior advocates T R Andhyarjuna and C S Vaidyanathan, informed the SC that the position was not as bad as was being projected. Till date, about 13,600 telemarketing operators have registered with the government, they said. They relied on figures to argue that through telemarketing, a lot of business has come to people. The court disagreed and asked: “For your business, do we have to suffer?” Vaidyanathan joined issue and said imposing a total ban on telemarketing would be at cross with the constitutional provision. But the SC rejected the argument, saying right to privacy always gets primacy.
With thanks from The Times of India 1 August 2008 P. 1 Delhi
With thanks from The Times of India 1 August 2008 P. 1 Delhi
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. LtdFor any query:- legalpoint@aol.in
No comments:
Post a Comment