26 July 2024 – The Indian Express

Issues associated with the Post Office Act 2023

• The Post Office Act, 2023, which was approved by Parliament has many benefits, but it also raises questions about the unrestricted interception capabilities granted to post office officials. Concerns include the vague nature of the word “emergency” and the lack of procedural protections, which raise the possibility of authorities abusing their ability to intercept communications arbitrarily.

Which aspects of the Post Office Act of 2023 stand out the most?

Secretary of State for Postal Services:

• The recently enacted Act gives the Director General of Postal Services the power to establish fees for these services and to create regulations about activities necessary to provide different additional services as may be mandated by the central government.
• This is noteworthy because it updates the established fees for all services rendered by post offices, including regular postal services, and does away with the requirement for parliamentary approval.

Shipment Interception:

According to the Act, any officer may be authorised by notification by the Central Government to cause any item being transmitted by the Post Office to be intercepted, opened, or held for the following reasons:

• the state’s security,
• cordial ties with other countries,
• Emergency, public safety, or public order
• the occurrence of any infraction against this Act’s provisions.
• A more comprehensive component of the new Act intends to stop drug trafficking and the unlawful transfer of illicit goods through mail shipments.
• An official may conduct an interception with the authority granted by the Central Government through notification.

Postcodes and Identifiers:

• “The Central Government may prescribe standards for addressing on the items, address identifiers, and usage of postcodes,” according to Section 5 Sub-section 1 of the Act.
• With the help of this provision, precise premise identification will be possible by replacing physical addresses with digital identifiers based on geographic coordinates.
• Although digital addressing is a futuristic idea, it has the potential to improve mail and parcel delivery accuracy and streamline the sorting procedure.

Elimination of Penalties and Offences:

• The penalties for postal officers who steal, misappropriate, or destroy mail items—which were included in the original Act of 1898—are absent from the Act.
• Penalties outlined in Section 7:
• Anybody who uses a service offered by the Post Office is responsible for covering the associated costs.
• The charges mentioned in Sub-section (1) shall be recouped as if they were unpaid arrears of land revenue owed by the individual who refuses or neglects to pay them.

Eliminates Centre’s Exclusiveness:

• Section 4 of the 1898 Act, which gave the Centre the sole right to send all letters via postal mail, has been repealed by the current Act.
• However, by simply referring to their messengers as “documents” and “parcels” instead of “letters,” courier firms have been able to get around the Act of 1898.

Indian Post Office Act 1898:

• Its goal was to reform and combine the laws pertaining to post offices in India when it was put into effect on July 1st, 1898.
• It allows for the central government’s postal services to be regulated.
• It creates a monopoly for the Central government over letter delivery and gives it exclusive privilege over letter delivery.

What are the Post Office Act of 2023’s Deficits?

Postal service regulations differ from those of courier services:

• The public and commercial sectors now regulate comparable postal services under different regimes.
• As of right now, no particular laws govern private courier services. This results in a few significant variations.
• The 1898 Act, for example, established a framework for intercepting commodities sent via India Post. Such a clause for private courier services does not exist. This provision is still in the current Act.
• The way the framework for consumer protection is applied is another significant distinction.
• Private courier services are subject to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, however India Post services are not. These provisions are kept in the Post Office Act, 2023, which aims to replace the 1898 Act.
• Fundamental Rights Are Violated by Procedural Safeguards Not Existing:
• There are no procedural protections against postal article interception included in the Bill. Both the freedom of speech and expression and the right to privacy may be violated by this.
• In People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that a proper and equitable process was required to control the authority to intercept communications.
• Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to privacy as a component of the right to life and liberty) cannot be upheld if this is not the case.

The Line That Separates “Emergency” from Reasonable Restrictions:

• During its examination of the 1898 Act, the Law Commission (1968) noted that the phrase “emergency” is not defined expressly, providing a great deal of latitude for interception. It remains in the current Act as well.
• It further stated that if a public emergency does not impact public order, state security, or any other grounds listed in the Constitution, it cannot be a legally acceptable basis for interception.
• Exclusion from Liability for Service Failures:
• The Act’s foundation differs from the legislation that governs railroads, another commercial service that the federal government provides.
• Tribunals for handling complaints against Indian Railways for service deficiencies are established by the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
• These include complaints about things lost, damaged or not delivered, as well as requests for goods or fare refunds.

Elimination of All Penalties and Offences:

• The Act of 1898 stipulated that a postal officer might be imprisoned for up to two years, fined, or both for illegally accessing postal articles. Opening a mail bag could result in penalties for someone other than postal workers.
• In contrast, under the 2023 Act, there won’t be any penalties for such behaviour. This could have negative effects on people’s right to privacy.
• Other laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC), do not address violations related to postal services.

Uncertainty Regarding Consequences in Specific Situations:

• According to the Act, no officer would be held accountable for any services rendered by India Post.
• This exception does not apply in cases where the officer purposefully or fraudulently caused a loss, a delay, or incorrect service delivery.
• The Act does not, however, outline the penalties that would be imposed should an officer engage in such behaviour.
• Before the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023 revision to the 1898 Act, these offences carried a maximum two-year prison sentence, a fine, or both.

What Path Should We Take Next?

Include Sturdy Procedural Safety Measures:

• Establish thorough and transparent procedural protections to prevent articles sent by India Post from being intercepted.
• To safeguard people’s rights to privacy and freedom of speech and expression, this should involve supervisory procedures, court orders, and respect to constitutional precepts.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. v. Indian Union & Ors. (2017), it was decided that the freedom to communicate is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution since it is a component of the right to privacy.

Justifications for Interception:

• Make sure the justifications for interception—particularly the definition of “emergency”—are precise and consistent with constitutionally permissible limitations.
• Restrict the use of emergency authorities in order to protect people’s rights and avoid possible abuse.
• The Distt. Supreme Court. The 2005 case of Registrar & Collector, Hyderabad & Anr v. Canara Bank established that a customer’s right to privacy is not violated when they turn up private papers or information to a bank.
• Therefore, giving the post office access to some of your personal belongings for correspondence does not violate your right to privacy.
• The Court has also concluded in numerous rulings that the requirement of a written record of justifications prior to the execution of a search and seizure is imposed by the right to privacy.

Framework for Equitable Liability:

• Establish clear guidelines for liability to ensure the Post Office is held accountable without compromising its independence and effectiveness.
• Pay attention to potential abuse problems and avoid conflicts of interest, particularly when determining appropriate service prices.
• Any deliberate abuse of interception authorities by the responsible authority must be held accountable; the “good faith” clause does not absolve them of responsibility.
• Otherwise, the constitutional courts would be the sole place to turn for remedies (including compensation) in the event that these statutes violated someone’s right to privacy.

Handling Illegal Openings:

• Reintroduce the Act’s particular crimes and punishments that deal with postal personnel’ unlawful opening of articles.
• To protect consumers’ right to privacy, provide a legal framework that holds people accountable for misconduct, fraud, theft, and other offences.
• “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation,” states Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, to which India is a party.
• Legislative changes are necessary to handle today’s issues, but individual rights and security considerations must be balanced. The dynamic legal terrain necessitates meticulous evaluation to guarantee that the interception clauses are consistent with international commitments, fundamental constitutional values, and the requirement to protect personal privacy.
• To avoid future constitutional issues, proactive actions are necessary, such as the creation of explicit procedural safeguards, accountability mechanisms, and conformity to international standards.