IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Abhijit Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Reserve Bank of India & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 3693 of 2019 and C.M. No. 34242 of 2020 & W.P.(C) 11262 of 2020
Decided On : 07-08-2023
Google Pay - Violation of Regulatory and Privacy Norms - Aadhar Act 2016, Sections 29, 38, 43; Payments and Settlement Systems Act 2007, Sections 4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; Banking Regulation Act 1949
Fact of the Case:
The petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigations seeking to cease Google Pay's operations in India for violating regulatory and privacy norms. The petitioner alleged that Google Pay violated privacy norms by accessing and using consumers' personal data, including Aadhar details, without proper authorization.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Google Pay operates as a third-party UPI enabled app and does not fall within the definition of a Payment System under the PSS Act, 2007. The court also noted that NPCI is the operator of the UPI system and is authorized by the RBI, and Google Pay is a mere third-party app provider for which no authorization from RBI is required under the provisions of PSS Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the unauthorized operations of Google Pay, violation of privacy norms, and the need for proper authorization under the relevant acts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions of the PSS Act, 2007, and the role of Google Pay as a third-party app provider in the UPI system.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that Google Pay's operations did not violate the regulatory and privacy norms under the relevant acts.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitions have been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigations, for the issuance of appropriate writs, order or directions directing the Respondent authorities to direct Google Pay India Services Private Limited to cease their operations in India for violation of regulatory and privacy norms.
2. In W.P.(C) 3693/2019, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"a) Writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents particularly Reserve Bank of India to immediately order Google India Digital Services Private Limited doing business as Google Pay to stop its unauthorised operation in India as Payment and Settlement Systems for its failure to comply and obtain authorization of the Reserve Ban k of India before commencement of the operations as per the provision prescribed under section 4 and sub section 1 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007;
b) To conduct compliance audit of the Google India Digital Services Private Limited doing business as Google Pay doing unauthorised operation in India as Payment and Settlement Systems under the provisions of section 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007;
c) To impose penalties on the Google India Digital Services Private Limited doing business as Google Pay doing unauthorised operation in India as Payment and Settlement Systems under the provisions of section 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 for contravention of the laws, regulations and procedure;
d) any other order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favor of the Petitioner;
e) Cost of the Present Petition be also allowed in favor of the Petitioner and against the respondent."
3. In W.P.(C) 11262/2020, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Kindly issue the writ of mandamus of any other writ that the Honourable Court deems justified upon the Respondent No. 1 UIDAI to initiate actions against the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Google Pay under the aegis of Section 29 Section 38 and Section 43 of the Aadhar Act 2016 for collecting, storing and using the Aadhar information of the citizens in the violation of objects of the Aadhar Act, 2016.
B. Kindly issue the writ of mandamus of any other writ that the Honourable Court deems justified upon the Respondent No. 1 UIDAI to issue appropriate directions under the aegis of Section 23A, Section 28, Section 29 of the Aadhar Act, 2016 for the protection of unauthorized access to the Aadhar information of the Citizens of India.
C. Kindly issue the writ of mandamus of any other writ that the Honourable Court deems justified upon the Respondent No. 1 UIDAI and Respondent No. 2 i.e. Reserve Bank of India to prevent unauthorized access of the Aadhar and Banking information of the citizens of India in the banking and financial system.
D. Any other order or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favor of the Petitioner or interest of justice."
4. It is stated that the information brought on record in the present petition has been obtained by the Petitioner through RTI applications and representations filed before government authorities such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that are entrusted with the responsibility of implementing, administrating, and managing provisions of the Aadhar Act, 2016; Payments and Settlement Systems Act, 2007; and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, respectively.
5. It is stated that through these petitions, the Petitioner seeks to bring forth questions of public interest, insofar as the operation of Google Pay services in India are concerned.
6. The Petitioner contends that Google Pay has violated privacy norms by gaining access to and using consumers' personal data such as Aadha
The main legal point established is that Google Pay, operating as a third-party UPI enabled app, does not require separate authorization under the PSS Act, 2007, as it is not a Payment System Provide....
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred when a complete code exists under specific statutes, such as the PSS Act and the Competition Act, which provide mechanisms for dispute resolution.
Banks must prove customer negligence to deny liability for unauthorized transactions; mere downloading of an app does not constitute negligence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.