Kerala High Court Disposes of Petitions Challenging Sprinklr Data Agreement During Pandemic
The Kerala High Court has disposed of a batch of petitions that challenged the controversial data management agreement between the state government and Sprinklr Inc, a US-based data analytics company, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that no ulterior motive could be found on the state's part in collecting and sharing data with Sprinklr, bringing some closure to a long-standing legal dispute.
Court Criticizes Procedural Lapses in Agreement Execution
However, the bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice V M Syam Kumar made critical observations regarding the execution of the agreement. The court noted that the principal secretary of the electronics and information technology department ought not to have entered into the agreement without obtaining proper cabinet approval or the chief minister's consent. This amounted to gross dereliction of duty, for which appropriate steps should be taken by the state government. The court cautioned that such a situation should not recur in the future.
Background of the Petitions and Agreement
The High Court was hearing petitions filed by prominent figures including former minister and former leader of opposition Ramesh Chennithala, BJP leader K Surendran, Jyothikumar Chamakkala of Kollam, Balu Gopalakrishnan of Thiruvananthapuram, and others. These petitions challenged the impugned agreement signed on April 2, 2020.
The agreement was designed to analyze large volumes of data relating to COVID-affected persons in isolation and their primary and secondary contacts. It aimed to establish a constant channel of communication with affected persons and collate unstructured data. The state government entered into this agreement because government-owned entities like C-DIT and Information Kerala Mission were not technically equipped to manage such extensive data volumes during the pandemic emergency.
Data Privacy Concerns Raised by Petitioners
The petitioners primarily challenged the agreement on grounds of data privacy. They contended that while certain clauses restricted Sprinklr from sharing information, there was no clarity on the consequences in case of a breach. This was especially concerning given the difficulty of pursuing legal remedies in a foreign jurisdiction like the United States. However, the High Court noted that no such data breach situation had arisen so far, mitigating some of these concerns.
Review Committees Highlight Procedural Violations
The court referenced reports from reviewing committees constituted by the state government to examine the legality and propriety of the agreement. These reports found that the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure for the Government of Kerala, the Kerala Secretariat Office Manual, and the Secretariat Instructions were not followed by the then principal secretary while entering into the agreement. Furthermore, the reports recorded that neither the law department nor the finance department was consulted to ascertain the propriety of the agreement, highlighting significant administrative oversights.
Court's Decision Based on Agreement Termination
In its final analysis, the High Court considered that the agreement was short-lived and had been terminated. Sprinklr had accepted the termination and made a categorical statement that no issues would arise with respect to data sharing. The company also confirmed that all data collected had been purged. Given these factors, the court held that no further orders were required and accordingly disposed of the petitions.
This ruling underscores the importance of proper procedural adherence in government agreements, especially those involving sensitive data, while also acknowledging the practical challenges faced during public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic.
