New Income Tax Bill serious threat to digital privacy: KT Rama Rao
BRS working president demands answers from Prime Minister Modi and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on the sweeping powers being granted to I-T officials under the new Bill
Hyderabad: BRS working president KT Rama Rao raised an alarm over the Centre’s proposed new Income Tax Bill, calling it a serious threat to digital privacy. He demanded answers from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on the sweeping powers being granted to I-T officials.
In a strongly worded statement, Rama Rao condemned the provisions of the new Bill, which indicate an alarming overreach by the government under the pretext of tax enforcement.
“The new Bill allows unchecked access to citizens’ social media, emails, and online trading accounts under the guise of tax scrutiny. This is nothing but mass surveillance,” he said.
He warned that the unprecedented intrusion into virtual digital spaces could lead to harassment and misuse.
With financial data already under multiple reporting mechanisms, he said the draconian intrusion tramples on fundamental rights and digital privacy of citizens.
“Who will hold officials accountable if there is any misuse of this overreaching provision?” he asked, demanding accountability from the Prime Minister and the Union Finance Minister, on regulating these powers.
He called it a blatant assault on digital privacy and urged citizens and opposition to oppose the Bill, seeking amendments to balance tax enforcement with privacy protection.
The Income Tax Bill, introduced in February 2025, significantly expands tax authorities’ powers beyond the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 247 allows officials to access and search any “virtual digital space” — broadly defined under Section 261(i) as social media, emails, and online accounts, if tax evasion is suspected, effective April 1, 2026. This permits overriding digital security without clear safeguards, unlike the current law’s focus on physical assets.
Legal experts warn of potential privacy violations under Article 21, as upheld in the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment.
