The confidentiality agreement that the government had previously invoked as evidence of data protection safeguards states in a section called “confidentiality” that there are sufficient data protection clauses in the agreement that give the government full control and right to the data, the affidavit says. “Even after the contract is terminated, Sprinklr will not have any data,” he said. The government said the choice of jurisdiction at New York Courts was a standard contractual form for companies like Sprinklr, which is headquartered in the United States. “The government has negotiated a very viable agreement that guarantees both legal and technical certainty of the data collected and processed,” he said. Details of the agreement have been published via the website. The agreement signed on 2 April expires on 24 September. According to the agreement, data can be communicated from 25 March to 24 September 2000. Previously, a sprinkler letter to the IT secretary also mentioned data protection. The petitioner argues that the agreement is contrary to the provisions of the Information Technology Act of 2000.

The order published Wednesday mentions that the agreement is in effect from March 25 to September 24 or the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, whichever is earlier. The two letters of affirmation, written on 11 and 12 April, however, show strong differences and change their tone as to the date. A petition has been filed with the Kerala Supreme Court challenging the agreement between the Kerala government and the US-based Sprinklr Company on the processing of data relating to COVID-19 patients. The petition filed by a Balu Gopalakrishnan, a lawyer, is a bad game in the decision of the Pinarayi Vijayan government, the services of a private company based abroad for storage and. The affidavit also shows that the Kerala government`s agreement with Sprinklr weakens the rights of the people. He said the contract does not set out the amount of compensation individuals should receive in the event of a breach of privacy or misuse of information. The data was collected in the field through a mobile medical app developed by Sprinklr. The UDF alliance and the Congress-led BJP rejected the deal and said the deal risked important health data from thousands of people without their consent. Confidentiality and service agreements signed with the company indicate that ownership of health-related data remains with the Kerala government, even though it has been temporarily hosted on Sprinklr servers. There is no exchange of financial favors in the agreement. Mr. Sivasankaran, secretary of the State Department of Information Technology and agent of the Special Division, had signed an agreement with Sprinklr of New Jersey.

The pact had been sung without the permission of the legal and financial services. In order to affirm its transparency, the government also published documents relating to the contract it had signed with Sprinklr on April 2. Documents include the order form, service agreement, company privacy policy, and a confidentiality agreement. The documents indicate that the data belongs to the government of Kerala. After the allegations, the government changed the domain name for entering citizencenter.sprinklr.com data in citizencenter.kerala.gov.in. The government made the request in response to a question from the court as to whether the agreement with the company was still in force. Concerns have been expressed that trust in health data in a US company is jeopardizing the privacy of Covid 19 patients and people in quarantine. Opposition parties have called for the agreement to be repealed. “The second respondent (Union) is the authority that should approve such decisions of the State. It is a sad truth that the second respondent was never consulted prior to the execution of the alleged agreement and that his consent was never sought.

. . .