According to Black law's dictionary, Privacy
is a right guaranteed to every
human being which determines that there will not be any kind of intervention/
interference in order to ensure the protection of individual's information.
has to ensure that there will not be following kinds of surveillance in order to
violate individual's right to privacy:
An imposition whereby another individual is restricted from experiencing an
individual or a situation.
The imposition of a restriction that is exclusive to an entity.
The prevention of searching for unknown information and
The prevention of attempts made to get to know the state of mind of an
Right to Privacy is a right to be let alone. Right to Privacy is a part of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
Judicial Journey of Right to Privacy in India
Kharak Singh vs. State of UP
In this case Kharak Singh was involved in Dacoity but acquitted because of lack
of evidence. Police used to check his house at any time and followed his every
movement to gather information and evidence. He challenged that this
surveillance is against the fundamental rights. Article 19(1)(d) i.e. Right to
move freely in the territory of India and Article 21 i.e. Right to life and
personal liberty of the Constitution was challenged.
Court rejected that privacy can be challenged under Article 21 and observed that
Article 21 examines the procedure established by law in regard to deprivation of
life and liberty. Taking the view of RM Malkhani case
it was said that the right
of an innocent person will be protected like telephone tapping but not of a
guilty person where police are taking efforts to safeguard the citizen even if
the police is doing it by the unlawful method.
R M Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra
In this case, Court said that the when one person is allowing another person to
record his call, then we cannot say he will damage or tamper the information or
it is an act of coercion when he attaches a tape recorder to his telephone.
Therefore it was held that Section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act,1885.
Gobind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
In the case, Regulation 855 and 856 of UP State Police Regulations was in
question where history sheet(any a record like the private record, criminal,
medical record of a personal record of a person) was opened when the petitioner
was in surveillance. The 3 judge bench favoured the judgement of Kharak Singh
and validated Police regulation except visiting in the night.
During this case, law in the US had evolved and the Court took the reference of
the case Griswold vs. Connecticut where the advice or information related to
contraceptive methods was given to the married person and it was held invalid.
In the case Jane Roe vs. Henry Wade, the court said that the right to abort a
child by married women is a part of the right of personal privacy.
In the present case also court did not find the reference of Right to Privacy in
the Constitution but pointed out that certain rights should be protected as
fundamental privacy rights. The court said that privacy should be dealt with
care and can only be denied when the superior show countervailing interest is
important. The law infringing the fundamental rights must satisfy the compelling
State interest test. The question can be raised that State interest is of that
importance that it can justify the infringement of rights.
As the right to privacy was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the
Court tried to give it a broader view. It founded that right of privacy overlaps
with liberty. Justice Mathew explained that any right to privacy must
encompass and protect the intimacies of the home , the family, marriage, mother
hood , procreation and child rearing. Court further said that in any event,
the right to privacy needs to go through case by case development. When we make
the assumption that the right to personal liberty, right to move freely, freedom
of speech develops the independent right of privacy which can be said as
fundamental right still we cannot assume it is an absolute right.
Court further said that fundamental right must be subjected to restrictions on
the basis of public interest. Therefore it held that fundamental right which was
given under Article 21 was not violated in the present case as it says, no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except by the procedure
established by law. So the procedure is given in Regulation 853(c) and 857 is
reasonable according to the Court.
Malak Singh vs. State of Punjab and Haryana
In this case, Section 23 of the Punjab Police Rules was in question where Police
have to maintain surveillance register of all the convicted person and
reasonably believed to be a habitual offender. The Court said that the most
important purpose of the Constitution is to prevent the crime. The court
believed that the surveillance can be intrusive and it may encroach privacy of a
person and can infringe Article 21 and Article 19(1)(d)which cannot be
permitted. Court took the reference of European Convention of Human Rights where
it was said that respect should be given to one's private and family life.
Court further said that it is not unlawful to conduct surveillance by police for
the purpose of preventing crime and confined to Rule 23.7. Court held that
police cannot add the names of any person they wish to in the surveillance
register, it should be according to the Rule 23.4 and it should not offend the
dignity of the individual. The court will not hesitate to give protection to the
person if there is excessive surveillance.
In this case court does not specifically consider privacy as a fundamental right
but it indicated the serious encroachment on privacy have an effect upon
personal liberty and the freedom of movement under Article 19(1)(d) and Article
21. The court said the kind of encroachment which takes away the dignity of a
person would be the hindrance in the exercise of fundamental rights given by the
State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar
In this case, High Court observes that the victim was involved in the sexual
activity because of which her character was in question. The court said that
she accepted the dark side of her life and even with this virtue is entitled to
privacy and nobody can take her privacy as he pleases. She is equally entitled
to protect her privacy under the law and her evidence cannot be thrown on these
grounds. The court made a strong point on the bodily integrity of women as an
incident of her question.
Life Insurance Corporation of India v Prof Manubhai D Shah
The decision in this case wrongly attributed to the decision in Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt Ltd v Union of India which stated Article 19(1)(a)
includes the privacy of communications but it only cited UN report and nothing
R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu
In this case petitioners were a part of a Tamil magazine, Nakkheeran and the
respondent was the Inspector General of Prisons. Petitioners do not want the
Prison Inspector to interfere in the publication of the autobiography of a
prisoner Shankar who wants to publish it in Petitioners magazine. Prison
officials forced Shankar to ask Magazine to not to publish it. Petitioners
filed a petition under Article 32 and said that it is violating theirs and
prisoners right of freedom of expression.
Justice Jeevan Reddy viewed the right to privacy in two ways: damages for the
tort committed by invading privacy unlawfully and second, it is a constitutional
right. The court took the reference of Kharak Singh and Gobind case.
Court held that State and its officials cannot put prior restrictions on the
publication of autobiography and said that the right to privacy is suggested in
Article 21. As the autobiography would become public after the publication,
therefore State cannot be restrained from suing for defamation.
Mr. X vs. Hospital Z
In this case, the Appellant who was a doctor was accompanying a patient for
surgery and he was found HIV+ when he was tested for blood donation. He that by
disclosing this fact by the Hospital, he was excluded from the society and filed
for damages before NCDRC saying that hospital cannot disclose this fact and it
resulted in calling off his marriage and social exclusion.
The court said the rule of Confidentiality had an exception where public
interest will override this duty.
The Court held that the right to privacy is
not absolute and is subject to action lawfully taken to prevent crime or
disorder or to protect the health, morals and the rights and freedoms of others.
Court further held that public disclosure of even true facts may amount to an
invasion of the right to privacy or the right to be let alone when a doctor
breaches confidentiality. But this disclosure saved one woman from getting
infected therefore it does not violate the right to privacy.
PUCL vs. Union of India
In this case, constitutional validity of section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph
Act 1885 was challenged and it requested to give an alternative for adopting
procedural safeguard for telephone tapping which is arbitrary in nature. Court
held that telephone tapping infringes Article 19(1)(a) if it is not authorized
by Article 19(2).The court relied on Article 17 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights.
The court said it is necessary to lay down the
procedure for the protection of the right to privacy unless Parliament frames
rules related to the procedure. Court also gave the guidelines which need to be
followed in all cases which are related to phone tapping. The Judgement
considered the decisions of Kharak Singh, Gobind and Rajagopal Case
said that the right to privacy is embodied as constitutionally protected right
under Article 21.
State of Karnataka v Krishnappa
In this case, the eight-year-old child was rapped and the Court held sexual
violence is a unfawful interference of the privacy of a person and his/her
Sudhansu Sekhar Sahoo v State of Orissa
The court observed the same thing as in the case of Krishnappa.
Sharda vs. Dharmpal
In this case, divorce was filed and the application was given to conduct a
medical examination of the appellant and it was opposed by her. It was allowed
by the Trial Court. Trial. Appellant argued that it is violating the personal
liberty and Family Court does not have jurisdiction to force her for medical
examination. The question whether compulsive subjecting of a person for medical
examination violates Article 21 or not. Court took the observation of MP Sharma
and Kharak Singh in which it was held right to privacy is not guaranteed
constitutional right. And it held that in matrimonial case, the allegation can
be proved only by medical test and therefore right to privacy is not infringed.
District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad v Canara Bank
Section 73 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was in question in which the collector had
the power to inspect registers, books and records, papers, documents and
proceedings in the custody of any public officer for the discovery of fraud or
omission. It was invalidated by the High Court by taking the reference from the
evolution of privacy in US Court. Justice Lahoti considered the Judgement in
Kharak Singh as the guidance on right to the privacy issue.
In the judgement,
it was supported that right to privacy is guaranteed by Article 19 and 21 from
It also said that the foundation of this is not only coming from the judgements
but also from India's international commitment like UDHR and ICCPR. Right to
privacy is embedded in person; it cannot be lost as a result of confidential
documents or information being parted with by the customer to the custody of the
It also said that the power of Collector to access bank records cannot be
delegated to a private person. When the information is given to the third
person, it is reasonably expected that it will be only used for the purpose it
is given. If it is taken for the legitimate aim of the State, then it is a duty
to ensure that it will not be accessed to the private person or entity. It is an
important case for informational privacy.
P R Metrani v Commissioner of Income Tax
Section 132(5) of the Income Tax Act,1961 was in question which talks about the
search and seizure.it was found that the provision leads to serious encroachment
into the privacy of a person.
Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration
The question was raised on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP) Act,
1971. The woman was alleged to be raped while she staying in a welfare
institution run by the Govt. The District Administration went to High court to
seek permission for the termination of pregnancy. The pregnant women to have a
child according to the Medical experts but the High Court directed for the
termination of the pregnancy. The High Court had issued this direction without
the consent of the woman which was mandated under the statute where the woman is
a major and does not suffer from a mental illness. But she was suffering from a
case of mild to moderate mental retardation.
Chief Justice Balakrishnan held that according to Section 3, the reproductive
choice of a woman should be respected. It is a part of personal liberty given in
Article 21. Woman's right to privacy, dignity, bodily integrity should be
Woman have no restriction in making choices related to reproduction,
refusing to take part in any sexual activity or in use of birth control methods.
But in the present case, it was said State has a compelling interest in
protecting the life of a child. so, the termination can be allowed only if the
prescribed condition is fulfilled. Provision under MTP Act was considered a
reasonable restriction which is placed on reproductive choices. There is a need
for consent if the pregnant lady is a minor or mentally ill by her Guardian.
In this case, the court recognizes the constitutional right of a woman related
to reproductive choice which is given under Article 21. However, Court degraded
such right of a woman related to her privacy, dignity and integrity.
Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra
In this case, Petitioner violated the interim custody order and returned to
India with the child. Therefore, the US Court issued an arrest warrant and
INTERPOL issued a red corner notice and it was challenged by the Petitioner. The
Court does not accept the plea by the Petitioner that CBI with the INTERPOL
breached the right to privacy. Court took the reference of Kharak Singh where it
was held that privacy is an essential ingredient of personal liberty and in
the Gobind vs. State of M.P. where it was held reasonable restriction can be
placed on Article 19.
Selvi v State of Karnataka
In this case, the investigative techniques were challenged on the ground that it
infringes Article 20(3) and Article 21. These techniques were narco-analysis,
polygraph test and Brain Electrical Activation Profile. The court said the
involuntary nature of the test will attract Article 20(3). Chief Justice
Balakrishnan took the reference of earlier judgments on privacy and further said
right against self-incrimination is a part of personal liberty which is given
under Article 21.
Amar Singh v Union of India
In this case, a petition was filed under Article 32 alleging that petitioner�s
phone was tapped by the telephone service provider. The Court held that the
telephone service provider has to work in the public interest. It needs to act
as a responsible agency and it cannot take action on any communication without
verifying the authenticity. It is intercepting telephone conversation of a
person and by this, it is entering into privacy rights the concerned person and
it is a fundamental right given under the constitution.
Ram Jethmalani v Union of India
In this case, PIL was for investigating the unaccounted money and to follow the
money trail by appointing a Special Investigating Team for this. Court held that
it will breach the privacy of an individual by checking the bank account details
and that too without establishing a prima facie case against that person.
An inquisitorial order, where citizens' fundamental right to privacy is
breached by fellow citizens is destructive of social order. The notion of
fundamental rights, such as a right to privacy as part of right to life, is
not merely that the State is enjoined from derogating from them. It also
includes the responsibility of the State to uphold them against the actions
of others in the society, even in the context of exercise of fundamental
rights by those others.
Court further held that the State can access the bank account details of any
citizen in relation to the investigation and to establish any crime but this
power of State cannot be used by a private citizen to force any citizen to show
the bank accounts to the public.
National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India
[(2014)5 SCC 438]
Petition was filed for the rights of transgender which was accepted by India in
various International Conventions like UDHR and ICCPR where it was said that
there should be no unlawful interference with anyone's privacy or in his /her
family. It was held that there should be harmony among International Obligation
and fundamental rights given under Article 14,15,19 and 21 of the Constitution.
It was held by Justice K S Radhakrishnan that Article 19(1) (a) protects the
person's private identity, their gender expression and its presentation.
Therefore, State cannot interfere in it even in the case of transgender, they
also have rights which is given under the above-mentioned Article 19(1)(a). It
was shown that the right to privacy is a part of gender identity which is given
in Article 15. Seeing Article 15 with Article 21, the right to privacy become
the constitutional right. Therefore, the right is not in just one fundamental
right but it is augmented in Part III of the Indian Constitution.
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v Union of India
[(2016)5 SCC 1]
In this case question was raised on the disclosure of the name of the candidate
for the appointment as a Supreme Court or High Court Judge. There is an issue on
which right will supersede, right to privacy or right to know of the citizen. It
struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment on the ground that it violates
basic structure. It was held that judicial primacy is compulsory according to
the Constitution and it is a part of basic structure which cannot be amended.
Independence of Judiciary is considered to be an integral part.
Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another v. Union of India and others
[(2014) 6 SCC 433]
In this case, Aadhaar Card Scheme
was challenged on the ground that collects
and compiling the demographic and biometric data of the residents of the country
to be used for various purposes is in breach of the fundamental right to privacy
embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. As there was no clarity or
confusion in earlier judicial precedents related to the constitutionality of
right to privacy, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the matter to a
constitutional bench consisting of 9 (nine) judges.
It was contended by the Petitioners that the right to privacy is a fundamental
right and it can be seen with the liberty and dignity of the person and it is
also indicated in Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 25 of the Constitution read with
many International Conventions in which India is a party. On the contrary, the
Union of India contended that right to privacy is not a fundamental right
guaranteed under the Constitution.
It was unanimously held that:
- The decision in M P Sharma which holds that the right to privacy is not
protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
- The decision in Kharak Singh to the extent that it holds that the right
to privacy is not protected by the Constitution stands over-ruled;
- The right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
- Decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh which has enunciated the position
in (iii) above lay down the correct position in law.
It was held that the right to privacy is the fundamental right which is given
under Article 21 of the Constitution It will be given the same protection as
other fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution.
- The Law Dictionary,available at:https://thelawdictionary.org/privacy/.
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. (2017)