-

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Uttarakhand High Court 2019-05-31 X v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. AIR 2019 Utr 138, MANU/UC/0448/2019 Writ Petition (Criminal) 1 Autonomy/Dignity - Right to gender identity is a part of right to privacy Criminal Tribes' Act, 1871. S. 376, 377 and 385 IPC "This Court is of the view that after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the NALSA's case, petitioner's right to determine her sex and gender has to be respected and honored. The petitioner has identified herself as a female', therefore, 'she' has to be treated as a female for all the purposes, whatsoever without any further confirmation from any authority." Disposed. SLP Pending.

TELANGANA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Telangana High Court 2020-11-06 Ramgopal Varma and Ors. v. Perumalla Amrutha MANU/TL/0352/2020 Civil Miscelaneous Appeal 2 Press Freedom - Once the matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy is no longer subsisting and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment for press and media Section 3(ii)(v) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 "No doubt a person undoubtedly has a right to privacy in relation to her family, marriage, procreation, motherhood and child-bearing and none can publish anything concerned with these matters without his/her consent. Yet, there is an exception to the said rule i.e., that any publication concerning these aspects would become unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. In other words, once the matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy is no longer subsisting and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment for press and media among others. There are of course some exceptions to this exception, with which we are not concerned." Disposed

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) 2019-03-07 Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2021 (1) RLW 262 (Raj.), MANU/RH/0098/2019 S.B. Civil Writ Petition 1 Autonomy/Dignity - Right of an unmarried mother not to disclose the paternity of the child. Section 4 of the Rajasthan Conduct Rules of 1971 "In ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi): MANU/SC/0718/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court recognized the right of an unmarried mother not to disclose the paternity of the child and it would amount to violate her fundamental right to privacy, if she is compelled to disclose name and particulars of father of her child. ... The norms of moralities of the society cannot supersede the right of privacy and right of choice of relationship of an individual and no person can be punished by his employer for such behaviour or relationship." Disposed

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Punjab and Haryana High Court 2018-07-20 A and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2018) 191 PLR 596, MANU/PH/1052/2018 CWP 1 Status as a Fundamental Right/Informational Privacy - Advance notice to parents under Special Marriage Act, violative of right to privacy S. 5 and 6 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 "In the considered view of this Court the CMCL, except as indicated below, deserves to be disregarded as its terms and conditions largely violate the rights to privacy of the petitioners which is now declared fundamental right. The provisions appear particularly offensive and excessive executive action beyond the purview of the Act and have, therefore, to be ignored save and except the provision of residence/domicile to confer jurisdiction on the Marriage Officer in the last sentence of condition No. 11. But the word "permanent" in condition 11 will be read down to mean also temporary residence which would suffice if stay is for 30 days prior to the filing of the application under Section 5 of the Act. ... However condition No. 14 is to be obeyed as it has statutory backing and shall be employed in the manner prescribed under Section 14 of the Act. Advance notice to parents of the petitioners shall be dispensed with as are not required to strictly maintain privacy rights, their right to life and liberty" Disposed

PATNA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Patna High Court 2020-12-02 Ajay Kumar Singh v. Director General of Investigation, Income Tax and Ors. 2021 (1) BLJ 340, MANU/BH/0742/2020 Civil Writ Jurisdiction 2 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Search and Seizure operations with proper authorization does not violate right to privacy. S. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 "Search and seizure proceedings ... empowers the Revenue Department to bypass the privacy of an assessee or any individual, whom the Revenue has a 'reason to believe,' would hold some information regarding tax evasion activities. In light of this power which clearly encroaches against the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, in as much as their privacy is concerned, must be contained within the limits of the law. Hence a strict reading of these empowering sections is necessary to avoid the pitfall of granting unfettered powers to the Revenue Department." Disposed

ORISSA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Orissa High Court 2020-11-23 Subhranshu Rout v. State of Odisha MANU/OR/0270/2020 Bail Application 1 Right to de-referencing/Right to be forgotten/ Status as a fundamental right - Right of a victim of sexual offences to have offensive posts erased from any public platform The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 "Though the statute prescribes penal action for the accused for such crimes, the rights of the victim, especially, her right to privacy which is intricately linked to her right to get deleted in so far as those objectionable photos have been left unresolved. ... In such cases, either the victim herself or the prosecution may, if so advised, seek appropriate orders to protect the victim's fundamental right to privacy, by seeking appropriate orders to have such offensive posts erased from the public platform, irrespective of the ongoing criminal process." Disposed
Orissa High Court 2020-08-16 Ananga Kumar Otta v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/OR/0215/2020 Writ Petition (PIL) 2 Informational privacy - Public disclosure of identity of quarantined/Covid-19 infected persons Regulation 3 (ix) of the Odisha COV/D-19 Relations, 2020. Section 33(m) read with Section 20-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. "The right to privacy of them, being implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, i.e., right-to life and liberty though not absolute and subjected to reasonable restriction, considering the adverse impact of such disclosure of identity of a patient and also persons in quarantine as well as their family members, as stated hereinbefore, we hope and trust that the State shall take further steps if not already taken to keep the personal information masked by applying appropriate method if not there, such as, providing code number for keeping the details in anonymity and keep utmost confidentiality of such information in different intradepartmental communication, as from the different instances brought to our notice, we have reason to believe that there is pilferage of the personal details unauthorisedly in some cases by some persons. So also, we hope and trust that before disclosing the identity of Covid-19 infected persons or persons in quarantine in exceptional circumstances, as stated in the Regulation, to achieve the goal, the State shall also must-take note the fact that the same is subject to scrutiny of triple test prescribed in the case of Puttaswamy (supra) before invasion of such right to privacy of the persons in quarantine/Covid- 19 infected persons alive ordeal." Disposed

MADRAS HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Madras High Court 2020-11-23 Sanjay Bhandari and Ors. v. The Secretary of Govt. of India and Ors. MANU/TN/6319/2020 W.P. 1 Phone Tapping - Phone tapping orders meant for detection, prevention, investigation and prosecution of criminal/corrupt activities do not amount to a violation of the right to privacy. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that telephonic tapping cannot happen unless specific criteria as mentioned in Section 5 (2) of Indian Telegraph Act are satisfied along with the criteria laid down in the case. The circumstances in which such permission can be granted is when there is a specific public emergency and the same related to some matter relating to sovereignty and the integrity of India; the security of the states; friendly relationship with foreign states; public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. These steps laid down have been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd) and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in MANU/SC/1044/2017. "The first respondent passed the orders for detection, prevention, investigation and prosecution of corrupt activities of the petitioners herein in accordance with the provision under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Therefore, this Court finds no violation of Section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act and also it would not amount to violation of the right to privacy" Disposed
Madras High Court 2020-06-01 A. Venkatesan v. The State Information Commissioner and Ors. MANU/TN/3387/2020 W.P. 1 Right to know and access information - Special enactments may restrict access to certain information under Right to Information Act to protect right to privacy of certain individuals. Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Sections 158(6), 160, 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 1 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. "the right of access to the CCTNS portal has been thoughtfully restricted only to stakeholders (which undoubtedly includes the insurer) on payment of prescribed fee, and it cannot be carped that there is no provision for other intermeddlers, who are in no way connected with it, for using that facility, as it is likely to otherwise cause invasion of the privacy of the victims and the vehicle owners by misuse of their personal information." Disposed

MADRAS HIGH COURT (MADURAI BENCH)

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) 2020-07-03 Thirumagan and Ors. v. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Ors. 2020 (4) MLJ (Crl) 133, MANU/TN/3574/2020 WP (MD) 1 Surveillance, search and seizure/Right to de-referncing/ Right to be forgotten - Court issued guidelines to police for history-sheeting Habitual Offenders Act and Chapter XLII of the Police Standing Orders "The need for effective policing (through history-sheeting), and, the arbitrary and malafide exercise of police power in history-sheeting (an individual), are conceptually different. Having stated that history sheeting has the potential to imperil the fundamental right of the person history-sheeted under Article 21, then in terms of Article 21, any limitation on the right to life could be attempted only as per the 'procedure established by law'. ... If prevention of crime is the central theme that provides a justification for history-sheeting, and if the decision to history sheet is only an administrative action, it then follows that whenever an administrative action forsakes fairness and ignores objectivity, arbitrariness invites itself to hold the action in contempt of the Constitutional doctrine of equality. Conversely, every action that violates the fundamental rights cherished under Part III of the Constitution, proprio vigore will be arbitrary." Disposed
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) 2019-05-28 Rahmath Nisha v. The Additional Director General of Prison and Ors. 2019 CriLJ 4041, MANU/TN/3075/2019 WP (MD) 1 Dignity - Right to life, personal liberty includes right of convicts or jail inmates to have conjugal visits with privacy. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Rule 529 and 531 of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983 "Rule 531 (2)... which was introduced in the year 2000 will have to be read down in view of the recent rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as set out earlier. Unless it is so read down, the right to dignity inhering in the prisoner and his spouse would certainly be infringed. ... While private prison cottages may be a distant prospect, the privacy and dignity of the prisoners should be scrupulously protected. Conversations between prisoner and his spouse should be unmonitored." Disposed
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) 2019-04-22 Arunkumar and Ors. v. The Inspector General of Registration and Ors. AIR 2019 Mad 265, MANU/TN/1403/2019 WP (MD) 1 Autonomy - Right to express gender identity a part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 "In the case on hand, the second petitioner herein has chosen to express her gender identity as that of a woman. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court this falls within the domain of her personal autonomy and involves her right to privacy and dignity. It is not for the State authorities to question this self determination" Disposed
Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) 2019-01-02 G. Vasanthi v. Muneeshwaran (2019) 2 MLJ 498, MANU/TN/1008/2019 C.R.P. PD (MD) 1 Bodily integrity/Autonomy - A court's order for medical examination is not violative of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act "The contention with regard to violation of fundamental right cannot hold good in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharmpal MANU/SC/0260/2003 : The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that where divorce is sought on grounds such as impotency, schizophrenia etc., normally without there being medical examination, it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allegation made by one spouse against the other spouse seeking divorce on such a ground is correct or not. In order to substantiate such allegation, the petitioner would always insist on medical examination. If the respondent avoids such medical examination on the ground that it violates his/her right to privacy or for that matter to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then it may, in most of such cases become impossible to arrive at a conclusion. If the Court passes an appropriate order for medical examination, the question of such action being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India would not arise. ... The nine Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India MANU/SC/1044/2017 : AIR 2017 SC 4161 : (2017) 10 SCC 1, unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right, but left the conclusions set out in para 81 in Sharda v. Dharmpal (supra), untouched." Disposed

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (JABALPUR BENCH)

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) 2020-12-17 Pratyush Dwivedi and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. MANU/MP/1404/2020 Writ Petition 2 Autonomy - Compulsory service bonds signed at the time of admission to a course are not violative of right to privacy, life and liberty. Rule 12(2)(a) and Rule 10(3) of Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Admission Rules 2017. Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. "Contentions that the Bond Agreement violates ... Article 21 of the Constitution has also been settled with the decision in Association of Medical Super Speciality Aspirants & Residents (supra) wherein it is held: "private rights, when in conflict with public interest, have to take a back seat. "" Disposed
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) 2019-06-17 Shashimani Mishra and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. MANU/MP/0435/2019 Writ Petition 1 Autonomy/Surveillance, Search and Seizure - The State has no right to intervene and disturb a person's right to privacy so long as his act does not constitute an offence or an illegality. S. 13(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulation 12 of the Regulations. S. 43, 268 and 278 of IPC. "The Conduct of the Petitioners may be at divergence from the established social norm. It may be based upon a perception which may not find the approval of many yet, the Petitioners have the right to be different in thought, perception and action. ... yet, under no circumstances can the State intervene and disturb the right to privacy of the Petitioners if the said act does not come within the ambit and scope of an offence or an illegality." Disposed

KERALA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Kerala High Court 2020-09-18 X v. S MANU/KE/3082/2020 O.P. (FC) 2 Scope of personal data - When the power is exercised by a Court of law calling for medical records of an individual, the same cannot be regarded as an intrusion into the right to privacy. The Code of Medical Ethics formulated by the Indian Medical Council as per the provisions of Section 20A of the Indian Medical Council Act as amended in 1964 and S. 23 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 "When a court of law orders production of records relating to an individual, it cannot be regarded as an intrusion into the right to privacy of that individual for then it will fall under the expression "except by procedure established by law" of Article 21. ... Before ordering the production of treatment records of a mentally ill person, court must apply its mind judicially and ascertain whether the documents sought for have a material bearing on the case. If it is found that the documents relating to the treatment records of a mentally ill person has a material bearing on the case, the court must then consider whether non production will cause prejudice to the person seeking production. If answers to both the aforesaid questions are in the affirmative only then will the court be justified in ordering production of treatment records of a mentally ill person." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2020-04-30 Neethu Narendran v. State of Kerala 2020 (3) KLT 155, MANU/KE/1771/2020 WP (C) 1 Autonomy - Women's autonomy of body and mind is part of right to privacy S. 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 "In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017 (4) KLT 1 (SC) :(2017) 10 SCC 1), the Supreme Court has approved the constitutional right of a woman to make reproductive choices as part of her personal liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships went further and expanded the doctrine of right to privacy to even include the right of a woman to enjoy or not to enjoy motherhood. The concept of a woman having autonomy of the body and mind which includes the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to her life have been elevated to the status of her right to privacy." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2020-02-14 Vilasini and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2020 (4) KLT 863, MANU/KE/0546/2020 WP (C) 1 Status as a fundamental right - Lays down the Threshold Severity Test for impact on privacy rights. Privacy impact assessment must be made by the State before grant or renewal of licence to toddy shop in residential areas Rule 7, Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002 "The task of the constitutional court while determining the issue related to privacy falls on factual criteria to classify the action complained. This task essentially is a fact finding. ... violation of privacy must have an immutable character available to the group or collective. ... In a challenge based on infringement of privacy, the first task upon the constitutional court is to classify the nature of the action complained. On the classification of such action, the Court has to find out whether such action complained is sufficient to harm the citizen from enjoying his life with dignity or amenities which he was enjoying before the action complained ... Privacy rights cannot be recognized to promote the individual interest to deny the rights of others. ... No toddy shop shall be located in a residential area infringing the right of privacy of the individual to have respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence as referred in Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights. ... No new licence or renewal shall be granted to toddy shops in a residential area without assessing privacy rights impact." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2019-09-19 Faheema Shirin R.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. AIR 2020 Ker 35, MANU/KE/3799/2019 WP (C) 1 Right to know and access information/Status as a fundamental right - Right of student to have access to internet also part of right to privacy Article 21 of the Constitution of India "The right to have access to Internet becomes the part of right to education as well as right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2019-09-04 Raju Sebastian and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2020 Ker 3, MANU/KE/3533/2019 WA 2 Scope of Personal Data - A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person. Article 21 of the Constitution of India "Privacy attaches to the person and not the place where the information is kept. The right to privacy is not lost as a result of confidential information being parted with by the customer to the custody of the bank. ... Any information which discloses remittances made to the Income Tax Department towards discharge of tax liability would constitute personal information. A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person." Disposed. Judgment of the Single Judge in Nana Auto Fuels and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/KE/2762/2018 overruled.
Kerala High Court 2019-07-08 State of Kerala and Ors. v. Shyam Balakrishnan and Ors. ILR 2019 (3) Kerala 466, MANU/KE/2603/2019 WA 2 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - The action of the police authorities in detaining and interrogating a person and thereafter searching his residence, without following due procedure violates right to privacy S. 149 CrPC "In the exercise of its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of our Constitution, while acting as a sentinel on the qui vive to protect the fundamental rights of our citizens, this Court exercises a primary review over State action with an emphasis on the doctrine of proportionality. A charge that State action has violated the fundamental right of a citizen calls for a heightened scrutiny of the said action by the Constitutional Courts to determine whether the action of the State in restricting the liberty of the citizen was strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. ... A good end does not justify a bad means more so when the means adopted are such that violate the personal freedom and privacy of individuals. " Disposed
Kerala High Court 2019-06-04 The Cochin Institute of Science and Technology v. Jisin Jijo and Ors. ILR 2019 (2) Kerala 796, MANU/KE/2179/2019 WA 2 Autonomy/ Status as fundamental right - The freedom to choose the college of his/her choice for pursuit of studies is a facet of fundamental right to privacy Article 21 of the Constitution of India "In K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others, reported in MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1 the Supreme Court found that the focus of the guarantee of fundamental rights was the individual and that the fundamental right to life envisaged under Article 21 was a right to a life with dignity. The right of a person to individual autonomy in matters of personal choice and preferences was seen as integral to his dignity and thereby his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2018-08-14 Gopalakrishnan P. v. State of Kerala 2018 (4) KLT 1159, MANU/KE/2817/2018 Crl. M.C. 1 Data Protection - Furnishing copy of memory card to accused serious transgression into right to privacy of victim of sexual abuse S. 173 and 207 CrPC "In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others MANU/SC/1044/2017, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court had held that the fundamental rights emanate from basic notions of liberty and dignity and the enumeration of some facets of liberty as distinctly protected rights under Article 19 does not denude Article 21 of its expansive ambit. It was held that, validity of a law which infringes the fundamental rights has to be tested not with reference to the object of state action, but on the basis of its effect on the guarantees of freedom... When there is a conflict between Fundamental Rights of a person and statutory rights of another person, Fundamental Rights will prevail." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2018-08-02 C.S. Chacko v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2018 Ker 166, MANU/KE/1957/2018 W.P. (C) 2 Status as a Fundamental Right - Practice of compulsory confession amongst Orthodox Syrian Christians not violative of right to privacy Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India "Our Constitution, through its preamble, proclaims liberty of thought, action, belief, faith and worship as cherished concepts, that are guaranteed to all persons through Articles 25 and 26 thereof. It is through the exercise of these very liberties, that the petitioner chose to be a member of the 6th respondent Church, or to continue to be one. His actions were also in accordance with the exercise of his fundamental right to choose the religion that he wanted to adopt. Having done so, he cannot be heard to say that his continuance as a member of the Church is on account of any compulsion that is imposed on him." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2018-05-15 Oommen Chandy v. State of Kerala and Ors. ILR 2018 (2) Kerala 732, MANU/KE/1039/2018 W.P. (C) 1 Right to de-referencing/Right to be forgotten - Incorporation of the contents of a letter produced before the Inquiry Commission, containing sexual allegations against a party, making it vulnerable to a discussion by the public and the media amounts to infringement of right to privacy S. 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 "On account of its nature as a right that is personal to an individual, I am of the view that the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy, which takes within its fold the right to protection of ones reputation as well, would merit classification as a fundamental right that protects an individual, not only against arbitrary State action, but also against the actions of other private citizens, such as the press or media." Disposed
Kerala High Court 2017-12-21 Mini K.T. v. Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. ILR 2018 (1) Kerala 355, MANU/KE/1919/2017 W.P. (C) 1 Dignity - Privacy is an essential aspect of dignity of women as mothers Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India "In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while adverting to the privacy of individual observed that privacy is an essential aspect of dignity. ... To understand the dignity of a woman, the societal background has to be considered. ... No action is possible against a woman employee for her absence from duty on account of compelling circumstances for taking care of her child. No service regulations can stand in the way of a woman for claiming protection of her fundamental right of dignity as a mother. ... motherhood is an inherent dignity of woman, which cannot be compromised" Disposed

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Karnataka High Court 2020-08-11 Sudarshan v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 2020 (6) KarLJ 495, MANU/KA/2725/2020 Criminal Petition 1 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with voice in phone conversation records amounts to self incrimination or breach of privacy S. 482, CrPC. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India "There is no merit in the contention that collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with voice in phone conversation records amounts to self incrimination and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution." Disposed
Karnataka High Court 2019-08-30 Bushra Abdul Aleem and Ors. v. Government of Karnataka, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. ILR 2020 KARNATAKA 963, MANU/KA/6862/2019 Writ Petition 1 Autonomy - Compulsory medical service is not violative of right to privacy S. 2(g), 3 and 6 of the the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 2017. The Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Course Rules 2015 "Although, an exhaustive enumeration or catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in right to privacy is left undetermined; Privacy includes at its core, the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, home and sexual orientation. "Privacy also connotes right to be left alone"; Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes ability of individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing way of life are intrinsic to privacy." "The Apex Court in the second K.S. Puttaswamy (Adhaar) Vs. UOI, MANU/SC/1054/2018 has held that the Right to Privacy can be abridged by a just, fair & reasonable law as any other Fundamental Rights can be; such abridgment has to fulfill the test of proportionality i.e., it should be proportionate to the need for such interference; in addition to this, the law in question must also provide procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference; abridgment has to be co-terminus with true requirement; going by this standard, it is difficult to countenance petitioners' argument that the impugned Act is constitutionally invalid, especially when State's power to compel citizens to render public service is sanctioned under Article 23(1) of the Constitution." Disposed

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Jharkhand High Court 2019-05-03 Anurag Gupta v. The Election Commission of India and Ors. 2019 (2) J.L.J.R. 650, MANU/JH/0571/2019 WP (S) 1 Autonomy - Curtailment of right of movement pending inquiry by employer is not violative of right to privacy. Art. 324 of the Constitution of India. S. 28-A of Representation of People Act, 1951. "The petitioner contended that ... the order directing him to report at New Delhi is in violation of his fundamental rights and right to privacy, as he has a right to move freely within the territory of India. ... The petitioner has got no right to remain posted at a particular place nor does he have the right over his present assignment. Leave also cannot be sought by way of right. Thus, no right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned order, far less a fundamental right." Disposed

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2020-02-26 Nazia Khurshid and Ors. v. The Union Territory of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/0058/2020 WPC 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-06-07 Mohammad Sharef Hajam and Ors. v. State and Ors. MANU/JK/0470/2019 WP(C) 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-05-28 Surjeet Singh and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. III (2019) DMC 861, MANU/JK/0721/2019 WP(C) 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-05-01 Simran Choudhary and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/0275/2019 WP(C) 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-04-30 Raman Kumar and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. III (2019) DMC 469, MANU/JK/0272/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-04-10 Upasna Choudary and Ors. v. The Director General of Police and Ors. III (2019) DMC 290, MANU/JK/0208/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-03-25 Sunny Khajuria and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/0171/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-03-25 Sahiba Bano and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/0172/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-01-30 Ashraf Khan and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. I (2019) DMC 812, MANU/JK/0023/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-01-29 Arun and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/0017/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-01-11 Arjun Kumar and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. II (2019) DMC 531, MANU/JK/0500/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-01-11 Sunil Kumar and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. I (2019) DMC 552, MANU/JK/0083/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2019-01-11 Rubana Naz and Ors. v. Director General of Police, J&K Police Headquarters and Ors. I (2019) DMC 691, MANU/JK/0084/2019 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-12-26 Sunny Kumar and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/1243/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-12-13 Mumtaz Bano and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/1191/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-12-10 Lakshmi Kumar and Ors. v. The Director General of Police and Ors. MANU/JK/1160/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-12-10 Kajal Choudhary and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors. MANU/JK/1161/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-08-30 Kulsoom Akhter and Ors. v. State and Ors. II (2019) DMC 73, MANU/JK/0683/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-08-27 Rakesh Kumar and Ors. v. State and Ors. MANU/JK/0668/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-07-11 Nasreen Akhter and Ors. v. State and Ors. MANU/JK/0516/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Same as above Same as above Disposed
Jammu and Kashmir High Court 2018-07-02 Monika Mehra and Ors. v. State and Ors. III (2018) DMC 76, MANU/JK/0752/2018 OWP 1 Autonomy/Dignity - The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of right to privacy. Article 21 of the Consitution of India "In justice KS Puttasivamy v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1044/2017 : 2017 (10) SCC 1, this Court in a decision of nine Judges held that the ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life is an inviolable aspect of the human personality" Disposed

HIMANCHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Himanchal Pradesh High Court 2020-06-23 Vinod Mittal v. State of H.P. and Ors. 2020 (2) ShimLC 1130, MANU/HP/0524/2020 Cr. MMO 1 Bodily Integrity/ Status as a fundamental right - Undergoing Narco Analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests with consent of the accused is not violative of right to privacy Article 20(3) of Constitution of India "Subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary manner violates the prescribed boundaries of privacy and forcible interference with a person's mental processes is not provided for under any statute and it most certainly comes into conflict with the "right against self-incrimination"" Disposed

GAUHATI HIGH COURT (KOHIMA BENCH)

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench) 2019-01-09 Mangyang Lima v. State of Nagaland and Ors. 2019 (1) GLT 409, MANU/GH/0240/2019 W.P.(C) 1 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Violation of right to privacy by banishment and ex-communication by village council "It may be mentioned that with the latest view of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, MANU/SC/1044/2017 holding that right to privacy is a fundamental right and part of Article 21, in the opinion of this Court, the restricted view expressed in Kharak Singh (supra) about the freedom of movement as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) read with Article 21 may require an expansive interpretation as had been done by the minority view as expressed by Subba Rao J. in the aforesaid case. The freedom of movement in clause (d) of Art. 19(1) must be a movement in a free country i.e. in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner being banished and ex-communicated is certainly deprived of these freedom. We would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Article 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. It so understood, all the acts of surveillance under Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution." Disposed

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Gauhati High Court 2018-02-01 Surjit Gogoi v. Union of India and Ors. 2018 (2) GLT 9, MANU/GH/0411/2018 W.P.(C) 2 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Violation of right to privacy by illegal entry, search and seizure of valuables by army personnel "Privacy of a person within the confines of his house or residence is a cherished right and has to be respected. Intrusion into the residence of a citizen would be permissible only subject to confirmation with the standards mandated by our Constitution and the laws of the land which the army scrupulously follows." Disposed

DELHI HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Delhi High Court 2020-06-30 Deepti Kapur v. Kunal Julka AIR 2020 Delhi 156, MANU/DE/1314/2020 CM (M) 1 Phone Tapping - Admissibility of evidence collected in breach of privacy S. 14, 20 of Family Courts Act, 1984. S. 5, 7, 8 and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 "Merely because rules of evidence favour a liberal approach for admitting evidence in court in aid of dispensation of justice, this should not be taken as approval for everyone to adopt any illegal means to collect evidence, especially in relationships of confidence such as marriage. If the right to adduce evidence collected by surreptitious means in a marital or family relationship is available without any qualification or consequences, it could potentially create havoc in people's personal and family lives and thereby in the society at large." Disposed
Delhi High Court 2020-06-02 Sasikala Pushpa v. Facebook India and Ors. MANU/DE/1143/2020 CS (OS) 1 Scope of Personal Data - Privacy in photograph/video/audio message S. 66A, 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011 "This Court is required to balance the right claimed by the plaintiff of privacy qua whom she meets at her residence, has to be balanced with the right of the public to know the identity of the person whom the plaintiff meets and hobnobs with, behind closed doors." Disposed
Delhi High Court 2019-11-13 Sunil Sachdeva v. Owner of domain name crj7.com and Ors. 2019 (178) DRJ 246, MANU/DE/3836/2019 CS (OS) 1 Dignity - Contours of right to privacy against defamatory online post S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 "The fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of defamation." "No relief of restraining public at large frompublishing, circulating the allegedly defamatory content can be granted in general and no relief with respect to similar content also, without adjudicating whether there is any similarity or not, can be granted." Disposed
Delhi High Court 2018-12-17 Horlicks Ltd and Ors. v. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. 256 (2019) DLT 468, MANU/DE/4628/2018 CS (COMM) 1 Autonomy - Claim of privacy over information already available in public domain Chapter IV of ASCI Code. Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India. "The right of a person to claim privacy ... includes rights in relation to commercial use of identity of such person. However, the right to privacy cannot be asserted against information that is already in the public domain." Disposed. Appeal pending before DB.
Delhi High Court 2018-09-29 Swami Ramdev v. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MANU/DE/3565/2018 CM (M) 1 Informational Privacy - Privacy in publication of unauthorised biographies S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India. ""Reputation" of one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other's right of free speech. ... whatever may be of the interest to the public but has no element of public interest may amount to breach of privacy and an individual thus has a right to protection to protect his reputation from being unfairly harmed in relation thereto not only against false truth but also certain truths." Disposed. SLP Pending.
Delhi High Court 2018-05-23 Prime Minister's National Relief Fund v. Aseem Takyar MANU/DE/1960/2018 LPA 2 Right to know and access information - Right to privacy of person from whom information is sought under RTI S. 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act "Once something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist." Disposed by DB. Referred to a third judge on account of divergence of opinions.
Delhi High Court 2018-04-26 Ravinder v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 2018 (171) DRJ 346, MANU/DE/1548/2018 W.P. (Crl.) 2 Autonomy/Dignity - Consequence of admission to mental health institution on life, liberty, privacy, freedom and dignity S. 23, 24 and 28 of Mental Health Act, 1987 "It is time to abandon the earlier approach of using the mental health law to control or punish people whose behaviour is unacceptable but to view it as an instrument that facilitates care and treatment of the mentally ill in need of it, consistent with their rights to life, liberty, dignity, privacy and autonomy. The indiscriminate use of the mental health law has to stop. It is high time that we dismantled the penal custodial model of the mental health law." Disposed. SLP Pending.
Delhi High Court 2018-04-18 Sangamitra Acharya and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 250 (2018) DLT 36, MANU/DE/1453/2018 W.P. (Crl.) 2 Dignity - Protection against an attack on right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be sought against non-State actors S. 19 of Mental Health Act, 1987 "Protection against an attack on the right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be exercised not only against the State but also against non-State actors. .... The horizontal dimension of these rights enables an aggrieved person to invoke constitutional remedies to seek the protection and enforcement of such rights against invasion by a non-state actor." Disposed. Some SLP disposed of, some SLP pending.

CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Chattisgarh High Court 2018-12-12 Ranichand Baiga and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. MANU/CG/0554/2018 WPPIL 2 Bodily Integrity/ Dignity - Women's right to make reproductive choices is part of their right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity Article 21 of the Constitution of India "A nine judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India, MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1, while recognising right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution recognised a woman's right to make reasoned reproductive choices as an important facet of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21." Disposed

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Calcutta High Court 2020-10-13 Vineet Ruia and Ors. v. Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Ors. MANU/WB/0696/2020 WPA 2 Data Protection - Protection to financial statements/accounts under right to privacy Articles 226, 30(1) and 14 of the Constitution of India "As for privacy, every person is entitled to his accounts not being opened up to all and sundry unless mandated by law as in the case of public companies or some categories of trusts or societies. But the ordinary right of privacy is not so absolute as to deny a constitutional court the authority to assess whether a wholesome charge of unjust enrichment or profiteering is substantiated by calling for such accounts or by having the accounts evaluated by an expert. The rights as asserted under Articles 19 and 30(1) of the Constitution and even the right of privacy may be used as a shield against invasive instruments and blatantly intrusive acts of the State; they cannot be used as swords to parry a credible charge of profit-making in an educational institution, minority or otherwise, whether aided or unaided." Disposed
Calcutta High Court 2018-06-19 Mursaleen Mohammad v. Union of India 2018 CriLJ 4083, MANU/WB/0620/2018 C.R.A. 2 Bodily integrity/Dignity - Invasive recovery of Narcotics/contraband from the body of accused amounting to breach of right to privacy S. 103 of the Customs Act and S. 50 of the NDPS Act "Procedure entailing recovery of Narcotics/contraband from the body of the suspect requires invasion into the physical body of the suspect and an encroachment into his privacy. Such exercise being invasive in nature must not only be in strict compliance of statutory safeguards as contemplated in Section 103 of the Customs Act but also must be in consonance to the dignity of the suspect and ought not involve any cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment lest such procedure runs fowl of Article 21 of the Constitution. " Disposed

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Bombay High Court 2019-10-22 Vinit Kumar v. CBI and Ors. 2019 ALLMR (Cri) 5227, MANU/MH/2931/2019 Writ Petition 2 Phone Tapping - Breach of right to privacy by illegal telephone tapping Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 "The proposition that illegal tapping of telephone conversation violates right to privacy is now accepted and reinforced as guaranteed fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, by a nine Judge Constitution Benchdecision in K.S. Puttaswamy versus Union of India [MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1]." Disposed
Bombay High Court 2019-04-03 XYZ v. Union of India and Ors. 2019 (5) ALLMR 531, MANU/MH/0565/2019 Writ Petition 2 Autonomy - Right to make reproductive choice and terminate pregnancy is part of women's right to privacy S. 3(2)(b), 4 and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 "It is important to recognize that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children. ... Therefore, in a situation where the continuance of pregnancy poses grave injury to the physical or mental health of the mother or in a situation where there is substantial risk that if the child were born, would suffer from deformities and diseases, the pregnant mother is forced to continue with her pregnancy merely because the pregnancy has extended beyond the ceiling of 20 weeks, there would arise a serious affront to the fundamental right of such mother to privacy, to exercise a reproductive choices, to bodily integrity, to her dignity." Disposed

BOMBAY HIGH COURT (AURANGABAD BENCH)

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) 2019-11-29 Dnyaneshwar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2020 ALLMR (Cri) 2718, MANU/MH/3334/2019 Criminal Writ Petition 2 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Taking house search illegal at night amounts to breach of right to privacy S. 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 and S. 165 CrPC "... as police officers entered the house that too in night time when he was sleeping with his family which included two ladies and the issues, this Court holds that it was intrusion into privacy. If such act is done illegally without following the procedure which is contemplated in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the consequences follow. In such a case, there cannot be defence that it was a mistake on the part of the police officers." Disposed
Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) 2019-01-31 Shantaram v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 2019 (2) ALLMR 375, MANU/MH/0154/2019 Writ Petition 2 Right to de-referencing/Right to be forgotten - Right to privacy requires that persons who have undergone sentence should come out of disqualification from contesting elections after a reasonable period of time. Rule 41 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1966 and S. 8 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951 "... In view of the right of privacy, which arises out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in view of the policy accepted by the Parliament, which can be seen in Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, it can be said that we have to presume that the period must be reasonable period if such period is not mentioned in the regulations and rules made by the State Government for the purpose of disqualification or eligibility to contest the elections." "After undergoing the sentence, it can be said that the convict has right to say that he needs to be allowed to forget the past and he needs to be allowed to make new beginning. The others also cannot be allowed to harass him and to deprive him of aforesaid rights and the previous conviction cannot be allowed to haunt him for the remaining period of his life. It is learnt that a Commission headed by Justice B.N. Shrikrishna, Former Hon'ble Judge of Supreme Court, is appointed to prepare a draft of personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, which will protect right to privacy and steps are likely to be taken to see that the data of criminal activity of a person is erased after particular period from the relevant records of the agencies. It will be proper step on the part of the State to take such steps in view of the right of privacy of such persons." Disposed

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Andhra Pradesh High Court 2020-09-21 Gujjula Sreenu v. CID, Chittoor and Ors. MANU/AP/0671/2020 W.P. 1 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Lawful search and seizure is not violative of the right to privacy. S. 77-79, 91-94 of CrPC, Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India "the Apex Court in its judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1, while holding that the right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, overruled the decision in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (supra), to the extent of its holding that the right to privacy was not protected by the Constitution. Sans that, the other part of the decision in MP. Sharma's case (supra), to the effect that searches and seizures do not offend the fundamental right under Article 20 was not disturbed. It is also to be noted that in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra), the Apex Court has not specifically held that the searches and seizures will in any way offend the right of privacy enshrined under Article 21." Disposed

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL FORUM DECISION DATE CASE NAME CASE CITATION AND CASE NUMBER CASE TYPE BENCH STRENGTH ASPECTS OF PRIVACY LEGAL PROVISIONS IMPORTANT QUOTES CASE STATUS
Allahabad High Court 2021-04-30 Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. MANU/UP/0591/2021 W.P. 1 Right to De-referencing/ Right to be forgotten - Right to privacy of a child would include right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child for offences not falling in the category of heinous offences. Section 74, Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 "The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time). Hence the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile." Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2021-01-12 Safiya Sultana and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2021 (2) ALJ 363, MANU/UP/0011/2021 Habeas Corpus 1 Informational privacy - Invasion of right to privacy by virtue of mandatory public notice under the Special Marriage Act S. 5, 6, 7 and 46 of Special Marriage Act, 1954. Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020 "The interpretation of Sections 6 and 7 read with Section 46 containing the procedure of publication of notice and inviting objections to the intended marriage in Act of 1954 thus has to be such that would uphold the fundamental rights and not violate the same. In case the same on their simplistic reading are held mandatory, as per the law declared today, they would invade in the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy, including within its sphere freedom to choose for marriage without interference from state and non-state actors, of the persons concerned." Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2020-11-11 Salamat Ansari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2021 (1) ALJ 453, MANU/UP/2029/2020 Crl. Mis. Writ Petition 2 Autonomy - Right to choose marriage partner an aspect of right to privacy S. 363, 366, 352, 506 IPC and S. 7/8 POCSO Act "Right to choose a partner irrespective of caste, creed or religion, is inhered under right to life and personal liberty, an integral part of the Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in KS Puttaswamy vs. Union of India MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1 while deciding the issue of right to privacy, held as under:- "Privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self-determination. When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised."" "An individual on attaining majority is statutorily conferred a right to choose a partner, which if denied would not only affect his/her human right but also his/her right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2020-10-22 Kishan Paswan v. Union of India and Ors. 2021 (1) ALJ 588, MANU/UP/2197/2020 Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1 Right to De-referencing/ Right to be forgotten - Non-disclosure of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile. S. 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. S. 24, 74 and 99 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 "The requirement to disclose details of criminal prosecutions faced as a juvenile is violative of the right to privacy and the right to reputation of a child guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also denudes the child of the protection assured by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (as amended from time to time). Hence the employer cannot ask any candidate to disclose details of criminal prosecution faced as a juvenile." Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2020-04-30 Ram Charan Jatav v. State of U.P. 2021 (1) ALJ 632, MANU/UP/0933/2020 Criminal Appeal 1 Surveillance, Search and Seizure - Right to privacy in public places S. 18, 20 and 42 of the NDPS Act "In K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, MANU/SC/1044/2017 : (2017) 10 SCC 1, it has been remarked that right to privacy is a fundamental right and is not lost in public places, but attaches to the person." Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2020-03-09 In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side in The City of Lucknow v. State of U.P. 2020 (5) ALJ 609, MANU/UP/0676/2020 Public Interest Litigation 2 Informational Privacy - Violation of privacy by road side display of banners containing photographs, names and addresses of persons accused of vandalism Article 21 of the Constitution of India "The legitimate goal as held by the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) ... must be necessary for a democratic society for a legitimate aim." Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2019-12-02 Piyush Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. (2020) ILR 2 All 267, MANU/UP/4705/2019 Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1 Dignity - In the background of order for suspension Same as above Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2019-12-02 Satyam Rai v. Banaras Hindu University and Ors. 2020 (4) ADJ 203, MANU/UP/4672/2019 Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1 Dignity - In the background of order for suspension Same as above Disposed
Allahabad High Court 2019-12-02 Anant Narayan Mishra v. Union of India and Ors. (2020) ILR 1 All 598, MANU/UP/4662/2019 Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1 Dignity - In the background of order for suspension Article 21 of the Constitution of India "The essence of proportionality is that, the competent authority while imposing a punishment upon a delinquent student, has to co-relate and balance the imperatives of institutional discipline with the demands of individual rights. Too light a punishment will not be conducive to institutional discipline. Too harsh a punishment will not be consistent with norms of justice. The suspension of the petitioner from the university, for an undefined or indefinite period, is an action of extreme severity. It is a de-facto expulsion from the university. These actions carry drastic penal consequences for the students. Denial of education to a soul, in quest of knowledge is the severest form of restriction. Moreover, the instigatory role of the Professor Y in causing the incident, has not been factored into the decision. The measures undertaken against the petitioner, are not rationally connected to the fulfillment of the purpose sought to be achieved. The proper and designated purpose of a punishment in a university, has to include reform of the student, not mere imposition of penalty. Clearly there are alternative reformative measures, that can achieve the same purpose, with a lesser degree of curtailment of the students rights. The impugned action fails the test of proportionality." Disposed