-

Privacy High Court Tracker

Open Spreadsheet

The CCG Privacy High Court Tracker is a resource consisting of decisions on the constitutional right to privacy passed by all High Courts in India. The Privacy High Court Tracker captures cases post the pronouncement of the Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (Puttaswamy) judgment. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the existence of the right to privacy in India’s Constitution as a fundamental right. 

The Privacy High Court Tracker is a tool to enable lawyers, judges, policymakers, legislators, civil society organisations, academic and policy researchers and other relevant stakeholders, to engage with, understand and analyse the evolving privacy law and jurisprudence across India. The cases deal with the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure. 

The tracker currently only consists of cases reported on Manupatra, and those reported upto 15 December 2023 (CCG will continue to update the tracker periodically). Only final judgements are included in the tracker, and not interim orders of the High Courts. 

Show methodology

Allahabad High Court

Rajiv Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.03.2019
Citation - 2019 (4) ADJ 316, MANU/UP/1164/2019
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 452, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
View Case

Important Quote

"The right of privacy of a child would be meaningful if such prosecution is not made part of public discourse as a criteria for appointment to public posts or admission to any institution of learning or for that matter any other transaction in life. ... Similarly, the right to privacy in the context of a child would include his right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child under the Juvenile Justice Act and for offences which do not come in the category of heinous offences under the said Act."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy of a child would include the right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child for offences not falling in the category of heinous offences.

Read more

Anant Narayan Mishra vs. Union of India and Ors.

Dignity || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.12. 2019
Citation - (2020) ILR 1 All 598, MANU/UP/4662/2019
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to Human Dignity includes privacy under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Read more

In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side in The City of Lucknow vs. State of U.P.

Informational Privacy || Allahabad High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 09.03.2020
Citation - 2020 (5) ALJ 609, MANU/UP/0676/2020
Case Type - Public Interest Litigation
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy is violated by road side display of banners containing photographs, names and addresses of persons accused of vandalism

Read more

Ram Charan Jatav vs. State of U.P.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.04.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) ALJ 632, MANU/UP/0933/2020
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 18, 20 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
View Case

Important Quote

"In K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, it has been remarked that right to privacy is a fundamental right and is not lost in public places, but attaches to the person."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy is violated if the formal legal procedure of search and seizure is not followed.

Read more

Kishan Paswan vs. Union of India and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.10.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) ALJ 588, MANU/UP/2197/2020
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - 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
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

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.

Read more

Salamat Ansari and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Autonomy || Allahabad High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.11.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) ALJ 453, MANU/UP/2029/2020
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 363, 366, 352, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
S. 7 and 8 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
View Case

Important Quote

"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 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."

Read more
Notes

An individual, after attaining majority, is entitled to the autonomy of choosing their partner, which is an aspect of right to privacy.

Read more

Safiya Sultana and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 12.01.2021
Citation - 2021 (2) ALJ 363, MANU/UP/0011/2021
Case Type - Habeas Corpus
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 5, 6, 7 and 46 of Special Marriage Act, 1954.
Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion
Ordinance, 2020
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Provision of mandatory public notice under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 is an invasion of the right to privacy.

Read more

Anuj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.04.2021
Citation - MANU/UP/0591/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 74, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy of a child to include the right to deny information relating to his prosecution as a child for a heinous crime.

Read more

Guruvinder Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Dignity, Bodily Integrity || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.10.2021
Citation - MANU/UP/1855/2021
Case Type - Bail Order
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 354 and 509 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. S 161 and 164 of CrPC, 1973

Important Quote

"It would be appropriate to observe that the sexually explicit images or videos may be made by a partner of an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject, or it may be made without his or her knowledge, however, the same if used as a form of revenge or harassment would definitely distort/damage the dignity of concerned and the Court in such type of cases cannot close its eyes and being parens patriae and protector of fundamental rights, the Court should come forward to protect the right of the subject and similarly the Court should stringently deal with the person concerned."

Read more
Notes

Sharing sexually explicit images or videos made with consent, for the purpose of revenge or harrassment, violates the privacy and dignity of an individual.

Read more

Saumya Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Dignity || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.12.2021
Citation - (2022) 1 All LJ 732
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India,1950.
S. 29 of Uttar Pradesh Technical University Act, 2000
View Case

Important Quote

"The need to ameliorate the constraints imposed by pregnancy and its aftermath and to dignify motherhood by providing institutional support systems for expectant mothers and new mothers is an imperative command of law. The respondent University has to implement the fundamental rights of the petitioner vested by the aforesaid pronouncements of law made by constitutional courts."

Read more
Notes

Disallowing a woman to appear for exams due to pregnancy violates her right to live with dignity and privacy. Providing prenatal and postnatal support, and other maternity benefits to students is a statutory function of the university.

Read more

Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 06.08.2022
Citation- MANU/UP/2039/2022
Case Type - Criminal appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 75, 233 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"While making such observation, this Court is mindful of the fact that DNA test is not to be directed as a matter of routine and in only deserving cases where strong prima facie case is made out, such direction may be given. Since the life of the applicant is stake as he is accused of offence under Section 302 IPC, it is must to ascertain and test the truthfulness of the prosecution case. Considering the facts and circumstances in entirety, this Court is of the opinion that to arrive at just decision of the case and to avoid any suspicion or doubt in the prosecution case, it would be in the interest of justice that DNA test may be conducted and thus the learned Court below has committed an illegallity in passing the impugned order, therefore the same is liable to be set aside."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy is taken into consideration while ordering for a DNA test only if the test is being ordered to establish paternity or similar relationship. However, if a person has sought for a DNA test to prove his innocence then it would not be violative of their right to privacy.

Read more

Md. Sameer Rao vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Dignity, Autonomy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 25.05.2023
Citation - 023/AHC/121065, MANU/UP/1402/2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 17, 19 (1), 21, 25 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"The restrictions contained in Regulation 40 [of the relevant regulations framed under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921] are disproportionate and in nature of prohibitions and fail the test of reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The restrictions in Regulation 40 are arbitrary and infringe the fundamental right to choose and change [one's own] name vested by virtue of Article 19(1)(a), Article 21 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 40 is accordingly read down."

Read more
Notes

A person's name is an inalienable and indispensable aspect of their identity, and is protected by their right to privacy. Consequently, the court read down Regulation 40 under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which arbitrarily restricted individuals from changing their name.

Read more

Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Phone Tapping, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.08.2023
Citation - Criminal Revision Petition No. 935 of 2023,2023/AHC-LKO/56067
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Revision Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is clear that any evidence cannot be refused to be admitted by the Court on the ground that it had been obtained illegally... Therefore, whether the telephonic conversation between the two accused persons was intercepted or not and whether it was done legally or not, would not affect the admissibility of the recorded conversation in evidence against the applicant."

Read more
Notes

This case reiterated that illegally obtained evidence does not automatically become inadmissible. Therefore if the contents of a conversation obtained through illegal phone tapping are relevant to the case, they would be admissible.

Read more

Pinki v. State of UP

Autonomy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.02.2024 .
Citation - 2024:AHC:26454
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sections 8 and 9 of Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
View Case

Important Quote

"Perusal of record shows that in the present case petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent no.5. There is no document on record to show that petitioner no.1 has obtained any decree of divorce from the court of competent jurisdiction, hence she is still legally wedded wife of respondent no.5 and she is living in adultery with petitioner no.2. The court could not protect such type of relationship which is not supported by law. If the court indulge in such type of cases and grant protection to illegal relationship, then it will create chaos in the society. The petitioner no.1 alongwith her 5 years old female child has left the house of her husband/respondent no.5 without any reasonable cause, hence such type of illegal relationship need not be protected by court. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get any type of protection from this Court. The petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed with cost."

Read more
Notes

Court did not provide protection to an inter-religious couple in a live-in relationship where one of partners continued to be legally wedded to another and had not obtained a divorce before moving in with her live-in partner.

Read more

Priyank Jain v. Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko. and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Allahabad High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13.02.2024
Citation - 2024:AHC-LKO:12762
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition allowed.
Legal Provisions - Order XXXII- A, Rules 1 to 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 13, 21-B, 21-C and 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Sections 10, 13, 14, 16, 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, Sections 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (""Cr.P.C"") Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"Section 22 (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) directed that the proceedings be held in camera and may not be printed or publicized. The basic purpose of enacting the aforesaid provisions was to achieve the goal of getting the matrimonial proceedings decided not only expeditiously but to cut short the procedural technicalities and ensure privacy to an extent."

Read more
Notes

Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandates proceedings to be conducted in camera and prohibits printing or publicity to enhance privacy in matrimonial disputes.

Read more

Aftab Alam v. State of UP and Ors.

Dignity, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Allahabad High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.03.2024
Citation - 2024:AHC:38390-DB
Case Type - Criminal Misceallaneous Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sections 482 Cr.P.C, Article 227 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"The history sheet has been subject to constitutional challenge on privacy grounds. The Supreme Court has recognized that police surveillance based upon a history sheet implicates a limited right to privacy implicit in the Constitutional right to life and personal liberty. According to the Court, every individual's autonomy should be respected; there is a right to be left alone. However, the right to privacy is not absolute and the creation of a history sheet and surveillance of the history-sheeter is not unconstitutional if carried out in compliance with legal standards or, in the absence of standards, if conducted reasonably. In one case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down home visits as infringing on the right to personal liberty and freedom of movement. ... The history sheet, including a photo of the history-sheeter, is a confidential record. The police is not authorized to disclose to public or private employers whether a job applicant or employee is a history-sheeter, much less what information the history sheet contains. However, the surveillance/crime control purpose of the history sheet requires that police officers have easy access to the history sheet. Local police can only monitor and surveil record-subjects if they know who they are. The history sheet is supposed to be shared with the Railway Police. If the history-sheeter moves to another jurisdiction, the history sheet is transferred to the new jurisdiction's police department. Moreover, for proper reasons, the police may show the public a history-sheeter's photos, when necessary, to capture a fugitive or solve a crime."

Read more
Notes

The Court could not issue a writ of certiorari quashing the history-sheet opened against the petitioner, however it provided the petitioner the liberty to make a comprehensive representation before the Deputy Inspector General of Police to not keep the petitioner under continuous surveillance.

Read more

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Gujjula Sreenu vs. CID, Chittoor and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.09.2020
Citation - MANU/AP/0671/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 77-79, 91-94 of CrPC, 1973.
Article 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The Apex Court in its judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 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 vs. 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 vs. 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."

Read more
Notes

Lawful search and seizure is not violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Podili Siva Murali and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Dignity || Andhra Pradesh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.10.2021
Citation - (2021) 6 ALT 128,
MANU/AP/1168/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950. S. 6 of the Registration Act, 1908. S. 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition Of Transfers) Act, 1977. S. 184 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965
View Case

Important Quote

"As the limited site is allotted to the eligible women household, right of privacy shall be taken into consideration since the house is meant for living with family to lead matrimonial life. The Apex Court declared right to privacy as a fundamental right in “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (UOI)76” and “Bibhuti Bhusan Chakraborty v. Deputy Registrar”. "In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is the duty of the State to protect the privacy to lead marital life by a couple in a small house with grownup children and elders in the family. Hardly, there will not be any space to move freely in the house either to the children or to the elder people, who required some assistance at the old age."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy should be considered a necessary factor while designing housing policies to ensure the sanctity of marital life.

Read more

Petchetti Kondaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Informational Privacy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 09.10.2022
Citation - MANU/AP/1519/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908

Important Quote

"The legal validity of Chapter-37 of the said A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders, on the basis of which the said rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history- sheets are being opened, has been questioned and challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 3568 of 2022 and batch. This court, by its common order, dated 15.07.2022, passed in the above batch of writ petitions, after considering the law on the issue elaborately with reference to the earlier judgments rendered by the Apex Court and, more particularly, with reference to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India , held that Chapter-37 of the A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders on the basis of which the rowdy-sheets/ suspect-sheets/ history-sheets are being opened and surveillance is being kept on the individuals on the basis of the said rowdy-sheets/suspect sheets/history-sheets, as void."

Read more
Notes

The maintenance of rowdy sheets, suspect sheets and history sheets by the police should be in conformity with the right to privacy.

Read more

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary and Ors., vs. Udathu Suresh

Informational Privacy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 12.09.2022
Citation - I.A. NO. 1 OF 2002 in WRIT APPEAL NO. 674 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - S. 21, S.9 of A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"It is no doubt true that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy's [cited 1st supra], held that right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But, learned Government Pleader for Home, mainly submits that the issue in K.S. Puttaswamy's [cited 1st supra], was totally different. It was a case where an individual was asked to furnish details for the purpose of issuing Aadhar Cards, and under those circumstances, the Court dealt with right of privacy. According to him, the case on hand relates to suspects/accused against whom rowdy sheets are opened for regulating the crime. This argument of learned Government Pleader, in our view, cannot be brushed aside at this stage and the same requires adjudication at length. Therefore, merely because a rowdy sheet is opened against an individual, prima facie, can it be said that it invades his privacy thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Having regard to the prima facie findings, arrived at by us, in the preceding paragraphs, the Order of the learned Single Judge in declaring the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual/A.P. Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/continuation of rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets and the surveillance of an individual [in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Orders] as void, is hereby suspended. However, the rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets, which are closed pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, shall not be reopened until further orders."

Read more
Notes

The maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets by the police does not violate the right to privacy of individuals and can be used to surveil suspicious persons. The court suspended a previous order of a single judge bench that directed the closure of history sheets/rowdy sheets on the basis of privacy concerns.

Read more

Baddila Reddy Swami Naidu vs. B. Neelavathi and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Andhra Pradesh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.11.2022
Citation - MANU/AP/2300/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Case (Maintenance under S. 125 of CrPC
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provision - S. 391, 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"Since the petitioner has denied his relationship with the respondents, the only alternative available to them is to prove the said relationship is through scientific examination as held in Kadhavarapu Prashu Ram v. Shaik Janibhee and others. Thus, in order to arrive at justice decision and to safeguard the interest of the 2nd respondent and to protect him from adverse consequences, there is eminent need to refer the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to scientific examination. It is also pertinent here to note that the petitioner in his cross examination expressed no objection for subjecting himself to the DNA test..."

Read more
Notes

DNA test ordered by the court to determine paternity of a child does not violate the right to privacy of the parties.

Read more

Government of India v KLD Nagasree

Phone Tapping, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.07.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1834
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Writ Appeal dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Sec.72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
View Case

Important Quote

"Since the provisions of the enactment and the Rules enable the authorities to look into the privacy of the citizens in deviation/relaxation to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, strict and scrupulous adherence to the provisions of law and Rules is mandatory and any deviation to the said Rules would, undoubtedly, render the action unsustainable. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of interception passed by the Central Government, having regard to the reasons recorded supra, cannot sustain in the eye of law. In fact, the learned single Judge, by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, allowed the writ petition."

Read more
Notes

The Court reiterated that the reasons for passing an interception order must be recorded in writing. It is a mandatory requirement which requires strict compliance.

Read more

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)

Shantaram vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 31.01.2019
Citation - 2019 (2) ALLMR 375, MANU/MH/0154/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Rule 41 of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Rules, 1966.
S. 8 of the Representation of People's Act, 1951
View Case

Important Quote

"... 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."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy requires that persons who have served a legal sentence should come out of disqualification from contesting elections after a reasonable period of time.

Read more

Dnyaneshwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench)

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.11.2019
Citation - 2020 ALLMR (Cri) 2718, MANU/MH/3334/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 161 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
S.165 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"... 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."

Read more
Notes

Illegal house searches at night are violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Bombay High Court

XYZ vs. Union of India and Ors.

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Bombay High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.04.2019
Citation - 2019 (5) ALLMR 531, MANU/MH/0565/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3(2)(b), 4 and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to make reproductive choices and terminate pregnancy is part of women's right to privacy.

Read more

Vinit Kumar vs. CBI and Ors.

Search and Seizure, Surveillance, Phone Tapping || Bombay High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.10.2019
Citation - 2019 ALLMR (Cri) 5227, MANU/MH/2931/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Illegal phone tapping is violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Dhanlaxmi Chandu Devrukar vs. The Town Planning/Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Informational privacy || Bombay High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 18.02.2022
Citation - MANU/MH/0520/2022
Case Type - Intervention Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 215 of the Constitution of India,1950. S. 15, 138, 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
View Case

Important Quote

"A Notary's Register contains sufficient sensitive and confidential information to enable identity theft/ misuse/ impersonation etc. This sensitive and confidential information, such as a party's biometric identifier merits protection."

Read more
Notes

The court offered comments and suggestions to the draft Notaries (Amendment) Bill, 2021 and suggested that additional responsibilities must be cast on Notaries to ensure safe keeping and protection of the sensitive and confidential data with which they are entrusted with.

Read more

ABC vs. State of Maharashtra

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Bombay High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.01.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 175
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3 and 5 Medical Tremination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
View Case

Important Quote

"In cases such as these, we believe Courts must calibrate themselves to not only the facts as they stand but must also consider that what these cases present are, above all, profound questions of identity, agency, self-determination and the right to make an informed choice. We will not ignore the Petitioner's social and economic condition."

Read more
Notes

The fundamental right to choice in cases of medical termination of pregnancies must vest in the woman. If the conditions of the statute are satisfied, the right to choose to terminate the pregnancy shall solely rest with the pregnant woman, and not the Medical Board or the court.

Read more

X vs. The Dean, Academic Affairs Director's Office, Tata Institute of Social Sciences and Ors.

Dignity || Bombay High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 25.04.2023
Citation - MANU/MH/16/6/2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"[The respondent's affidavit] fails to recognize that questions of identity, self-identification and gender perception do not happen at a biologically definable point in time. These are matters of self-realisation without predictable time frames. That does not mean that every person who, in exercise of these Article 21 rights, desires the necessary changes to be made must be put through the additional trauma of having to get reissued every single document from birth onwards. What is required is a recognition and acknowledgment of the rights that the Petitioner invokes."

Read more
Notes

Educational institutions cannot refuse to change the name, identity, or gender of an individual in their records and certificates, or force a name, identity or gender which the individual has chosen to reject in the preference of another.

Read more

Calcutta High Court

Mursaleen Mohammad vs. Union of India

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Calcutta High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.06.2018
Citation - 2018 CriLJ 4083, MANU/WB/0620/2018
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 103 of the Customs Act, 1962.
S. 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Invasive recovery of narcotics/contraband from the body of accused amounting to breach of right to privacy.

Read more

Vineet Ruia and Ors. vs. Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Data Protection || Calcutta High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13. 10. 2020
Citation - MANU/WB/0696/2020
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Articles 226, 30(1) and 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy includes protection of personal information like financial statements/accounts.

Read more

The West Bengal College Service Commission and Ors. vs. Binay Krishna Pal and Ors.

Right to Know and Access Information || Calcutta High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.11.2021
Citation - MANU/WB/0806/2021
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 8, 8 (1) and 10 of the Right to Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"That apart, the preamble of the RTI Act is its soul clearly spelling out the aims and objectives of the Act to provide a practical regime of the right to citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The Constitution of India has established a Democratic Republic. Democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed"

Read more
Notes

Disclosure of information under the control of public offices, if done in public interest, promotes transparency and accountability in a democracy.

Read more

Mahendra Kumar Jain vs. State of West Bengal

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Calcutta High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.09.2022
Citation - MANU/WB/1442/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"The significance of section 8(1)(j) which upholds the right to privacy and ultimately the reputation and dignity of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution goes against the tide of a free flow of information and remains steadfast in holding on to the private space of an individual. The significance of this provision must not be forgotten or diluted under any circumstances (Ref. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law; (2016) 7 SCC 221). 29. In view of the above discussion WPA 18543 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of by directing the Police Authorities to immediately withdraw the entire series of photographs and WhatsApp messages between the deceased Rashika Jain and Abhishek Padia and treat the same as private information which falls within the clamp of section 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act. The authorities are to ensure that the WhatsApp messages and the photographs are not disclosed to any person or authority by way of an application under the Right to Information Act or otherwise."

Read more
Notes

Private communication between two individuals over WhatsApp is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Section 8(1)(j).

Read more

Auup Kumar Maity vs. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Dignity, Autonomy || Calcutta High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.09.2022
Citation - C.R.R 2039 of 2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
View Case

Important Quote

"Keeping in mind the issue of burden of proof, it would be safe to conclude that in a case, like, the present one, the Court's decision should be rendered only after balancing the interests of the parties, i.e, the quest for truth, and the social and cultural implications involved therein. The possibility of stigmatizing a person as a bastard, the ignominy that attaches to an adult who, in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents, may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also intrude upon his right of privacy. No person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA."

Read more
Notes

One may face heavy consequences in light of the social and cultural implications from a DNA test that could deny parentage rights. Therefore, compelling a person to provide a sample for DNA test can be an intrusion upon their right to privacy.

Read more

Akg vs. Ct. 238 St. Xavier's University

Informational Privacy || Calcutta High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.09.2022
Citation - WPA 20837 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of The Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"It cannot be denied that in the cases relating to sexual offences, the disclosure of the identity of the victim lady during the course of the trial may cause further victimization to her. There also may be other facts and circumstances, which may justify non-disclosure of the identity of a litigant to maintain his privacy. In the present case, the principal grievance of the petitioner relates to her resignation from the relevant post. It is a service matter. In my view no justification has been shown by the petitioner to proceed with this writ petition without disclosing her name."

Read more
Notes

Non-disclosure of identity of the victim in a litigation is a valid request, for example a litigation related to sexual misconduct. However, disclosure of identity of the parties in a litigation cannot be excused for service matter cases.

Read more

In Re- Court on its own Motion

Dignity || Calcutta High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.09.2023
Citation - C. R. R. 2050 of 2023 in C. R. M. (DB) 1388 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Revision in Criminal Main
Case Status - Case disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 195A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Important Quote

"Right to privacy and dignity of every individual particularly a victim of sexual assault is the cornerstone of a civilized society. The Investigating Agency which is duty bound to preserve, protect and champion the fundamental right of privacy of the victim appears to have encroached upon it themselves. This factual background shows brazen disregard to the rule of law, privacy and dignity of a victim of sexual offence. As the actions of the police officers have caused breach of fundamental right to privacy and dignity of the victim, this Court would otherwise be inclined to impose appropriate and just compensation payable by the police officers personally to the victim as a remedy for enforcement of her fundamental rights."

Read more
Notes

The Court reprimanded police officers for making midnight calls to a victim of sexual assault in the name of investigation, and directed them to personally pay a notional amount of Rs 5000 each to the victim as compensation for infringing upon her right to privacy and dignity.

Read more

The District Magistrate of Howrah & Ors. v. Kashmira Begum & Ors.

Autonomy, Dignity || Calcutta High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.06.2023
Citation - MAT/1135/2023 and IA No.CAN/1/2023
Case Type -Tender of Mandamus Appeal and Interim Application
Case Status - Case and Appeal disposed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"Every citizen has a right to enjoy a peaceful life, not being hounded or interrogated by police excepting for good reason. Police interrogation infringes a citizen’s right to privacy which has now been recognized as a fundamental right. Such right can be curtailed only when larger public interest or national interest so warrants."

Read more
Notes

The power of ordering a CBI Investigation must be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Read more

Probhat Purkait @ Provat v. The State of West Bengal

Autonomy, Dignity || Calcutta High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.10.2023
Citation - CRA (DB) 14 OF 2023
Case Type - Criminal Appellate
Case Status -
Legal Provisions - Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Coming to the present case we find that this is a case of non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship between a minor girl and an older adolescent or may be a young adult. There is nothing on record to prove the factum of kidnapping by the appellant. No evidence has been led to that effect by the prosecution rather the victim ipse dixit has testified that she voluntarily walked into the house of her lover and married him. They started a conjugal life and about two years thereafter a female child was born to them. This is not a case where sexual offence has been committed and the appellant has married the victim to wriggle out of the punishment." "But taking into consideration the ground reality, subsequent development of birth of a child, peculiarity of facts and especially the economic conditions of the appellant and suffering of the victim since the date of arrest of her husband who (victim) is managing the family of an ailing mother-in-law and a small child without any support by her parents, we are constrained to take a humane view of the matter to do complete justice. We, therefore, invoke our inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. coupled with our plenary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) I.P.C."

Read more
Notes

Taking into consideration the non-exploitative consensual sexual relationship between the two adolescents, leading to the birth of a child, combined with the economic hardship, the Court invoked its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. read with Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction of the accused adolescent under POCSO and IPC.

Read more

Chattisgarh High Court

Ranichand Baiga and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Chattisgarh High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 12.12.2018
Citation - MANU/CG/0554/2018
Case Type - Write Petition (PIL)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"A nine judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 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."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity includes women's right to make reproductive choices.

Read more

Shankar Verma vs. Vidya Verma

Bodily Integrity || Chattisgarh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 27.07.2022
Citation - MANU/CG/0687/2022
Case Type - Civil Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
View Case

Important Quote

"In our view, when there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently needed. DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of 'eminent need' whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without use of such test."

Read more
Notes

The Court must balance the interests of both parties, the petitioner and the child, and consider the test of ‘eminent need’ before ordering for a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child.

Read more

Ram Sewak Jaiswal vs. State of Chattisgarh

Individual Privacy || Chattisgarh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.10.2022
Citation - WPCR No. 797 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"The word "sensitive" apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy, regard being had to the nature of the FIR."

Read more
Notes

When considering the sensitivity of cases, privacy of individuals must be taken into account, in addition to other factors.

Read more

Kamaljit Singh Chhabra v. State of Chattisgarh

Informational Privacy, Dignity || Chattisgarh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.08.2023
Citation - CRMP No. 1970 of 2022, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 2970
Case Type - Criminal Miscallaneous Petitions
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 354(A)(i) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 9(f), 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Sec. 91 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
View Case

Important Quote

"... the privacy of the victim may be breached but if the production of the said call details can assist the Court in discovering truth and rendering justice in the matter then the Court has to adopt the due process... the object of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure the discovery of truth, rendering of justice and prevent failure of justice. In the present case the petitioner failed to establish that how he is going to be prejudiced if the chats/messages are not supplied to him."

Read more
Notes

The Court held that in cases where information sought under Section 91 of CrPC by the accused can lead to breach of privacy of the victim, the courts must follow due process and afford the victim a chance of being heard before deciding to grant the application.

Read more

Dilesh Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarh

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Chattisgarh High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 17.08.2023
Citation - Cr.A.Nos.1266/2019 & 1400/2019
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Appeal Rejected
Legal Provisions - Sec. 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec. 3(11) of CrPC.
View Case

Important Quote

"Bearing in mind, the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) and Inayath Ali (supra), it is quite vivid that the baby child of the victim is neither a party in the instant criminal appeals nor his (baby child) status /paternity is required to be examined in these criminal appeals filed by the two appellants herein, as such, ascertaining the paternity of the victim’s child is not at all required to be determined in these criminal appeals filed by the appellants and directing for DNA test of the baby child of the victim would violate the privacy right of the infant, which is a constitutionally protected right as declared by their Lordhsips of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra)."

Read more
Notes

DNA test to determine the paternity of a child cannot be ordered as a matter of course. In case of a sexual offence, the accused cannot ask for DNA test of the infant born to the victim, as the paternity of the infant was not relevant to the case of sexual assault.

Read more

A v. State of Chattisgarh

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Chattisgarh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.06.2023
Citation - WPC No. 2665 of 2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 376, 450 & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
View Case

Important Quote

"It is by now a well settled principle that compelling a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy would violate her fundamental rights. The same has been the recent trend of many High Courts. The right to reproductive autonomy and privacy are considered fundamental rights in India which are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In the recent past, the Indian courts have recognized women to have the right to make decisions about their own bodies including the choice to terminate unwanted pregnancy."

Read more
Notes

A medical termination of pregnancy cannot be denied on the grounds that a criminal proceeding is pending on the basis of complaint of sexual assault filed by the petitioner.

Read more

Aasha Lata Soni v. Durgesh Soni

Bodily Integrity, Phone Tapping || Chattisgarh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.10.2023
Citation - CMRP No. 2112 of 2022
Case Type - Criminal Miscallaneous Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 125 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"Now coming to the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid discussed judgments, it appears that the respondent has recorded the conversation of the petitioner without her knowledge behind her back which amounts to violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Right of Privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court has committed an error of law in allowing the application under Section 311 of the CrPC along with the certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act."

Read more
Notes

The Court held that recording a telephonic conversation without the permission and knowledge of a person constitutes as a violation of right to privacy.

Read more

High Court of Chattisgarh through Registrar General and Ors. v. T.K. Jha

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Chattisgarh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 09.10.2023
Citation - WP(C) No. 1560 of 2012
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Writ Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
View Case

Important Quote

"74. Confidentiality in case of personal information and its co-relation with the right to privacy and disclosure of the same on the anvil of the public interest test has been discussed above. We now proceed to look at confidentiality of information concerning the government and information relating to its inner-workings and the difference in approach in applying the public interest test in disclosing such information, as opposed to the approach adopted for other confidential/personal information. The reason for such jurisprudential distinction with regard to government information is best expressed in Attorney General (UK) v. Heinemann Publishers Pty Ltd., (1987) 10 NSWLR 86 wherein the High Court of Australia had observed: “[…] the relationship between the modern State and its citizens is so different in kind from that which exists between private citizens that rules worked out to govern contractual, property, commercial and private confidences are not fully applicable where the plaintiff is a government or one of its agencies. Private citizens are entitled to protect or further own interests… [whereas] governments act, or at all events are constitutionally required to act, in the public interest. Information is held, received and imparted by governments, their departments and agencies to further the public interest. Public and not private interest, therefore, must be the criterion by which equity determines whether it will protect information which a government or governmental body claims is confidential.”""

Read more
Notes

Disclosure of information of a third party which does not fall within the meaning of 'public activity' would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Read more

Delhi High Court

Sangamitra Acharya and Ors. vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Dignity || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.04.2018
Citation - 250 (2018) DLT 36, MANU/DE/1453/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed. Some SLP disposed of, some SLP pending.
Legal Provisions - S.19 of Mental Health Act, 1987
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Protection against an attack on right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be sought against non-State actors.

Read more

Ravinder vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Autonomy, Dignity || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.04.2018
Citation - 2018 (171) DRJ 346, MANU/DE/1548/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed. SLP Pending.
Legal Provisions - S. 23, 24 and 28 of Mental Health Act, 1987
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

This case discusses the consequence of admission to mental health institution on life, liberty, privacy, freedom and dignity.

Read more

Prime Minister's National Relief Fund vs. Aseem Takyar

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.05.2018
Citation - MANU/DE/1960/2018
Case Type - Letter Patents Appeal (LPA)
Case Status - Disposed by Diviosn Bench. Referred to a third judge on account of divergence of opinions.
Legal Provisions - S. 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"Once something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist."

Read more
Notes

Once something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist.

Read more

Swami Ramdev vs. Juggernaut Books Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.09.2018
Citation - MANU/DE/3565/2018
Case Type - Civil Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Disposed. SLP Pending.
Legal Provisions - S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

""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."

Read more
Notes

The judgment discusses the right to privacy in publication of unauthorised biographies. Right to privacy includes the right to reputation and must be balanced with other rights.

Read more

Horlicks Ltd and Ors. vs. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd.

Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 17.12.2018
Citation - 256 (2019) DLT 468, MANU/DE/4628/2018
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Disposed. Appeal pending before DB.
Legal Provisions - Chapter IV of Advertising Standards Council of India Code.
Article 19(1)(a), 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy cannot be claimed over information already available in the public domain.

Read more

Sunil Sachdeva vs. Owner of domain name crj7.com and Ors.

Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13.11.2019
Citation -2019 (178) DRJ 246, MANU/DE/3836/2019
Case Type - Civil Suit (OS)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"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 from publishing, 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."

Read more
Notes

The judgment discusses the contours of the right to privacy against defamatory online posts.

Read more

Sasikala Pushpa vs. Facebook India and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Data Protection || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.06.2020
Citation - MANU/DE/1143/2020
Case Type - Civil Suit (OS)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 66A, 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The judgment discusses the right to privacy in re photograph/video/audio messages. Right to privacy must be balanced with the right to know in cases of public interest.

Read more

Deepti Kapur vs. Kunal Julka

Search and Seizure, Surveillance, Phone Tapping || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.06.2020
Citation - AIR 2020 Delhi 156, MANU/DE/1314/2020
Case Type - Civil Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 14, 20 of Family Courts Act, 1984.
S. 5, 7, 8 and 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

This judgment examines the admissibility of evidence collected in breach of privacy.

Read more

Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi and Ors

Dignity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 10.06.2021
Citation - CS(COMM) 187/2021; MANU/DE/1056/2021
Case type - Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"On this aspect, we must also note that in Puttaswamy (supra), wherein the right to privacy was declared to be a fundamental right on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has reflected upon personality rights also, and observed that: ""58. Every individual should have a right to be able to exercise control over his/her own life and image as portrayed to the world and to control commercial use of his/her identity. This also means that an individual may be permitted to prevent others from using his image, name and other aspects of his/her personal life and identity for commercial purposes without his/her consent."""

Read more
Notes

Right to publicity or celebrity rights rests with that specific individual, and such rights cannot be enforced posthumously.

Read more

X vs. Union of India and Ors

Dignity, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 20.04.2021
Citation - 280 (2021) DLT 57, MANU/DE/0767/2021
Case type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 67, 67A, 67B, 67C, 75, 79, 81 and 85 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
View Case

Important Quote

"That apart, the inclusion of the name and/or likeness of a person on such website, even if the photograph of the person is not in itself obscene or offensive, without consent or concurrence, would at the very least amount to breach of the person's privacy, which a court may, in appropriate cases, injunct or restrain."

Read more
Notes

The action of taking a person's photographs and posting them to another website without their consent is violative of a persons privacy.

Read more

Dr. Sitanshi Sharma vs. Vandana Sharma and Ors

Informational Privacy, Phone Tapping || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.09.2021
Citation - MANU/DE/2470/2021
Case Type - Civil Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 26 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. S. 65B in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly observed that the application filed by the petitioner is in the nature of a roving inquiry, which is not warranted in the present case. In the considered view of this Court, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that she is not seeking access to the said CDR through production thereof and the same are only for perusal of the Court at the time of trial, this would still amount to invasion of privacy of the respondent No. 3."

Read more
Notes

The court held that Call Detail Records (CDR) which were collected/requested in contradiction to the Evidence Act, could not be preserved in response to the petitioners' roving query, as this would amount to a violation of the respondents' privacy.

Read more

Sandeep Aggarwal vs. Priyanka Aggarwal

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 24.12.2021
Case Citation - (2022) 286 DLT 39 (DB)
Case Type - Matrimonial Appeals
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 12, 28 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"The prime concern of the Court is to find out as to whether a person who is said to be mentally ill could defend himself properly or not. Determination of such an issue although may have some relevance with the determination of the issue in the lis, nonetheless, the Court cannot be said to be wholly powerless in this behalf. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that a person would be subjected to test which would invade his right of privacy and may in some case amount to battery; but it is another thing to say that a party may be asked to submit himself to a psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst so as to enable the Court to arrive at a just conclusion."

Read more
Notes

A court order directing a medical evaluation of one of the parties to a marriage in a prima facie case of unsoundness of mind, mental disorder or insanity, under the Hindu Marriage Act would not be considered an invasion of privacy.

Read more

Shahrukh vs. The State NCT of Delhi

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.03.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/0915/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Case
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 142, 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 120B, 34, 364A, 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 173(8) of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"Further, in Ritesh Sinha it is rather stated fundamental right to privacy cannot be considered to be as absolute and but must bow down to compelling public interest. Thus, there appear to be no doubt upon the power of the learned Trial Court to allow an application seeking permission to get the voice sample of accused."

Read more
Notes

When there is a compelling public interest, collecting voice samples of accused persons does not violate their right to privacy.

Read more

RIT Foundation and Ors. vs. The Union of India and Ors

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.05.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/1638/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Exception 2, S. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"There is a sui generis entitlement, of the marital sphere, to its own privacy. This cannot be compromised. The contention of the petitioners that the impugned Exception unconstitutionally accords preference, to the privacy of the marital institution, over the privacy of the individuals involved (particularly the wife) does not, I am constrained to say, make sense, as the impugned Exception does not compromise, in any manner, with the "privacy of the individuals involved". It, on the other hand, advises against unwarranted judicial, or executive, incursions into the privacy of the marital bedroom and, in doing so, cannot, in my view, be regarded as sanctioning an unconstitutional dispensation."

Read more
Notes

The court delivered a split verdict on the issue of constitutionality of the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) under the Indian Penal Code. The opinions differed over the status of consent and the potential violation of the autonomy of women in regards to MRE.

Read more

Delhi Sarkari Ration Dealers Sangh Delhi vs. Comissioner Food And Supplies Govt of NCT of Delhi

Dignity || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.05.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/1759/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 47 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S.12 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
View Case

Important Quote

"In our view, it is only civil that persons – who desire to obtain/ buy anything from an outlet, should queue up, if such a queue is necessary looking to the number of persons, who may land up at the outlet at the same time. It does not offend the right to dignity and privacy of any person, merely because the person may be required to queue up at the outlet. The outlet could be for anything, or for any service."

Read more
Notes

Compelling beneficiaries under the Targeted Public Distribution System to stand in a queue at fair price shops, to receive their allocated services does not violate their right to privacy and dignity.

Read more

X vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.07.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2894/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). S.3, 3(2) of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971
View Case

Important Quote

"Undisputedly, the petitioner is a victim of rape. She is stated to be about 13 to 17 years old. The assault on her person and the defilement of her body would have undoubtedly left scars which would take years to heal. Her misery and suffering would stand compounded even more if she were forced to bear the mantle of motherhood at such a tender age. The Court shudders to even imagine the state of despondency that would descend over her life. The mental and physical trauma that she would have to undergo if she were forced to carry the foetus and take on the onerous duties of motherhood is unimaginable. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."

Read more
Notes

A minor rape survivor can be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 28 weeks to uphold her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Read more

T.V. Today Network Limited vs. News Laundry Media Private Limited and Ors.

Press Freedom, Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.07.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2679/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 19(1), 19(2), 21 Constitution Of India, 1950. S.13, 14, 37, 37(2), 37(3), 39, 52, 52(1), 499, 500 of the Copyright Act, 1957. S. 2(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000
View Case

Important Quote

"As observed by the Supreme Court in Subramanium Swamy (supra) reputation is an integral part of the dignity of an individual and if reputation is damaged, society as well as the individual would be the loser. The old Bonnard Principle which set the high thresh-hold for grant of injunction restraining publications on the ground of defamation and harm to the reputation, has been watered-down by the courts, as noticed above. The right to free speech is an important right, but reputation is an equally important right. The courts, over a period of time, have pronounced that reputation is an internal and central facet of right to life, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, one under Article 19(1)(a) and the other under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Read more
Notes

The freedom to express an opinion or to comment on content on social media or the TV through satire is a facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression insofar as it does not violate the right to privacy or reputation of an individual.

Read more

Sunil Kumar vs. State of UT of Chandigarh

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.08.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/2825/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.160, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 142, 20(3) of the Constitution Of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra) has re- affirmed that a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice did not violate his Fundamental Right to Privacy, including under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It also held that a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the powers to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime, and ordered the vesting of such a power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."

Read more
Notes

A judicial order compelling individuals to provide a voice sample does not violate their right to privacy. Collecting voice samples for the purpose of investigation would be valid even if it is collected after the charge sheet has been filed.

Read more

WhatsApp LLC vs. Competition Commission of India and Ors.

Data Protection, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 25.08.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/3093/2022
Case Type - Latter Patent Appeal and Civil Misc. Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. Information Technology (reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 - Rule 5(7). S. 3, 4, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 53, 57, 62 of the Competition Act, 2002
View Case

Important Quote

"The 2021 Policy, however, places its users in a “take-it-or-leave-it” situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy."

Read more
Notes

WhatsApp's privacy policy, which allows it to share user information with Facebook could invoke violation of privacy rights since it leaves users in a 'take it or leave it' situation forcing them into an agreement without any voluntary or specific user consent.

Read more

Neetu Singh and Anr. vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors.

Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30. 08. 2022
Citation- MANU/DE/3170/2022
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Section 72 A, 79, 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. S. 62, 63, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957
View Case

Important Quote

"As per the above extract from K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) it is clear that the Supreme Court recognises that if there is a law in existence to justify the disclosure of information and there is a need for the disclosure considering the nature of encroachment of the right then privacy cannot be a ground to justify non-disclosure, so long as the same is not disproportionate. In India, the Copyright Act is clearly a law, which requires “infringing copies” to be taken into custody. The Copyright Act recognizes the right of the copyright owner to claim damages and rendition of accounts in respect of such infringement. Secondly, whenever the data is sought for a legitimate purpose, and for curbing the violation of law, including infringement of copyright, the same would be in accordance with the legal position recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra)."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy cannot be used as a ground to justify the non-disclosure of user data in a copyright infringement case.

Read more

Ruba Ahmed and Ors. vs. Hansal Mehta and Ors.

Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14. 10. 2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4011/2022
Case Type - Civil (Ad-interim injunction)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908
View Case

Important Quote

"The Right of Privacy which is agitated by the plaintiffs is that of the two daughters who have admittedly died in the attack. As already discussed above, Right to Privacy is essentially is a right in personam and is not inheritable by the mothers/legal heirs of the deceased persons. In the present case, the mother's right to privacy is in no way getting impinged by the movie which is sought to be screened by the defendants. Neither is the privacy of the mother's/plaintiff's in any way being compromised nor is there any affront to their dignity and privacy, merely because their two daughters happened to be the victims of the terror attack. The plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by the making of this movie but unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by the plaintiffs. The 'right to be left alone', undoubtedly, is an aspect of Right to Privacy, but it can also operate within its limits and in the given circumstances, it cannot be termed as a right to be left alone especially when the two plaintiffs get barely any mention in the entire movie."

Read more
Notes

Legal heirs cannot bring about claims for the right to privacy on behalf of someone else because the right to privacy is a right in personam and is not inheritable.

Read more

Rajesh Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Dignity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 28. 09. 2022
Citation -
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
View Case

Important Quote

"Measures taken by CCIs cannot be limited to surveillance by way of CCTVs and security guards, especially in view of how children are also entitled to their right to privacy and confidentiality."

Read more
Notes

Child Care Institutions have to ensure that the right to privacy and confidentiality of children would not be violated while taking safety and protection measures. Judgement lays down the guidelines for Child Care Institutions in view of the aforementioned concerns.

Read more

Gurjit Kaur vs. Harpercollins Publishers India

Dignity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19. 09. 2022
Citation- MANU/DEOR/144034/2022
Case Type - First Appeal Order
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"There is furthermore no gainsaying, the legal situation that obtains, pursuant to the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), ""that privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. At a normative level, privacy subserves those internal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlement and interest which lie at the foundation of order and liberty"". In view of the foregoing, we are also prima facie of the view that, the Author further owes a duty of care to Ms. Gurjit Kaur, who was in his charge as an International Hockey Player at all relevant times."

Read more
Notes

The court issued an order to protect the petitioner's right to privacy by preventing the disclosure of confidential medical information about them in a book.

Read more

Michelle Camilleri and Ors. vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 25.11.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4758/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition allowed
Legal provision - S. 13(1), 13(i) of the Commissions For Protection Of Child Rights Act, 2005. S.31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 58, 59 of the Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015.
View Case

Important Quote

"The adoption agency shall in the meanwhile stand restrained from granting third parties unauthorized access to the child which may tend to compromise the identity and the privacy rights of Child "S". The aforesaid restraint, however, shall not be construed as depriving Child "S" the facility to participate in group activities which may be organized or held within the precincts of the adoption agency and are duly supervised by the caregivers of the agency."

Read more
Notes

This writ petition was regarding, inter alia, the medical treatment of a child in an adoption agency, and the validity of withdrawal of adoption petition of the child. The court noted that various documents filed by the parties in the petition may lead to breach of identity of a child and even invasion of privacy rights of the child. All parties and their counsels were required to mask and redact the documents.

Read more

Sanjay Pandey vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Phone tapping || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.12.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4984/2022
Case Type - Criminal Bail Application
Case Status - Bail granted
Legal provision - Article 21 of the Constitution of India. S. 24, 25, 120-A, 120-B, 403, 405, 409, 415, 420, 461, 464, 465 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. S. 3(1), 3(1AA), 4, 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 25(b), 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. R. 2(tt), 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. S. 3, 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. S. 69B, 69B(2), 72, 72-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. S. 13, 13(1), 13(2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988. S. 2(u), 3, 4, 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
View Case

Important Quote

"I am prima facie of the view that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy. The right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that phone calls not be recorded. Only with consent of the individuals concerned, can such activity be carried out otherwise it will amount to breach of the fundamental right to privacy. In the present case, recording or tapping of phone lines by ISEC was not an action of the State. The facets of privacy include right of non-interference with the individual body, protection of personal information and autonomy over personal choices. Consent is essential when it comes to recording phone lines which aspect was disregarded by both NSE and ISEC."

Read more
Notes

Phone tapping by a private entity at the employer's behest in the execution of a contractual obligation is a violation of the right to privacy of the employees, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Read more

N vs. Health & Family Welfare Department

Bodily Integrity, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 23.01.2023
Citation - (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 476, 2023/DHC/000564
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal Provisions - S. 3, 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
View Case

Important Quote

"Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court extracted above and in order to avoid risks to pregnant minor girls, the [Government of NCT, Delhi] is directed to issue a circular to the effect that in case of any minor's guardian or family approaching any RMP for termination of pregnancy, the identity of the minor, guardian or the family, shall not be disclosed in the RMP's report to the police, if a request to that effect is made by the guardian or the family to the RMP. Moreover, the police shall also ensure that in such cases, the report, which is registered, does not publicly disclose the identity of the minor and her guardian or the family."

Read more
Notes

The court issued an order directing the appropriate authority to issue a circular for RMPs and police officers to not disclose the names and details of minors and family members of minors intending to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.

Read more

R. vs. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 25.01.2023
Citation - (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 198
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3, 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971; Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"This Court takes note of the fact that Article 21 of the Constitution of India dealing with right to life invariably includes a life lived with dignity. The child herein is a victim of rape. Termination of pregnancy in cases, like present one, cannot be reduced merely to be defined as right of a woman sexually assaulted, but also to be recognised as a human right, as it affects dignified existence of a victim if the same is not permitted. It is not the privacy of the rape victim which is invaded by sexual assault, but her body is wounded and her soul is scared. It would not be appropriate to expect the minor victim who is a rape victim to take the burden of giving birth and raising a child, especially in a situation where she herself is passing through the age of adolescent. Doing so, will amount to asking a child to give birth and raise another child. Given the social, financial, and other factors that are immediately associated with the pregnancy, an unwanted pregnancy would surely have an impact on victim's mental health."

Read more
Notes

Constitutional Courts can exercise their powers to permit medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, to protect the rights to dignity and bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. The court also laid down guidelines to be implemented by investigating officers in cases of sexual assault where pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.

Read more

Sephy vs. CBI and Ors.

Dignity, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.02.2023
Citation - (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 646
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"It will be essential to note that even as an accused, the fundamental rights available to an accused/prisoner/detainee are not suspended so far as the question of their privacy and dignity is concerned. A consideration of the aforesaid precedents, undoubtedly, point out that the “right to dignity” of a person as available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not suspended even when the person is accused of committing an offence or is arrested. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 can be suspended only as per procedure established by law, and such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. Right to personal liberty of an accused gets suspended the moment one is arrested as the same might be necessary for the State security. However, the right to dignity is not suspended or waived even of an accused, undertrial or a convict."

Read more
Notes

An accused person's fundamental right to privacy and dignity are not suspended upon their arrest. Hence, it is unconstitutional to subject them to a 'virginity test' during a criminal investigation.

Read more

Sonu vs. State

Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 06.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1955, MANU/DE/2282/2023
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 374(2), 354C, 354D, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
View Case

Important Quote

"The concept of ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy plays central role to adjudicate a case under Section 354C of IPC. The word ‘reasonable expectation’ has not been defined; however, it will have to be assessed in the facts and circumstances of each case depending on the place and manner in which the offence was committed. It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy."

Read more
Notes

The 'reasonable expectation' of privacy includes the expectation of privacy in both publicly accessible places (such as public bathrooms) and public places (such as ritual bathing in the Ganga). Provisions of the IPC such as Section 354C (voyeurism) shall be applicable to any invasion of privacy in such places as well.

Read more

X vs. Union of India and Others

Informational Privacy, Right to be Forgotten, Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2361
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 66E Information Technology Act, 2000; Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Not only does uploading of NCII lead to a clear violation of the provisions of the IT Act and IT Rules, it is also a violation of the right to privacy which is a sacrosanct aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by a 9-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. [...] An individual's right to exercise control over their personal data has also been recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra). It was observed therein that while it is not an absolute right, this right to exercise control over personal data would also encompass an individual's right to control their existence on the internet. [...] As noted in Section 66E of the IT Act as well, individuals have a reasonable expectation to privacy which is not lost within the confines of a domestic relationship, or even if any intimate image is shared with another person with the understanding and the expectation that the same will not be shared with third persons."

Read more
Notes

The court laid down directions and recommendations for MEITY, Delhi Police and search engines to follow in cases concerning the publication of non-consensual intimate images ('NCII') on the internet. Per the court's directions, search engines will be required to de-list and take down all NCII content reported to them. This protects the right to privacy and the right to live a life with dignity of the victims.

Read more

X vs. Union of India and Others

Informational Privacy, Right to be Forgotten, Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2361
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 66E Information Technology Act, 2000; Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Not only does uploading of NCII lead to a clear violation of the provisions of the IT Act and IT Rules, it is also a violation of the right to privacy which is a sacrosanct aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by a 9-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. [...] An individual's right to exercise control over their personal data has also been recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra). It was observed therein that while it is not an absolute right, this right to exercise control over personal data would also encompass an individual's right to control their existence on the internet. [...] As noted in Section 66E of the IT Act as well, individuals have a reasonable expectation to privacy which is not lost within the confines of a domestic relationship, or even if any intimate image is shared with another person with the understanding and the expectation that the same will not be shared with third persons."

Read more
Notes

The court laid down directions and recommendations for MEITY, Delhi Police and search engines to follow in cases concerning the publication of non-consensual intimate images ('NCII') on the internet. Per the court's directions, search engines will be required to de-list and take down all NCII content reported to them. This protects the right to privacy and the right to live a life with dignity of the victims.

Read more

Sachin Arora vs. Manju Arora

Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2692
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Consitution of India, 1950; S. 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
View Case

Important Quote

"As held by the Constitution Bench in K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 the right to privacy, though a constitutionally protected right, is not an absolute right. This right of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has to be necessarily subject to reasonable restrictions especially when the restrictions are in public interest. The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and therefore, it would not at all be in public interest that the Court should on the ground of right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage"

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy is not an absolute right. A Husband suspected of adultery cannot claim right to privacy as a defence against producing evidence in accordance with the specific provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act.

Read more

Renuka vs. University Grant Commission and Another

Autonomy, Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3210
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. , has held that reproductive choices are inherent to a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity which in turn are encompassed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution envisaged an egalitarian society where citizens could exercise their rights, and the society as well as the State would allow the manifestation of their rights. A compromise was then not sought in the Constitutional scheme. The citizens could not be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy"

Read more
Notes

In the absence of specific provisions for granting maternity leave for students pursuing higher education, the court can direct the educational institution to grant the same. The duration of the maternity leave would be determined based on the nature and duration of the course/program.

Read more

State v. Haripal

Informational Privacy, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.08.2023
Citation - 2023-DHC-5769
Case Type - Criminal Miscallaneous Case
Case Status - Applications Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
View Case

Important Quote

"In this Court’s opinion, procuring call detail records of the mobile phones of police officials including their tower-wise location can prejudice both their safety and privacy. The concerned police officers may be involved in dealing with cases of different nature, including sensitive or heinous cases or cases of national security, and orders, such as those impugned before this Court, can directly encroach upon the privacy of the police officials. Further, the impugned orders also have the capacity to put at risk and expose the identities of the ‘secret informers’ and risk their safety and security... Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement to procure call detail records of investigating officers, members of raiding team/other concerned police officials, etc., as directed in the impugned orders."

Read more
Notes

The Court overturned a Sessions Court order which had directed the accused to be given the tower-wise location data of police officers involved in a raid. The accused had sought this information in order to challenge the veracity of the claims made by the prosecution regarding the raid. The Court held that procuring call record details of police officials, including their tower-wise location can prejudice their safety and privacy.

Read more

Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi and Ors

Autonomy, Dignity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.07.2023
Citation - 2023-DHC-4631
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"Thus, the decision of the High Court of Madras in Deepa Jayakumar confirms, firstly, that the reputation of a person, as well as personality rights, as well as the right to privacy which emerge as its sequelae, are not heritable, and stand extinguished with the extinguishing of the person concerned; secondly, that the remedy with the plaintiff aggrieved by any publication of the life story of another person was only to claim damages; thirdly, when the movie, or the web series, already stood released and had been viewed by thousands of persons, injunction against further telecast could not be granted and, fourthly, that the maker of such movie or web series was not required to take prior consent from the person on the basis of whose life and events the movie or web series was being made."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy and personality rights are not heritable, and will extinguish with the person. Furthermore, right to privacy cannot be claimed by one person on behalf of another.

Read more

Abhijit Mishra v. Reserve Bank of India

Data Protection || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.08.2023
Citation: DHC-2023- 5820-DB
Case Type - Writ Petition, Civil
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 4, 7 and 27 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, Sec. 29, 38(g) and 38(i) of the Aadhar Act, 2016.
View Case

Important Quote

"The UPI Guidelines, 2019 also make it exceedingly clear that data may be stored under two types, namely, 'customer data' and 'customer payments sensitive data'. While the former may be stored with the app provider in an encrypted format, the latter can only be stored with the payment services providers bank systems, and not with the third party app under the multi model API approach that Google Pay has opted for. We therefore do not find any merit in the Petitioner's contention Google Pay is actively accessing and collecting sensitive and private user data."

Read more
Notes

The Court accepted the RBI's contention that Google Pay is not operating a payments system in India, which would require compliance under various laws such as the Aadhaar Act. Instead, Google Pay is merely a user interface application that facilitates users to make payments through the UPI system.

Read more

Nabal Thakur v. The State

Dignity, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 09.08.2023
Citation - Bail Application 2128/2023,
MANU/DE/5129/2023
Case Type - Bail Application
Case Status - Petition disposed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1970
View Case

Important Quote

"When a minor seeks a medical termination of pregnancy, doctors must ensure that the process is conducted in compliance with the prevailing laws and regulations, with utmost sensitivity to the minor's age and maturity level. Such cases must be approached with empathy, ensuring that the minor feels safe and supported throughout the process. Additionally, doctors must maintain confidentiality and privacy to protect the patient's dignity and safeguard them from potential harm or coercion. Doctors also have a duty to communicate effectively with such minor patients, explaining the medical procedures, potential risks, and available alternatives."

Read more
Notes

Even though this was an ordinary bail application in a case of sexual offence, the Court, upon finding negligence of the doctors in following established procedures for medical termination of pregnancy and preparation of Medico Legal Certificate, issued directions to ensure future compliance with said procedures.

Read more

Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sashank Yadav

Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13.09.2023
Citation - LPA 631/2023 & CM APPLs. 47206-07/2023
Case Type - Letter Patent Appeal.
Case Status - Petition dismissed
Legal Provisions - Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. In the opinion of the Court, the view taken by learned Single Judge is completely in consonance with the judgment of Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Supra), relevant portions whereof has been extracted in the impugned order. The issue of obtaining sensitive personal details of a child, as observed in K.S. Puttaswamy case, would have the potential of infringing their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It would thus suffice to state that the impugned Circulars are prima facie in conflict with the constitutional provisions, effect whereof has rightly been stayed by learned Single Judge."

Read more
Notes

Mandating that a child's sensitive personal data is required for the purposes of admission by submitting Aadhar Number or Aadhar card is a contravention of right to privacy.

Read more

Mrs. B v Union of India

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.10.2023
Citation - W.P.(C) 13371/2023
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Writ Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 3(2)(b)(i), Section 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Rule 3B(C) of the MTP Rules, 2003
View Case

Important Quote

"In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another (supra) wherein it has held that that it is the prerogative of each women to evaluate her life and arrive at the best course of action in view of the change in material circumstance which may result when a woman separates from her partner and she may no longer have the financial resources to raise the child and also in view of the fact that the right to reproductive choice also includes the right not to procreate, this Court is of the opinion that, at this juncture, the Petitioner should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy on the ground that the Petitioner does not want to live with her husband any longer."

Read more
Notes

Where there is a change in material circumstance of a woman such as separation from partner, lack of financial resources, and in light of the fact that she also has a right not to procreate, the woman may be permitted to termite her pregnancy beyond the prescribed period under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Read more

Naresh Kumar v. Wire

Press Freedom || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.11.2023
Citation - CS(OS) 749/2023
Case Type - Civil Suit, Original Side
Case Status - Interim Directions issued.
Legal Provisions - Art.21 of the Constitution of India,1950
View Case

Important Quote

"29. Considering all the above aspects, there is merit in the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that a grave and irreparable damage will be caused to the plaintiff if ad-interim injunctive orders are not passed. As stated by the Supreme Court in L.K. Ratna (supra), “not all the King's horses and all the King's men” would be able to remedy the prejudice and harm to the plaintiff's reputation, if the impugned article and the offending social media posts, are allowed to be propagated/circulated during the pendency of this application, and while the defendants exercise their right to file a reply to the instant application."

Read more
Notes

The court directed to take down the libellous publication about the private life of an individual, recognising the same to be an invasion of right to privacy.

Read more

Tarak Nath Gupta v State of Delhi

Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13.10.2023
Citation - CRL.REV.P. 472/2019
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 91, 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sections 498A, 304B, 306 of the IPC
View Case

Important Quote

"In the present case, as pointed out hereinbefore, the voice sample was sought not from accused during the course of investigation, but from the witnesses, who during the course of examination, had denied their voices. As duly noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra), the power of the Magistrate to direct recording of voice samples has been conferred by the process of judicial interpretation based on the principles of ejusdem generis and also on the principle that the fundamental right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest."

Read more
Notes

Magistrate can direct recording of voice samples if there is compelling public interest, to which the fundamental right to privacy must bow down, and for protection of the right to fair trial of the accused.

Read more

Ankita Singh Vs. Ramesh Devi and Ors.

Informational Privacy and Phone Tapping || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.09.2023
Citation - C.M. (M) 1508/2023 and C.M. Appl. 47984/2023, 2023/DHC/6854
Case Type - Civil Miscallenous Appeal
Case Status - Petition dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec.30 of the Civil Procedure Code.
View Case

Important Quote

"This Court is unable to accept that under Section 30 of CPC, the Civil Court must embark upon an enquiry of summoning the mobile locations records of the parties in a routine manner as sought by the Petitioner herein and that to at the stage of final hearing. The summoning of Call Detail Records ('CDR') of a person is governed by prescribed procedures governing protection of privacy of party and the same cannot be summoned in a routine or casual manner as is sought to be done by the Petitioner in these proceedings. In a civil trial, the Court does not gather evidence on behalf of the parties and it is for the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Petitioner herein has had sufficient opportunity since 04.09.2018 to 05.07.2022 to lead evidence on the alleged collusion between the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The present application filed at the stage of final arguments is not maintainable and is without any merit."

Read more
Notes

Sec.30 of the Civil Procedure Code does not permit the summoning of Call Detail Records of an individual since they are governed by prescribed procedures protecting the privacy of the individuals.

Read more

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.

Autonomy, Data Protection || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.09.2023
Citation - CS(COMM) 652/2023 and I.A. 18237/2023-18243/2023
Case Type - Commercial Civil Suit
Case Status - Injunction granted.
Legal Provisions - Art. 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"The technological tools that are now freely available make it possible for any illegal and unauthorised user to use, produce or imitate any celebrity's persona, by using any tools including Artificial Intelligence. The celebrity enjoys the right of privacy, and does not wish that his or her image, voice, likeness is portrayed in a dark or grim manner, as portrayed on the porn websites. Moreover, the Plaintiff's image is being morphed along with other actresses in videos and images generated in a manner, which are not merely offensive or derogatory to the Plaintiff, but also to such other third-party celebrities and actresses."

Read more
Notes

The Petitioner, a celebrity, was granted an ex-parte injunction to protect their personality rights.

Read more

Sanjiv Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Phone Tapping and Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.12.2023
Citation - CRL.M.C. 1534/2018
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal
Case Status - Petition Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 173(6) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 120B of the Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25,54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1895.
View Case

Important Quote

"As noted above, the exact issue before the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha was whether a Court can authorize the investigating agency to record the voice samples of a person accused of an offence. The Supreme Court took note of the Explanation to Section 53 of the CrPC as amended with effect from 23rd June, 2006 and Section 53A and Section 311A of the CrPC brought into effect from the same date, which permit the examination of the persons arrested in certain cases/circumstances. The Supreme Court also observed that the fundamental right to privacy is subject to public interest, and therefore, not absolute. Accordingly, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that till exclusive provisions are made in the CrPC by the Parliament, the Magistrate would have the power to order a person to give his voice samples for the purposes of investigation of a crime."

Read more
Notes

Sharing of interception authorisation communication was not permitted since the same contained the telephone numbers of other persons whose privacy would be violated.

Read more

Gauhati High Court

Surajit Gogoi vs. Union of India and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Gauhati High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 01.02.2018
Citation - 2018 (2) GLT 9, MANU/GH/0411/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 125 of the Army Act, 1950.
S. 475 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy is violated by illegal entry, search and seizure of valuables by army personnel.

Read more

Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench)

Mangyang Lima vs. State of Nagaland and Ors.

Dignity, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Gauhati High Court (Kohima Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 09.01.2019
Citation - 2019 (1) GLT 409, MANU/GH/0240/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"It may be mentioned that with the latest view of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, 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."

Read more
Notes

The righ to privacy is violated by banishment and ex-communication by village council.

Read more

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Vinod Mittal vs. State of H.P. and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Himachal Pradesh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.06.2020
Citation - 2020 (2) ShimLC 1130, MANU/HP/0524/2020
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) u/s 482 CrPC
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 20(3) of Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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""

Read more
Notes

Undergoing Narco Analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests with consent of the accused is not violative of right to privacy.

Read more

Nimesh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Dignity and Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Himachal Pradesh High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.12.2023
Citation - Cr.MMO No. 129 of 2023

Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main)
Case Status - Petition dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and Sec. 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"It was submitted that only the accused can be directed to give a voice sample. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that the Magistrate has the power to direct any person to give a voice sample and the judgment is not confined merely to the accused. This power has been conferred for a proper investigation and there is no reason why only the accused and not any other person should be directed to give a voice sample. The only question is whether giving the voice sample is essential for the proper investigation of the case or not."

Read more
Notes

Fundamental right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest i.e. in the present case, the magistrate had exercised their powers to obtain a voice sample from a witness, which was upheld by the court.

Read more

Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Monika Mehra and Ors. vs. State and Ors.

Autonomy, Dignity || Jammu and Kashmir High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.07.2018
Citation -III (2018) DMC 76, MANU/JK/0752/2018
Case Type - Other Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"In Justice KS Puttasivamy vs. Union of India, 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."

Read more
Notes

The ability to make decisions on matters close to one's life such as marriage is a part of the right to privacy.

Read more

Aditya Raj Kaul and Ors. vs. Naeem Akhter

Press Freedom, Informational Privacy || Jammu and Kashmir High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13.10.2021
Citation - MANU/JK/0748/2021
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Case
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 499 of CrPC,1973
View Case

Important Quote

"As already noted, in R. Rajagopal's case (supra), the Supreme Court has clearly emphasized that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. The Court has further observed that publication of the matters relating to conduct relevant to the discharge of official functions of a public figure is not defamation. Therefore, on the touchstone of the broad principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforenoted case, the reporting of contents of letter written by Shri Khalid Jahangir touching the official functioning of the department that was under the Ministry headed by the complainant, would not amount to offence of defamation."

Read more
Notes

Broadcasting of information by a news channel, particularly relating to public figures, that is already in the public domain and is a matter of public interest does not violate an individual's right to privacy.

Read more

Ms. X (Minor) vs. UT of J&K and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Jammu and Kashmir High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.03.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 197
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3(2), 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971; Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"From the foregoing enunciation of law on the subject, by the Supreme Court, it is clear that a woman, whether married or unmarried, has a right to get rid of her unwanted pregnancy. It is on the basis of this principle that various High Courts of the Country and also the Supreme Court have allowed the termination of pregnancy of more than 24 weeks, though the Statute does not provide for the same."

Read more
Notes

Constitutional Courts can allow termination of pregnancies beyond 24 weeks in the interest of protecting the fundamental rights of the woman, including the right to live with dignity, the right to bodily integrity, and the right to choice.

Read more

Bashir-Ud-Din v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Informational Privacy, Bodily Integrity || Jammu and Kashmir High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.09.2023
Citation - WP(Crl) No. 37/2023 and CM No. 2738/2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, Rule 703 of the Police Rules, 1960
View Case

Important Quote

"If the officer, mechanically under the guise of prevention of crime and to protect others, open or extend history sheets, which has an impact on the right of privacy of not only the individual against whom the order is passed, but also causes harm to other person’s rights. Therefore, a fair and reasonable decision should be taken, taking into consideration the constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the interests of the State. It should be noted that at the time of opening a history sheet, the individual is not informed of a decision taken by the authorities behind his back and that the information collected is discreet. Needless to say that every person wants to live with dignity and he/she cannot be condemned arbitrarily. It is also to be borne in mind that estrangement of the members of the history sheeted person in social gathering etc., is not uncommon in order in our society. Therefore, opening or retention of history sheets, which interferes with the right of privacy of a person, should be done strictly, adhering to parameters inbuilt in the police rules, keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved."

Read more
Notes

Opening or retention of history sheets, which interferes with the right to privacy, must be done strictly, in compliance with the procedural safeguards built in.

Read more

Jagar Singh v UT of Jammu and Kashmir

Surveillance || Jammu and Kashmir High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.11.2023
Citation - WP (C) No. 612/2023
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Rule 698 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Rules, 1960. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Perusal of the record would also reveal that the entry of the petitioner is being continued to be in the Surveillance Register by the respondents ever since his name was entered therein on 05.02.2009 though the said fact of the acquittal of the petitioner has also been entered in the Register in question by the respondent... Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances as also the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment supra, the continuation of the entry of the name of the petitioner in the Surveillance Register seemingly is being continued by the respondents without drawing any subjective satisfaction in this regard... No reasons muchless cogent and credible have been recorded in the Surveillance Register for continuing the name of the petitioner therein on a mere belief without drawing any subjective satisfaction of possessing a reasonable belief that the petitioner is a habitual offender or is a person habitually addicted to crime thus necessitating to continuation of entering of his name in the Surveillance Register."

Read more
Notes

Entries in Surveillance Registers should strictly follow the bounds of the Rules that prescribe their maintenance, and should not violate fundamental freedoms of citizens such as personal liberty, privacy and movement under Articles 21 and 19 of the Constitution. Continuation of names in the register should be based on subjective satisfactions and reasonable belief that the concerned individual is a habitual offender thus necessitating continuation of the name.

Read more

Jharkhand High Court

Anurag Gupta vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors.

Autonomy || Jharkhand High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.05.2019
Citation - 2019 (2) J.L.J.R. 650, MANU/JH/0571/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (S)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 324 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 28-A of Representation of People Act, 1951
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Curtailment of right of movement pending inquiry by Election Commission is not violative of right to privacy.

Read more

Birendra Singh vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Dignity, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Jharkhand High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.08.2023
Citation - WP (Cr). No. 54 of 2009, MANU/JH/1087/2023.
Case Type - Writ Criminal Petition.
Case Status - Petition Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"Search, taking of notes or extracts or seizure of the said documents would amount to a breach of confidentiality and be violative of privacy rights of a person if there is no cogent reason expressed or provided in the affidavit and if it has been done, Articles 19(1)(a) and (d) and 21 comes into play and that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad."

Read more
Notes

The State cannot have unrestricted access to seize or inspect a person without any reliable information prior to such inspection. Such an exercise would be construed as violative of a person's privacy rights.

Read more

Nishi Pandey v State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Surveillance, Autonomy || Jharkhand High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.09.2023
Citation - W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 542 of 2023
Case Type - Writ Criminal Petition.
Case Status - Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Section 3 of Jharkhand Crimes Control Act, 2002. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under clause (b) (i)&(ii) of sub-section (1) to section 3 of the Crimes Control Act, a condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of Patratu PS at 10:00 AM is arbitrary and illegal. Every executive decision even where it is made in the exercise of statutory power must be in consonance with the Constitutional guarantee. The direction under the order dated 21st July 2023 is definitely impinging upon the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the order dated 21st July 2023 cannot be countenance in law and is, accordingly, quashed."

Read more
Notes

A condition requiring an individual identified as a 'habitual offender' or an 'anti-social element' under a statute, to report to the police station and mark their attendance every day before the officer-in-charge, violates the rights of the petitioner, including the right to privacy under Article 21. Even if such an order is made in pursuance of a statutory power, it must be in consonance with the Constitution.

Read more

Nishi Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

Autonomy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Jharkhand High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.09.2023
Citation - W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 542 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition, Division Bench.
Case Status - Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Sec. 3 of the Jharkhand Crimes Control Act, 2002.
View Case

Important Quote

“... Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1962 SCC OnLine SC 10 did not approve visiting of the police in the night at the house of the “history sheeter” but 6-Judges Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to privacy is not a facet of the Constitutional Rights. This judgment in “Kharak Singh” was not approved by a 9-Judges Bench in “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India” (2017) 10 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to privacy is implicit in the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the grounds on which the order dated 21st July 2023 has been passed, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements in law. A power under clause (b) to sub-section (1) of section 3 which provides that the Deputy Commissioner may make an order against an “anti-social” element cannot be stretched to absurdity. Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under clause (b) (i)&(ii) of sub-section (1) to section 3 of the Crimes Control Act, a condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of Patratu PS at 10 : 00 AM is arbitrary and illegal. Every executive decision even where it is made in the exercise of statutory power must be in consonance with the Constitutional guarantee. The direction under the order dated 21st July 2023 is definitely impinging upon the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the order dated 21st July 2023 cannot be countenance in law and is, accordingly, quashed."

Read more
Notes

A condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of the Police Station at 10 AM was held to be arbitrary and illegal.

Read more

Nishant Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Autonomy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Jharkhand High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.11.2023
Citation - W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 551 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Appeal, Division Bench
Case Status - Writ Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Sec. 3 of the Jharkhand Crimes Control Act, 2002.
View Case

Important Quote

"Taking into notice the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the very foundational facts for initiation of proceeding under Section 3 are lacking in this case; Notwithstanding that, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to mark his attendance before the officer-in-charge of Patratu Police Station at 10 A.M. daily, does not satisfy the requirements of law and violative of right of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Here, it is also pointed out that an "alternate remedy" by itself does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case, though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law."

Read more
Notes

A condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark their attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of the Police Station at 10 AM was held to be in violation of Art.21 of the Indian Constitution.

Read more

Karnataka High Court

Bushra Abdul Aleem and Ors. vs. Government of Karnataka, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Autonomy || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.08.2019
Citation - ILR 2020 KARNATAKA 963, MANU/KA/6862/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - 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
View Case

Important Quote

"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, 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."

Read more
Notes

Compulsory medical service is not violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Sudarshan vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.08.2020
Citation - 2020 (6) KarLJ 495, MANU/KA/2725/2020
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 482 of CrPC, 1973.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with the voice in phone conversation records does not amount to self incrimination or breach of privacy.

Read more

M.K. Pushpitha vs. State of Karnataka and Ors

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 04.08.2021
Citation - MANU/KA/3480/2021
Case type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Writ petition allowed
Legal provisions - S. 380, 403, 409, and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 53 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
View Case

Important Quote

"On the other hand, the act of the Police arresting the petitioner, seizing the articles prior to registering of the FIR is illegal and search and seizure in non-cognizable offences amounts to violation of right of privacy and the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, registering the FIR after conducting the investigation is bad in law in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari stated supra. Therefore, the Police shall not be allowed to conduct investigation, which amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the FIR registered against the petitioner requires to be quashed."

Read more
Notes

Registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

Read more

Venkateshappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Karnataka High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.09.2021
Citation - MANU/KA/3879/2021
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 45 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. S. 293 and 311 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"That apart, we also find that there has been a serious infraction of right to privacy of accused in the matter of prosecution having ventured to draw blood for the purpose of conducting DNA test. It is also settled law that no DNA analysis of any person can be conducted by the State without obtaining the consent of the party concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law in this regard in the case of Smt. Selvi and Others vs. State of Karnataka."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy of an individual is violated if the State orders for a DNA test without the individual's consent.

Read more

Resham and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors

Autonomy || Karnataka High Court

3 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - AIR 2022 Kant 81,
MANU/KA/1012/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39(f), 44(2), 51 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 133, 133(2), 142, 143, 33, 34, 35, 7(1), 7(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983
View Case

Important Quote

"Autonomy and privacy rights have also blossomed vide K.S Puttaswamy, supra. We have no quarrel with the petitioners' essential proposition that what one desires to wear is a facet of one's autonomy and that one's attire is one's expression. But all that is subject to reasonable regulation."

Read more
Notes

The ban on wearing hijab in schools and colleges is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

Read more

Hrishikesh Sahoo vs. State of Karnataka

Bodily Integrity || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.03.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/1175/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Article 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The Constitution does not in any sense depict the woman to be subordinate to a man. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 which are right to live with dignity, personal liberty, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, right to reproductive choices, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression. Under the Constitution, the rights are equal; protection is also equal."

Read more
Notes

The exception of marital rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is not absolute and the husband cannot be exempted of the allegation of rape.

Read more

B S Prakash vs. The State of Karnataka And Ors

Informational Privacy, Autonomy || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/1912/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 13(2), 14, 19, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 21, 23 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963

Important Quote

"The existing provisions of the Manual as interpreted by the Courts hitherto supposedly prove inadequate in the light of Puttaswamy jurisprudence which has expanded the content & contours of privacy and autonomy of individuals."

Read more
Notes

The police should follow guidelines issued by the High Court that are in conformity with the right to privacy before entering the name of an individual in the Register of Rowdies (a list of habitual offenders maintained by police stations).

Read more

National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Dignity || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.08.2022
Citation- MANU/KA/3782/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal provisions - S. 2, 28, 29. 33 of the Aadhaar (targeted Delivery Of Financial And Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016. S.4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. S. 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956. S. 6, 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

Important Quote

"The protection of privacy rights & information lying in the domain of 2nd Respondent – UIDAI is confined to the cases of ‘residents’ as defined u/s 2(v) wherein genuine data is stored & authentic documents like Aadhar Cards, are generated. This becomes clear from the provisions of Chapter VI 2016 Act which deal with security & confidentiality of information and restriction on sharing such information. The provisions of Sec.33 have been structured as an exception inter alia to the provisions of Sections 28 & 29 inasmuch as they authorize sharing of information & documents on ‘an order of a Court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court’."

Read more
Notes

The confidentiality provision under the Aadhaar Act is not absolute and the UIDAI can be asked to furnish Aadhaar card details of individuals through a court order to implement anti-trafficking measures.

Read more

Vishwas Shetty vs. Preethi K. Rao

Informational Privacy || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.11.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/5546/2022
Case Type - Write Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 114, 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
View Case

Important Quote

"In the case at hand, tower details of the petitioner is permitted to be taken and produced. It is for the first time, the petitioner comes into the picture merely on an allegation of illicit relationship. He is a third party to these proceedings. Third party's privacy cannot be permitted to be violated on the specious plea of the husband that he wants to prove illicit relationship between the petitioner and the wife. It is trite that right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of the Country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is a right to be ‘let alone’. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage and other incidental relationships. Informational privacy also forms an integral part of right to privacy. Therefore, the order which directs tower details of the petitioner to be placed before the Court in a proceeding, which he is not even a party, undoubtedly violates informational privacy."

Read more
Notes

Seeking call-detail records of a third-party in a divorce proceeding to prove an illicit relationship would be violative of the right to privacy of the third party.

Read more

Emmanuel Michael vs . Union of India

Search and Seizure || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 28.07.2023
Citation - WP No. 17961 of 2021
Case Type - Writ Petition - General Miscellaneous - Restitution.
Case Status - Petition allowed in part.
Legal Provisions - Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, Sec. 167 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1970.
View Case

Important Quote

"Therefore, it is now a settled principle of law that second stint of Police custody for interrogation, in the same case, long after the accused being in judicial custody is unavailable. Police custody, on a remand application, can be made and granted for the first 15 days of arrest of the accused. Once the accused is remanded to judicial custody seeking Police custody repeatedly on the ground that total 15 days custody is not yet over is a right that is unavailable to the prosecution... Therefore, this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would not venture into declaring that the statement recorded during second stint of Police custody be eschewed in its entirety which is akin to statements of an illegal act. No doubt it is illegal, but exercising jurisdiction to hold it as illegal and completely eschewing it, is not the power that is available at the hands of this Court. As observed hereinabove, the fruit of a poisonous tree should be tasted and tested only before the concerned Court."

Read more
Notes

The Court held that Police custody beyond 15 days under CrPC would amount to illegal detention. However, it left it to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the statement made during such custody was admissible according to law of evidence. The Court specifically refused to apply the 'fruits of the poisonous tree' doctrine.

Read more

The Deputy Director General & FAA Central Public Information Officer & Another v. P Lavanya & Another.

Informational Privacy, Data Protection || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.11.2023
Citation - WRIT APPEAL NO. 100406 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Appeal disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec.33 of the Aadhar Act, 2016, Sec. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
View Case

Important Quote

"It is also to be noted that by virtue of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), a person whose information is sought to be divulged has right to put-forth his case before such disclosure in terms of Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act. The right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual’s right to privacy which is conferred primacy and admits of no exception under the statutory scheme. The relationship by marriage which is a union of two partners does not eclipse the right to privacy which is the right of an individual and the autonomy of such individual’s right stands recognized and protected by the procedure of hearing contemplated under Section 33. The marriage by itself does not do away with the procedural right of hearing conferred under Section 33 of Aadhaar Act."

Read more
Notes

The relationship of marriage cannot eclipse the right to privacy of an individual to protect their Aadhar data.

Read more

Kerala High Court

Mini K.T. vs. Senior Divisional Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.12.2017
Citation - ILR 2018 (1) Kerala 355, MANU/KE/1919/2017
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

No action is possible against a woman employee for her absence from duty on account of compelling circumstances for taking care of her child. Privacy is an essential aspect of dignity of women as mothers.

Read more

Oommen Chandy vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.05.2018
Citation - ILR 2018 (2) Kerala 732, MANU/KE/1039/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

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 the right to privacy.

Read more

C.S. Chacko vs. Union of India and Ors.

Autonomy, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.08.2018
Citation - AIR 2018 Ker 166, MANU/KE/1957/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Practice of compulsory confession amongst Orthodox Syrian Christians not violative of right to privacy.

Read more

Gopalakrishnan P. vs. State of Kerala

Informational Privacy, Dignity, Data Protection || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14.08.2018
Citation - 2018 (4) KLT 1159, MANU/KE/2817/2018
Case Type - Criminal Misc. (Main)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 173 and 207 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"In the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 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."

Read more
Notes

Furnishing copy of memory card to accused is a serious transgression into the right to privacy of victim of sexual abuse.

Read more

The Cochin Institute of Science and Technology vs. Jisin Jijo and Ors.

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.06.2019
Citation - ILR 2019 (2) Kerala 796, MANU/KE/2179/2019
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"In K.S. Puttaswamy and Another vs. Union of India and Others, reported in 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."

Read more
Notes

The freedom to choose the college of his/her choice for pursuit of studies is a facet of fundamental right to privacy.

Read more

State of Kerala and Ors. vs. Shyam Balakrishnan and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.07.2019
Citation - ILR 2019 (3) Kerala 466, MANU/KE/2603/2019
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 149 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The action of the police authorities in detaining and interrogating a person and thereafter searching his residence, without following due procedure is violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Raju Sebastian and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Data Protection || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.09.2019
Citation - AIR 2020 Ker 3, MANU/KE/3533/2019
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Disposed. Judgment of the Single Judge in Nana Auto Fuels and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. MANU/KE/2762/2018 overruled..
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

A demand for furnishing income tax returns filed by a person would constitute invasion of the privacy of a person.

Read more

Faheema Shirin R.K. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Autonomy, Right to Know and Access Information || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19. 09. 2019
Citation - AIR 2020 Ker 35, MANU/KE/3799/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The right of a student to have access to internet is also part of the right to privacy.

Read more

Vilasini and Ors. vs. State of Kerala and Ors.

Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14.02.2020
Citation - 2020 (4) KLT 863, MANU/KE/0546/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Rule 7, Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2002
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

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.

Read more

Neethu Narendran vs. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.04.2020
Citation - 2020 (3) KLT 155, MANU/KE/1771/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
View Case

Important Quote

"In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India, 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."

Read more
Notes

Women's autonomy of body and mind is part of right to privacy.

Read more

X vs. S

Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.09.2020
Citation - MANU/KE/3082/2020
Case Type - Original Petition (Family Court)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - The Code of Medical Ethics formulated by the Indian Medical Council as per the provisions of S. 20A of the Indian Medical Council Act as amended in 1964.
S. 23 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

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.

Read more

Xxxxx vs. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 13.08.2021
Case citation - MANU/KE/1845/2021
Case type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Writ petition allowed
Legal provisions - Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Sections 8(1) and 16 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969.
View Case

Important Quote

"In Puttaswamy's case (supra), it was held that ... one of the connotations of “privacy” includes decisional autonomy which comprehends intimate personal choices such as, those governing reproduction as well as choice expressed in public such as, faith or modes of dress."

Read more
Notes

Requirement to provide the name of the sperm donor violates the mother's right to privacy.

Read more

Abhilash R. Nair vs. Sreebha P.S. and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 17.12.2021
Citation - 2022 (1) KLT159
Case Type - Criminal Original Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Courts should always be cautious in making an innocent child from being bastardised if his mother and spouse were living together during the time of conception even if the result of DNA test is found to be against mother and child. In the present case, the petitioner is stoutly denying of having had any contact at all with the first petitioner and totally denying the case of the petitioners. In the above circumstances, it would become absolutely necessary to order DNA test to find out the truth regarding the paternity of the second petitioner."

Read more
Notes

DNA test ordered by the court to determine paternity of a child does not violate the right to privacy of the child.

Read more

Alli Noushad vs. Rasheed and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision - 18.02.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/0556/2022
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S.122 of the Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"The sacrosanctity of a family, which includes its privacy, is what is essentially sought to be protected by virtue of Section 122. If that be so, the aspect involved herein, touching the fidelity of PW17, is all the more a finer and important one, which requires to be preserved from being divulged, having regard to the purpose and purport of Section 122 of the Evidence Act. Evidence regarding quarrel and the reason behind it are matters which fit into the prohibited compartment of communication between spouses, and therefore, inadmissible. We thus conclude that, that part of the evidence tendered by PW17 which pertains to the quarrel between accused and PW17 is liable to be eschewed as inadmissible under Section 122 of the Evidence Act."

Read more
Notes

Conversation between husband and wife is protected under section 122 of the Evidence Act, 1822 as priviliged conversation between a married couple and would be inadmissable as evidence in court.

Read more

Ismail P.M. vs. Muhammad Ameer-Ul-Islam and Ors

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - 2022 (2) KLT 562,
MANU/KE/1318/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 372, 374, 377, 378 of CrPC, 1973. Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Important Quote

"We find merit in the objection of the learned Special Government Pleader that the issuance of copies of records of the subject Sessions case may invade the privacy and dignity of the victim, though 'no more', this being a case of brutal rape, followed by murder. We prefer to believe that privacy and dignity of individual outlives his/her life."

Read more
Notes

Issuing certified copies of a judgment and other documents to a stranger would violate the victim's right to privacy and dignity.

Read more

Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Through Public Prosecutor

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.03.2022
Citation - (2022) 2 KLT 779,
MANU/KE/1121/2022
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 375 Explanation 2, 90, 376(2)(f), 114A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"Non-disclosure of material facts by the accused affecting the consent would amount to violation of the sexual autonomy of the woman. Sexual autonomy consists of two requirements. First, the possession of relevant information and second the ability to act in accordance with the personal assessment of that information. The material facts known to the accused if not shared with the woman at the time of committing the sexual act, certainly would encroach upon her right to protect her decisional autonomy."

Read more
Notes

Sexual relations contingent upon the promise to marry would amount to rape only if consent was obtained through non-disclosure of material facts which violated the decisional autonomy of the victim.

Read more

T.N. Suraj vs. State of Kerala and Ors

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/1456/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Criminal)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 167(1), 327(3) of the CrPC, 1973. Article 19(a), 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 116, 118, 120B, 302C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"The right of the public to know the details of the criminal case through the media, the media's right to freedom of speech and expression, the right of the victim to bring out the truth through a fair trial, presumption of innocence which the accused or the suspect has until proved guilty, the right to reputation, privacy which are facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India available to the parties and above all the indefeasible right for a due administration of justice in accordance with the law.....Reports/telecast having the effect of prejudicing mankind against the parties and the court before the case is heard clearly interferes with the course of justice."

Read more
Notes

Publishing or broadcasting information by the media that can cause prejudice to the parties in a case amounts to violation of their right to privacy and reputation.

Read more

Suo Motu vs. Travancore Devaswom Board, Nanthancode and Ors

Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/1371/2022
Case Type - Devaswom Board Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 19, 21of the Constitution of India, 1950. Rule 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011. S. 2, 3, 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places Of Public Worship (Authorisation Of Entry) Act, 1965
View Case

Important Quote

"Any access to the database in Virtual-Q platform by the Kerala Police, for crowd control during festival seasons and also monthly poojas, in order to avoid a stampede or an untoward, or for taking any preventive action in case any specific threat or security input, would not amount to an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of pilgrims."

Read more
Notes

Accessing the database with the information of pilgrims visiting the temple for crowd control during festival seasons and monthly poojas, to avoid a stampede or for taking any preventive action in case of specific threat or security input, would not amount to an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of pilgrims.

Read more

XXX and Ors. vs. The Registrar of Births and Deaths and Ors.

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.07.2022
Citation- MANU/KE/2257/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 12, 21 of the Constitution Of India - Article 12, 21. S.7 of the Guardians And Wards Act, 1890. S. 11, 15, 23 of the Registration Of Births And Deaths Act, 1969
View Case

Important Quote

"From the above discussions, it is clear that it is the right of a person to include his mother's name alone in the birth certificate, identity certificates and other documents. As I observed earlier, there are children of rape victims and children of unwed mothers in this country. Their right of privacy, dignity and liberty cannot be curtailed by any authority. The mental agony of such person is to be imagined by every citizen of this country while intruding into their privacy. In some cases it will be a deliberate act and in other cases it may be by mistake. But the State should protect citizens of all such kind as equal to other citizens without disclosing their identity and privacy. Otherwise, they will face unimaginable mental agonies."

Read more
Notes

The court granted a request for the removal of the father's name from the birth certificate, leaving the mothers name as the only parent. It held that in cases where a child was born out of forced sexual conduct, it was essential to uphold the child's right to privacy and dignity by expunging the name of the father from the records.

Read more

Aryamol P.S. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 26.09.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/2816/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal provisions - Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules, 2003.
View Case

Important Quote

"...women, whose marital status changed during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood or divorce), are also included. Indisputably, the petitioner's matrimonial life has completely changed during the pregnancy. She was allegedly ill treated compelling to leave the company of her husband and start residence at her parental house. Moreover, alleging cruelty meted by the 7th respondent and his mother, the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint. It is also pertinent to note that, even before this Court, the 7th respondent did not express any interest in taking back the petitioner. It is therefore to be considered whether, in spite of the above drastic changes in her matrimonial life, the petitioner could be denied permission for terminating her pregnancy, on the premise that she is not legally divorced and her marital status has therefore not changed. If interpreted and understood in the above manner, the drastic change in the matrimonial life of a pregnant woman is equivalent to the 'change of her marital status."

Read more
Notes

The 'change of marital status' ground to seek abortion under Section 3B of the MTP Rules would not be exclusive only to widowhood or divorce but could be interpreted to include drastic changes in matrimonial life including ill treatment, cruelty, etc.

Read more

John George Nechupadom and Ors. vs. Kerala State Information Commission and Ors.

Right to Know and Access Information || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.12.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/3462/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 198, 255, 268, 269, 309, 310, 311 of the Companies Act, 1956 [repealed]. Article 12, 141, 226 of the Constitution of India. S. 2(h), 6, 8(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
View Case

Important Quote

"In the instant case, the party respondents have been seeking information of the minutes of the Board meeting. The minutes of the Board meeting, after its approval are sent to the registrar of Company. It is therefore a public document and thus cannot be said to be personal information as exempted under section 8(1)(j) of the Act."

Read more
Notes

Public documents such as minutes of board meetings cannot be exempt from the RTI Act on the grounds that they are 'personal information'.

Read more

H. Vincent vs. The State of Kerala and Ors.

Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.12.2022
Citation - MANU/KE/3499/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal provisions - S. 161, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. S. 349, 350, 351, 353, 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
View Case

Important Quote

"For a prosecution under section 509 of IPC, there must be a definite allegation of insult to the modesty of woman or intrusion into the privacy of a woman. Mere insult or false allegation will not attract the offence under section 509 of IPC. The subject of insult for a prosecution under Section 509 of IPC must be the modesty of the woman and not the woman as such."

Read more
Notes

Merely insulting a woman would not automatically amount to insulting the modesty of a woman, or an intrusion into her privacy.

Read more

Nandini K. v. Union of India

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.12.2022
Citation - 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 8235
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The personal choice of individuals to procreate and build family is held to be a facet of his/her fundamental right. This right is being restricted by fixing an upper age limit for availing ART services. While the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions, such restriction can always be tested on the touchstone of liberty guaranteed under Article 21. It is now settled that legislative action can be challenged on the ground of lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or any other constitutional provision and manifest arbitrariness. [...] The prohibition under Section 21(g), if understood to be preventing even continuance of ART services already commenced, would definitely amount to unreasonable and unjustified restriction on the reproductive choice of the commissioning couple and would militate against the liberty guaranteed under Article 21."

Read more
Notes

Preventing individuals to continue availing ART services, once the services have commenced, unjustifiably restricts the right to reproductive choices of the individuals guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the National ART Board was directed to alert the Central Government to ensure the upper age limits fixed under the ART Act are fair, reasonable, and justifiable as per established constitutional standards.

Read more

Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India

Right to be Forgotten || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.12.2022
Citation - 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 7337
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"As adverted to earlier, the right to be forgotten can be claimed as a right to erase past memory. The public records relating to the petitioners who were either accused or parties to the criminal proceedings cannot be erased forever. The digital space is a dynamic space allowing vibrant data to be refreshed without the constraints of time and space. The boundaries of privacy have no limitations in the digital space. In the real world, humans have limitations created by space and time. In the normal course of human conduct, time will erase memory. This particular problem in a digital space of allowing information to remain forever would certainly affect the right claimed as a right to be forgotten. The internet has unlimited capacity to remember. The Court cannot generally balance the interest claimed by the individuals and the information available in the digital domain for eternity. The Court, no doubt, would be able to form an opinion after adverting to the attending circumstances of a particular case to order the removal of personal data or erasure of such data from digital space after considering the factors relating to such cases."

Read more
Notes

The right to be forgotten cannot be sought against publishing of recent proceedings, as they are public records. However, the court may permit a party to invoke the rights to de-index (and erasure, where applicable) and to remove the personal information of the party from search engines based on the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, in family and matrimonial cases or other similar cases, the Registry of the court will be required to protect the privacy of the parties, as may be required based on the facts and circumstances of the case.

Read more

Sebin Thomas v. Union of India

Informational Privacy, Press Freedom || Kerala High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 2215
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India; S. 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952
View Case

Important Quote

"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. [...] This Court is in agreement with the submission of the 5th respondent only because the story gets inspiration from the life story of a proclaimed offender. That does not mean that the story is completely the life story of that person and the publication of that story would affect the privacy right of that particular person."

Read more
Notes

A publication goes beyond the purview of right of privacy if such publication is based on public records including court orders. Hence, the publication is not in violation of the right to privacy, if it relies on information available in public records and court proceedings.

Read more

Xxx v. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 5.06.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 3673
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India; Sections 10 r/w 9(n), 14 r/w 13(b) and 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 67B (a), (b), (c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000; Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
View Case

Important Quote

"The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her body is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality and privacy. It also falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Painting on the upper body of a mother by her own children as an art project cannot be characterised as a real or simulated sexual act, nor can it be said that the same was done for the purpose of sexual gratification or with sexual intent. To term this innocent artistic expression to be ‘usage of a child in real or simulated sexual act’ is harsh."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy includes the right to have autonomy over one's body and, accordingly, make decisions about one's body. This includes the instant case, where a mother asked her children to paint over her upper body as an artistic expression.

Read more

Faizal K.V. v. State of Kerala

Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.07.2023
Citation - CRL.MC No. 5660 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 6179
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Case
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
View Case

Important Quote

"Thus the law emerges is that merely because parties have dispute about paternity, it does not mean that the court should direct DNA or such other test to resolve the controversy. In such circumstances, the parties should be directed to lead evidence to prove the dispute of factum of paternity and only when the court finds it impossible to draw an inference based on such an evidence or the controversy in issue cannot be resolved without DNA test, it may direct the DNA test and not otherwise."

Read more
Notes

DNA test of a child cannot be ordered simply to clear the doubts in a person's mind regarding the paternity of the child.

Read more

V.O. Mathew v. Aliesha

Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.07.2023
Citation - CRL.MC No. 5660 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 6179
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Case Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
View Case

Important Quote

"When a prima facie case of cohabitation is made out by the 1st petitioner from the materials produced and relied on and the respondent stands thoroughly failed to establish a prima facie case of alleged immoral life led by the 1st petitioner with other persons named in his objection, the prayer of the 1st petitioner to issue direction to the respondent to subject himself to the blood test for determination of DNA cannot be thrown aside. If an order of the nature is declined that would have the impact of bastardising the minor girl child among the public. Undoubtedly that would caste a social stigma upon the child as well as the mother respectively as ‘bastard’ and ‘immoral’."

Read more
Notes

A DNA test can be ordered to confirm the paternity of a child where a prima facie assumption regarding paternity is made out on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Read more

Priya Varghese v. Joseph Skariah

Autonomy, Dignity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.06.2023
Citation - WA No. 27 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4390
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Writ Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Art.21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"On its part, the media cannot be unmindful of the harm that is caused to a litigant’s dignity and reputation through unjustified comments and remarks, often based on the oral remarks made by a judge during the adjudication proceedings, notwithstanding that the litigant ultimately succeeds in those proceedings... While the right to a fair trial has long been recognised as forming part of the fundamental right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution, in recent times, the right to privacy has also been recognised as forming part of the said right through the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. – [(2017) 10 SCC 1]. Even prior to the said judgment, the right to protect one’s reputation was recognised as forming part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution in Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni – [(1983) 1 SCC 124]."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy also includes the right to one's reputation, which merits protection from private players such as media.

Read more

X v The Health Secretary and Ors.

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.08.2023
Citation - WP(C) NO. 19610 OF 2022
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed of
Legal Provisions - Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"As observed by the Supreme Court, democracy requires its citizenry to respect and develop the free spirit of human beings, which is responsible for all progress in human history. If democracy is based on recognition of the individuality and dignity of man, the right of a human being to choose his/her sex or gender identity, which is one of the most basic aspects of self determination, dignity and freedom has to be recognised. Conversely, intervention with an individual's right to choose sex or identity will definitely be an intrusion into that person's privacy and an affront to his/her dignity and freedom."

Read more
Notes

The Court refused to grant permission to parents for conducting genital reconstructive surgery since the conduct of the surgery without the child's consent would violate their dignity and privacy. The parents of a child cannot decide their child's gender without their consent.

Read more

XXX v State of Kerala

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.06.2023
Citation - CRL.REV.PET NO. 433 OF 2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sections 10 r/w 9(n), 14 r/w 13(b), 15 of the Protection of Children of the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Section 67B (a),(b),(c) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Article 19(1)(a), 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case

Important Quote

"The petitioner only allowed her body to be used as a canvas for her children to paint on. The right of a woman to make autonomous decisions about her body is at the very core of her fundamental right to equality and privacy. It also falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution... In K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India, a nine-judge Bench of the Apex Court, while unanimously recognising the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution, declared that bodily autonomy is an integral part of the right to privacy." "Painting on the upper body of a mother by her own children as an art project cannot be characterised as a real or simulated sexual act, nor can it be said that the same was done for the purpose of sexual gratification or with sexual intent."

Read more
Notes

Painting on the upper body of a mother by her children cannot be characterised as a sexually explicit act. Allowing her children to use her body as a canvas to paint on falls within the mother's right to bodily autonomy, which is an integral part of right to privacy.

Read more

Aneesh v State of Kerala

Autonomy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.09.2023
Citation - CRL.MC NO. 7421 OF 2022
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Case
Case Status - Case Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code
View Case

Important Quote

"I am of the considered opinion that, watching of an obscene photo by a person in his privacy by itself is not an offence under Section 292 IPC. Similarly, watching of an obscene video by a person from a mobile phone in his privacy is also not an offence under Section 292 IPC. If the accused is trying to circulate or distribute or publicly exhibits any obscene video or photos, then alone the offence under Section 292 IPC is attracted."

Read more
Notes

The Court held that criminalising a person for watching obscene content in private would amount to an intrusion of privacy.

Read more

XXXX v. State of Kerala

Autonomy, Informational Privacy || Kerala High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.12.2023
Citation - WP (Crl.) No. 445 of 2022, 2023:KER:77356
Case Type - Criminal Writ Appeal
Case Status - Appeal disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sections 120A, 120B, 109, 342, 366, 354, 354B, 357, 376D, 506(i), 201, 204, 212 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 66-E and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 119 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and Sec. 195(1) r/w Sec.340 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
View Case

Important Quote

"If any officer of a law enforcement agency happens to seize or recover any electronic record related to a crime and realizes or has reason to believe that it must be taken into custody, he shall seize it with the utmost caution, preventing any chance of destruction to the electronic records and their contents. This process should be conducted maintaining the highest level of secrecy and privacy regarding the contents. The process shall be documented separately in a mahazer."

Read more
Notes

A memory card containing the sexually explicit footage of the survivor of a sexual assault was accessed illegally by the accused and illegally transmitted, while the same was in judicial custody. This led the court to issue guidelines for law enforcement agencies while handling sexually explicit materials for the purposes of evidence.

Read more

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

Shashimani Mishra and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Autonomy, Dignity || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 17.06.2019
Citation -MANU/MP/0435/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 13(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and Regulation 12 of the Regulations.
S. 43, 268 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

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.

Read more

Pratyush Dwivedi and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Autonomy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 17.12.2020
Citation - MANU/MP/1404/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - 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, 1950

Important Quote

"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. ""

Read more
Notes

Compulsory service bonds signed at the time of admission to a course are not violative of the right to privacy, life and liberty.

Read more

Special Police Establishment vs. Shri Umesh Tiwari

Informational Privacy, Phone Tapping || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 21.01.2022
Citation - MANU/MP/0121/2022
Case Type - Misc. Criminal Case
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 91 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

True it is that the right to privacy of the victim may be breached but if the production of the said call details can assist the Court in discovering truth and rendering justice in the matter then the Court has to adopt the due process before invoking Section 91, by affording opportunity to the person whose right to privacy is likely to be breached. This shall not only take care of the apprehension expressed by the complainant about the alleged breach of privacy but shall also ensure furtherance of the investigation/inquiry/trial/other proceedings in a free and fair manner thereby rendering justice and avoiding failure of justice. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court ought to have heard the victim/complainant before passing the impugned order.

Read more
Notes

When summoning telephone records under Section 91 of the Evidence Act, the due process of law must be followed and the person whose privacy maybe affected should be given a fair chance of being heard.

Read more

A Minor Girls through her Mother F vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.06.2022
Citation - MANU/MP/1509/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 3, 4, 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Article 21, 226 of the Constitution Of India. S. 363 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"In the light of the aforesaid law and judgments, considering age of the girl to be 14 years, trauma and agony which she has suffered and keeping in view the report of medical Board constituted by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2022, this Court is of the opinion that prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The case of the petitioner is covered under explanation of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, 1971."

Read more
Notes

A minor rape survivor can be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 25 weeks taking into account the section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Read more

Raveena Raidash (Chaudhary) vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.06.2022
Citation - MANU/MP/1535/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 2, 3, 5 of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971. S. 3 of the Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
View Case

Important Quote

"In the light of the aforesaid law and judgments, considering age of the girl to be 14 years, trauma and agony which she has suffered and keeping in view the report of medical Board constituted by this Court vide order dated 20.06.2022, this Court is of the opinion that prayer made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The case of the petitioner is covered under explanation of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, 1971."

Read more
Notes

Termination of pregnancy of a rape survivor at 22 weeks can be allowed while being mindful of their mental health and socio-economic conditions under section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Read more

Urmila Singh vs. Saudan Singh and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.07.2022
Citation- MANU/MP/1947/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Order XXVI Rule 10 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Article 227 of the Constitution Of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"DNA is unique to an individual (barring twins) and can be used to identify a person's identity, trace familial linkages or even reveal sensitive health information. Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 SCC 1] , wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India. The Court should therefore examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued i.e. whether the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA test."

Read more
Notes

Compelling individuals to undergo DNA tests is violative of the right to privacy and it can only be allowed if it is proportional to the legitimate aim that is being pursued.

Read more

Sarita Mewada vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure, Informational Privacy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 03.02.2023
Citation - MANU/MP/0385/2023
Case Type - Misc. Criminal Case
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC); S. 65(B), 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 20, 20(3) of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"If a witness is compelled to give his voice sample then the issue of intrusion of his right to privacy would arise and further whether the said right is available to him to an extent of granting immunity from giving voice sample, is another question which needs to be answered."

Read more
Notes

The court made a distinction between the rights of accused persons and witnesses in criminal trials. The court held that unlike an accused person, a witness in a criminal investigation or proceeding cannot be compelled by the court to provide a voice sample, as it would be an invasion of their fundamental right to privacy.

Read more

Sarita Mewada vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure, Informational Privacy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 03.02.2023
Citation - MANU/MP/0385/2023
Case Type - Misc. Criminal Case
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC); S. 65(B), 132 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Article 20, 20(3) of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"If a witness is compelled to give his voice sample then the issue of intrusion of his right to privacy would arise and further whether the said right is available to him to an extent of granting immunity from giving voice sample, is another question which needs to be answered."

Read more
Notes

The court made a distinction between the rights of accused persons and witnesses in criminal trials. The court held that unlike an accused person, a witness in a criminal investigation or proceeding cannot be compelled by the court to provide a voice sample, as it would be an invasion of their fundamental right to privacy.

Read more

Raghuvansh and Ors. vs. Ramkali and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 06.02.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine MP 596
Case Type - Second Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"Direction for conducting a DNA test should not be given in a very light manner and should be directed only when a very strong prima facie case is made out pointing out an eminent need for the same. Conducting a DNA test is also violative of privacy of a person. Unless and until the Court comes to a conclusion that without DNA test, it will not be possible for it to come to the truth, the DNA test should not be directed. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the First Appellate Court rightly did not direct for holding the DNA test, and therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by it. Further the legitimacy of children should not be questioned frivolously. Their right to live their lives with dignity has to be maintained."

Read more
Notes

DNA tests are an invasion of privacy. Hence, they must be conducted only when required, and when no other evidence can be provided to the court to establish a relationship. Furthermore, DNA tests cannot be conducted to frivolously question the legitimacy of children. A child's right to privacy and dignity must be protected.

Read more

Siyarani and Ors. vs. Sakshi and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.06.2023
Citation - Misc. Petition No. 1431 of 2019
Case Type - Petition
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 227 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Whether a person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA in such matters can also be answered considering the test of proportionality laid down in the unanimous decision of this Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India [K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5 J.) v. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1] , wherein the right to privacy has been declared a constitutionally protected right in India. The Court should therefore examine the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued i.e. whether the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA test."

Read more
Notes

The Court re-affirmed the standards established in earlier Supreme Court judgement that in light of the social and cultural implications from a DNA test that could deny parentage rights, compelling a person to provide a sample for DNA test can be an intrusion upon their right to privacy.

Read more

Abhishek Ranjan vs. Hemlata Chaubey

Informational Privacy || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.08.2023
Citation - Misc. Petition No. 1300 of 2023
Case Type - Miscellaneous Petition
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1984. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"...a conversation recorded without the permission of the wife and without her knowledge cannot be used without exposing it to the violation of the right to privacy of the wife and, therefore, impugned order does not call for any interference, petition fails and is hereby dismissed."

Read more
Notes

In cases before the family court, a conversation recorded without the consent of the spouse cannot be used as evidence as it violates the right to privacy.

Read more

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

G. Vasanthi vs. Muneeshwaran

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.01.2019
Citation - (2019) 2 MLJ 498, MANU/TN/1008/2019
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition (PD) (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
View Case

Important Quote

"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 vs. Dharmpal. 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 vs. Union of India, unanimously held that right to privacy is a fundamental right, but left the conclusions set out in para 81 in Sharda vs. Dharmpal (supra), untouched."

Read more
Notes

A court's order for medical examination is not violative of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Read more

Arunkumar and Ors. vs. The Inspector General of Registration and Ors.

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.04.2019
Citation - AIR 2019 Mad 265, MANU/TN/1403/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to express gender identity is a part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Read more

Rahmath Nisha vs. The Additional Director General of Prison and Ors.

Dignity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 28.05.2019
Citation - 2019 CriLJ 4041, MANU/TN/3075/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Rule 529 and 531 of Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to life, personal liberty includes right of convicts or jail inmates to have conjugal visits with privacy.

Read more

Thirumagan and Ors. vs. The Superintendent of Police, Madurai District and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.07.2020
Citation - 2020 (4) MLJ (Crl) 133, MANU/TN/3574/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Tamil Nadu Restriction of Habitual Offenders Act, 1948.
Chapter XLII of the Police Standing Orders
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Judgment provides for guidelines to the police history-sheeting without violating the right to privacy.

Read more

Karthick Theodre vs. The Registrar General, Madras High Court and Ors

Right to be Forgotten || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 03.08.2021
Case citation - MANU/TN/5222/2021
Case type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"This Court can act upon the request made by the petitioner only by placing reliance upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After the historic Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Puttaswamy Vs. Union of India, the Right of Privacy has now been held to be a fundamental right, which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the essence of this Judgment is applied to the case on hand, obviously even a person, who was accused of committing an offence and who has been subsequently acquitted from all charges will be entitled for redacting his name from the order passed by the Court in order to protect his Right of Privacy. This Court finds that there is a prima facie case made out by the petitioner and he is entitled for redacting his name from the Judgment passed by this Court in Crl.A. (MD). No. 321 of 2011." "It will be more appropriate to await the enactment of the Data Protection Act and Rules thereunder, which may provide an objective criterion while dealing with the plea of redaction of names of accused persons who are acquitted from criminal proceedings. If such uniform standards are not followed across the country, the constitutional courts will be riding an unruly horse which will prove to be counterproductive to the existing system."

Read more
Notes

Publication of matters concerning an individual without their consent would violate their privacy.

Read more

xxxxxxxxxxxxx vs. The Inspector of Police, Madurai City and Ors.

Dignity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 28.10.2021
Citation - MANU/TN/8150/2021
Case Type - Criminal Original Petition (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 8, 11(1), 12, 17 and 21(2) of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. S. 164 of CrPC, 1973

Important Quote

"However, I am unable to agree with this line of arguments. No doubt that the petitioner's future will be in trouble, if she is directed to participate in the investigation process or trial. Even though safety and protection of identity are mandate under the Law, the trauma that the victim of crime undergo in everyday life is well known and that cannot be brushed aside as meaningless or baseless. But, at the same time when it is a conflict between the protection of welfare of the child under the guise of protecting identity, privacy and interest of the Society and the State in protecting the children from the sexual abuses that cannot and should not overweigh."

Read more
Notes

In the course of investigation of a case of child sexual abuse, the right to privacy of the witness does not outweigh the interest of the society and the state in protecting children against such abuse.

Read more

Rajivgandhi vs. The State

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.04.2022
Citation - 2022 (2) MWN (C R.) 124
MANU/TN/2902/2022
Case Type - Criminal Appeal (Madurai Bench)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 29, 30 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
View Case

Important Quote

"Before parting with this case, we feel that it is necessary for us to put an end to the practice of the two finger test. We find that the two finger test is being used in cases involving sexual offences, particularly, on minor victims. As early as in 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the two finger test and its interpretation violates the right of rape survivors to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity."

Read more
Notes

The two finger test violates the right to privacy of the rape survivors and should be discontinued.

Read more

R. Sankarram vs. K. Kalaiselvi

Phone Tapping, Informational Privacy || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 09.03.2023
Citation - MANU/TN/1567/2023
Case Type - Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - O. XLI R. 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; S. 13(1), 65(B), 153, 153(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S. 14, 22 of the Family Courts Act, 1984; Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"In the present case, as already pointed out, the conversation allegedly recorded was after the filing of the present divorce petition. According to the petitioner, the same was recorded in the petitioner's mobile phone. [...] Even assuming that the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements in exhibiting Ex.P8, applying the legal position above referred, this Court has no hesitation to hold that Ex.P8 and its contents cannot be looked into, as it infringes the right of privacy of the respondent."

Read more
Notes

Recording of private conversations between a husband and a wife to use it as evidence before a court is a violation of the right to privacy. Hence, such recordings are to be considered as inadmissible by the court.

Read more

T.J. Subija v. State of T.N.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.03.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 2061
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provision - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"In view of the above said undisputed facts, it is clear that the right of privacy and reputation of the writ petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible. The State cannot escape from contending that the officials at the station level have unauthorisedly done the said act and hence, the State is not liable for the same."

Read more
Notes

The State is liable to compensate the aggrieved persons when they are wrongfully arrested by police officials, acting in their official capacity, and their details are subsequently published, when such arrest was based on false evidence. The wrongful arrest and subsequent humiliation are violative of the fundamental right to privacy.

Read more

Madras High Court

A. Venkatesan vs. The State Information Commissioner and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 01.06.2020
Citation - MANU/TN/3387/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 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
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Special enactments may restrict access to certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to protect the right to privacy of certain individuals.

Read more

Sanjay Bhandari and Ors. vs. The Secretary of Govt. of India and Ors.

Search and Seizure, Surveillance, Phone Tapping || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.11.2020
Citation - MANU/TN/6319/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985
View Case

Important Quote

"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.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"

Read more
Notes

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, if conducted within legal parameters.

Read more

S. Sushma and Ors. vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police and Ors.

Autonomy || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 07.06.2021
Case citation - MANU/TN/3963/2021
Case type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"Sexual autonomy is an essential aspect of the right of privacy which is another right recognised and protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. LGBTQIA+ persons, like cis persons, are entitled to their privacy and have a right to lead a dignified existence, which includes their choice of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender presentation, gender expression and choice of partner thereof. This right and the manner of its exercise are constitutionally protected under Article 21 of the Constitution." ""The 'grounds' enumerated in Article 15 of the Constitution are not water-tight compartments to be viewed divorced from discrimination which is the sheet anchor of the provision. The grounds are merely instruments to find and eliminate discrimination and are, therefore, a means to an end. Discrimination is not a self-referencing concept. A meaningful attempt to identify and eliminate discrimination must necessarily involve the identification and protection of the constitutional values of personal autonomy, dignity, liberty and privacy.""

Read more
Notes

This case prohibited the use of conversion therapy against LGBTQIA+ persons.

Read more

Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd. v. Raptakos Brett Employees Union and Ors.

Dignity || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

"Decision date - 13.08.2021
Citation - MANU/TN/5584/2021
Case type - Civil Writ Appeal
Case status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; Sections 9-A and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947."
View Case

Important Quote

"In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (supra), Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (in his separate opinion) recognizing the breach of privacy committed by private individuals/private entities/non- State actors, called upon the legislature to legislate on this issue and ensure privacy of individuals against other citizens as well."

Read more
Notes

Installation of CCTV cameras in the changing area and the restroom would amount to a breach of privacy

Read more

M. Sameeha Barvin vs. The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Sports, Department of Sports, Government of India and Ors.

Autonomy || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Date of decision - 20.12.2021
Case Citation - (2022)1MLJ466
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - Article 14, 15 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 3 of the The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
View Case

Important Quote

"In the present case, if the respondents would have given effect to the principle of reasonable accommodation as mandated by the legislature, the reason cited forby not permitting the petitioner herein to travel along with her male counterparts, once again the government and the respondents have discriminated against her on the ground that she is a woman and that she also suffers the further cumulative and intersectional disadvantage of being disabled, and that on account of these factors, the justification seems to be that she is at the risk of being assaulted or unsafe, sexually or otherwise. In effect, this rationale is, what has been referred to in the above decisions as perpetuating the dangerous myth that women are seductive sexual objects. Analysing the said factors, it has been categorically held that it is the duty of the State to provide and ensure safety for women in a way so as to inspire confidence to discharge their duty freely in any profession of their choice. The same well applies to the case at hand."

Read more
Notes

Women athletes with disabilities should be treated with the same respect and dignity as male athletes with disabilities. Consequently, such discrimination would perpetuate inequality and violate their right to personal liberty and autonomy. The State should take necessary steps in the field of sports to ensure the same.

Read more

C.P Girija vs. Superintendent of Police & Ors

Surveillance, search and seizure || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Date of decision - 20.12.2021
Case Citation - MANU/TN/9939/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - No legal provisions referenced
View Case

Important Quote

"As far as the Chennai city is concerned, the Chennai Corporation has already issued a notification declaring the Spa and Massage centres as the public places and issued directives to install CCTV cameras in all such public places in order to ensure safety and security as well as to prevent any illegal activities. Similar declarations are to be made by the Corporations and Municipalities across the State of Tamil Nadu."

Read more
Notes

Spas and Massage centres are public spaces and installing CCTV cameras in such places is important to ensure security and prevent illegal activties.

Read more

Payel Biswas vs. The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City and Ors.

Surveillance, search and seizure || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision - 04.01.2022
Citation - 20221WritLR120
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Suspicion that immoral activities are taking place in massage centres cannot be reason enough to intrude into an individual's right to relax for it intrinsically is part and parcel of his fundamental right to privacy. Morality cannot be invoked as a mere incantation to justify such curtailment. This was also the essence of the landmark ""Section 377"" verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it was held that in matters of one's private affairs, constitutional morality shall trump public morality."

Read more
Notes

CCTV cameras cannot be installed inside spas on the mere suspicion of illegal and immoral activity.

Read more

M.M.Nagar Sports & Recreation Centre vs. The Superintendent of Police And Ors

Surveillance, search and seizure || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.02.2022
Citation - MANU/TN/0689/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 5 of The Public Gambling Act, 1867
View Case

Important Quote

"Ours is a democratic society and every citizen and association of citizens has right of privacy. If that privacy is getting invaded indiscriminately, then there would be an end for all the democratic way of life and the rule of the law. However, under the guise of privacy, no citizen or association of persons can indulge in illegal or unlawful activities. At the same time, under the guise of suspicion, no police officer straightway walk into the place, make a raid and search without reason to believe that such place is used as gaming-house. For instance, gaming which includes wagering or betting to the extent it is defined in the Act, is forbidden by it. Simply, because a police officer thinks that some gaming is going on in a place, he cannot make a search of it. When a person's private life or his privacy is sought to be interfered with, it should be done with a sense of responsibility. That is why the search which is permitted under Section 5 is circumscribed by very many limitations and precautions, which are clearly intended to safeguard the interests of the citizen."

Read more
Notes

Installing CCTV cameras in all areas of the club except for the washrooms on the suspicion of gambling would be a violation of the right to privacy of the members. Further, the police should not attempt to access the footages other than those required.

Read more

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, "Q" Branch CID, Chennai vs. The Deputy Director Unique Identification Authority of India

Informational Privacy || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.04.2022
Citation - MANU/TN/3065/2022
Case Type - Criminal Original Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 2(n), 28, 29, 33, 33(1) of the Aadhaar (targeted Delivery Of Financial And Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016
View Case

Important Quote

"Furnishing of these details are not been prohibited by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy and Another -vs- Union of India (UOI) and Others cited supra. It does not amount to disclosure of the privacy details of any individuals but to probe whether there is any such individualat all.."

Read more
Notes

Furnishing of Aadhaar card details by the UIDAI to the Criminal Investigation Department for an investigation into its genuineness would not violate the right to privacy of Aadhaar holders.

Read more

S. Krishnamurthy and Ors. vs. Manivasan and Ors.

Surveillance || Madras High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.06.2022
Citation- MANU/TN/5086/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 19, 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 2(5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. S. 19, 21, 31, 32 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007
View Case

Important Quote

"In Paragraph II (8) of the G.O., it requires that “cameras should be installed in all rooms in the homes”. This is a clear invasion of privacy. CCTVs can be installed in corridors but not in rooms."

Read more
Notes

Installation of CCTV cameras in all the rooms of an old age home to monitor its functioning is a violation of the right to privacy of the residents.

Read more

P. Adhavan Seral vs. The Tamilnadu Information Commission and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Right to Know or Access Information || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date- 18.07.2022
Citation - MANU/TN/5409/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 11, 8(1). of the Right To Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"If the copy of the certificates are given by the Public Information Officer, it will tantamount to providing third party information to the petitioner. In view of the sensitiveness of the details that will get into the hands of the petitioner, such information should not be provided without putting those candidates on notice. A candidate would not want the entire world to know the caste or community to which he belongs since, even today, there is a social taboo on the basis of caste and community. Providing the details of the spouse of the candidate is certainly a private information and a candidate may not be willing to provide this information. Under such circumstances, Section 11 of the Act, will certainly come into play. The concerned candidates are not parties to the proceedings and the information touching upon the right of privacy cannot be given to the petitioner without putting them on notice."

Read more
Notes

Inter-caste marriage certificates submitted by individuals to a public authority for public employment benefits would be protected under the right to privacy and cannot be furnished to third parties through an RTI request without notice.

Read more

Beach Mineral Sands Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. The Central Information Commission and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Right to Know or Access Information || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.07.2022
Citation - MANU/TN/6258/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 11, 2, 3, 8 of the Right To Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"Hence, if an information is relating to a third party (not being an information supplied by the said third party) even then notice is mandatory under Section 11(1) of the Act. The main reason for such a mandatory notice under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act is that, once the information seeker receives the information from the information provider relating to a third party, it no longer remains in the private domain and the received information can then be disclosed by the information seeker to the whole world."

Read more
Notes

The Central/State Public Information Officer cannot disclose information considered confidential by a third party without their consent.

Read more

K. Preethy vs. The State

Right to Know and Access Information || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.09.2022
Citation - W.P.No.23988 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of The Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Since the scam value is very high and cheated depositors are enormous, in order to maintain transparency with regard to arrest and seizure, whenever any arrest, search or seizure is made, press note with regard to progress is given to print and electronic media to build confidence among the people and cheated depositors. It is also a process of creating awareness to the public from being cheated by such type of accused with false promise of enormous returns. Therefore, the press note is given in good faith only to create awareness and to receive all the complaints from the depositors and to enlighten the public about the complicity of the accused. It would not amount to violation of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. However, unnecessary publicity is given through print or electronic media about the details of the investigation, which ultimately affects the administration of justice. The investigation is secret affair and at times such secrecy alone leads to success in the investigation. Hence, the respondents are directed not to disclose any information received while interrogation from the accused persons and from their confession statements."

Read more
Notes

Police may provide case details during an investigation in good faith, without violating an individual's right to privacy. However, information obtained through interrogation and confession statements should remain confidential, as its public disclosure could potentially interfere with the administration of justice.

Read more

G. Rajkumar vs. G. Santhamani and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.02.2023
Citation - MANU/TN/0496/2023
Case Type - Civil Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - S. 75 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S 294(b), 324, 341, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"Thus it is clear that it has to be examined the proportionality of the legitimate aims being pursued, whether the same are not arbitrary or discriminatory, whether they may have an adverse impact on the person and that they justify the encroachment upon the privacy and personal autonomy of the person, being subjected to the DNA Test. In the case on hand, the first respondent can very well prove her case by material and oral evidence in the manner known to law i.e. the first respondent is the plaintiff and she has to prove the case in the manner known to law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis which is against his will. Further, the court shall not subject the person for DNA test as a matter of course or in a routine manner."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy of an individual is violated if the court or any other authority orders for a DNA test without the individual's consent. A court must first consider whether any material or oral evidence can be provided to support a claim of a relationship before examining if the case meets the proportionality requirements to subject an individual to a DNA test.

Read more

K. Kumaresan v. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 3277
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; S. 8(c), 29, 28, 22, 20 and 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
View Case

Important Quote

"Even if statute confers such power upon an authority to make search and seizure of a person at all hours at all places, the same may be held to be ultra vires unless the restrictions imposed are reasonable ones. What would be reasonable restrictions would depend upon the nature of the statute and the extent of the right sort to be protected sought to be protected. [...] Although a statutory power to make a search and seizure by itself may not offend the right of privacy, but in the case of this nature, atleast the Court can do it to see that such a right is not a necessarily infringed. Right to privacy deals with persons and not places."

Read more
Notes

The NDPS Act gives considerable power to conduct search and seizures at odd hours. These powers should be balanced with the appropriate reasonable restrictions to protect the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Read more

Muthukrishnan v. Collector

Autonomy || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.06.2023
Citation - WP(MD) No. 10747 of 2023 and WMP(MD) Nos. 9459 and 9460 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 4135
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Section 277, 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(x), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022. Article 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Even though, section '5' [Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022] gives complete power to the Magistrate that power must be exercised in a judicial manner. There must be subjective satisfaction expressed by the Magistrate in the judicial Order. The above said subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate must also be subject to the test, that has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Supreme in the famous case K.S.Puttaswamy. All these things must be taken care by the Hon'ble Special Court." "Without going into the merits of the matter and other things, whether this will amount to self incrimination and the petitioner can be compelled to undergo DNA test are all the matters to be taken into account, as provided under section 5 of the Special Act at the time of hearing by the Special Court."

Read more
Notes

When the right of an individual is involved, such as for the conduct of a DNA test, the Magistrate should ensure that the proper procedure is followed before making an order for conduct of such test. Any irregularity in following the procedure can lead to violation of the consent of the individual. In making such an order, the Magistrate should exercise discretion in terms of the test of proportionality laid down in the KS Puttaswamy case.

Read more

Athipathi v The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors.

Dignity || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.08.2023
Citation - W.P(MD)No.9068 of 2015
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"The core issue is whether a refugee like the petitioner has any fundamental right... They have the right to Live so long as they are here with human dignity. The State is under an obligation to protect the lives of both citizens and non-citizens" "A refugee has to be housed in reasonably decent accommodation. The basic infrastructural facilities must be available. He or she must also have access to the fundamental amenities such as sanitation, health care, clean drinking water etc., When the right to shelter and housing has been recognised internationally as a human right, it cannot be denied to the refugees living in a camp. A camp houses a few hundred families. There are women and young girls. Their privacy has to be ensured. Otherwise, there is no meaning in declaring privacy as a fundamental right."

Read more
Notes

All persons, whether citizens or non-citizens have right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State is under an obligation to protect lives of both citizens and non-citizens. The State is liable for the loss of life of a refugee caused by being caught under the debris of a collapsed wall of the refugee camp during a downpour.

Read more

A. Lakshminarayanan v Assistant General Manager

Informational Privacy || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.08.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5314
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Article 19 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Not only individuals but even groups have privacy rights. Time has come to recognize the concept of ""group privacy"". So long as the activities of a group do not fall foul of law, their privacy must be respected... As already held, the petitioner is very much possessed of the right to vent. The opinion was not expressed publicly. It was shared among the members of a private WhatsApp group... In these circumstances, the act committed by the petitioner cannot amount to misconduct."

Read more
Notes

Views expressed privately on a virtual platform, even if on a WhatsApp group, criticising the management cannot be proceeded against on grounds of misconduct.

Read more

V . Senthil Balaji vs . A . Shankar

Press Freedom || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.06.2023
Citation - O.A.No.509 of 2022 & A.No.3494 of 2022 in C.S.No.172 of 2022
Case Type - Original Application
Case Status - Application Denied
Legal Provisions - Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"It is true that the right to freedom of speech as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) cannot be usurped to damage the reputation of an individual. Reputation of an individual had been traced to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2016 (17) SCC 221 had dealt with balancing of the rights available under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. But, however, considering the fact that the applicant herein admittedly is a public person. The Youtube videos & tweets tabulated supra only make various allegations as against the applicant in performance of his official duties."

Read more
Notes

Comments made against the conduct of a person in carrying out their official duties cannot be said to violate the right to privacy of the person.

Read more

Shankar vs. G. Square Realtors Private Limited

Press Freedom, Informational Privacy || Madras High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.06.2023
Citation - A. No. 1009 of 2023 in C.S. No. 189 of 2022
Case Type - Application
Case Status - Disposed of
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"It is pertinent to consider the order of this Court made in O.A.No.871 of 2014 and A.No.6297 of 2015 in C.S.No.705 of 2014 dated 16.05.2018 wherein, a learned Judge of this Court after analyzing the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court particularly in the case of Justice K.S.Puttuswamy's (Retd.) reported in (2017) 10 SCC 1, R.Rajagopal's case reported in 1994 (6) SCC 632 and Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (2006) 2 LW 377 had come to the following conclusion- "40.The theory that there cannot be a prior restraint or a gag order upon the Press or Media stands diluted, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Justice K.S.Puttaswamy's case. The observations of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, extracted earlier would show that the Media cannot in the guise of public interest publish anything and everything, which may be interesting." "

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech should be balanced against the test of public interest. With respect to a person in the public sphere, a publisher cannot publish everything in the guise of public interest. The Court directed that any publication of statements on public platforms regarding the activities of the respondent (a public figure) should be done only after notifying the respondent regarding the same and incorporating the response in the publication if the response is received within 72 hours.

Read more

State v. XXX

Autonomy and Bodily Integrity || Madras High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.11.2023
Citation - R.T. No.2 of 2022 and Crl.A. Nos.427 and 392 of 2023
Case Type - Regular Trial and Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Appeals disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 6 r/w 17, 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
View Case

Important Quote

"10. In the Medico-Legal Examination Report [Ex.P7] issued by PW5- the doctor, as stated earlier, has said that there is evidence of penetrative sexual intercourse. However, we notice regrettably that two finger test had been conducted in the instant case, though the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court in several cases have repeatedly held that such a test is neither acceptable nor desirable to ascertain whether the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. We take this opportunity to remind the Doctors that if they conduct any test in contravention of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Jharkhand Vs. Shailender Kumar @ Pandav Rai, reported in (2022) 14 SCC 289, they shall be guilty of misconduct as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, in the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that PW2's evidence is cogent and convincing and can be the sole basis to determine the guilt or otherwise of the accused and the absence of any corroboration would hardly make any difference. Therefore, even if the expert opinion of the Doctor is ignored, there is nothing to doubt PW2's version."

Read more
Notes

The High Court reiterated the illegality of the 'two-finger test' in sexual assault cases, and that Doctors conducting the 'two-finger test' on sexual assault victims will be held guilty of misconduct.

Read more

Orissa High Court

Ananga Kumar Otta vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Orissa High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.08.2020
Citation - MANU/OR/0215/2020
Case Type - Writ Petition (PIL)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Regulation 3 (ix) of the Odisha COVID-19 Regulations, 2020. S. 33(m) read with S. 20-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Public disclosure of identity of quarantined/Covid-19 infected persons is subject to scrutiny of the 'triple test' prescribed in the Puttaswamy case.

Read more

Subhranshu Rout vs. State of Odisha

Dignity, Informational Privacy || Orissa High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.11.2020
Citation - MANU/OR/0270/2020
Case Type - Bail Application
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - The Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy of a victim of sexual offences includes the right to have offensive posts erased from any public platform.

Read more

Subash Mohapatra and Ors. vs State of Odisha and Ors.

Right to Know and Access Information || Orissa High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.06.22
Citation - MANU/OR/0393/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 91, 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 19 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 8, 9, 10, 11, 24 Right To Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"Indeed, information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations has been legislatively identified by the RTI Act as a species as deserving of a different treatment in terms of disclosure, which is what is highlighted by the first proviso to both Section 24 (1) as well as Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act. If Section 8 is read with Section 24 of the RTI Act, as it has to since no provision can be viewed as otiose, then it becomes apparent that even while dealing with requests for information falling in the domain of Section 8 of the RTI Act, if such information pertains to allegations of human rights violations or corruption, regard will have to be had to the first provisos to Section 24 (1) Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act. "

Read more
Notes

Information regarding all the activities undertaken by the State Vigilance Commission is not exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act. The Vigilance Department can be asked to disclose information that is of public interest such as corruption or human rights violation.

Read more

Satrughna Samal v. State of Odisha

Dignity, Bodily Integrity || Orissa High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.08.2023
Citation - JCRLA No.24 OF 2015
Case Type - Jail Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Appeal Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code
View Case

Important Quote

"The medical professionals while conducting medical examination on the victims of rape and sexual assault cases should desist from twofinger test in the private part of the victim which is also known as virginity test as the test violates the right of such victims to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity and hence, not at all permissible under the law. It is no less than adding an unforgettable insult to an unhealed injury. When a sexually active woman or a woman habituated to sexual intercourse can also be raped if the act of the accused comes within section 375 of I.P.C., this sort of test is certainly unscientific and traumatizing."

Read more
Notes

The Court reiterated that the twofinger test is completely illegal and of no evidentiary value in cases of sexual violence, as well as a violation of the right to privacy of the victim.

Read more

Satrughna Samal v. State of Odisha

Autonomy and Bodily Integrity || Orissa High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.08.2023
Citation - JCLRA. No. 79 of 2015
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status -
Legal Provisions - Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
View Case

Important Quote

"In her report, P.W.11 further stated that the vaginal opening of the victim easily admitted two fingers. The medical professionals while conducting medical examination on the victims of rape and sexual assault cases should desist from two-finger test in the private part of the victim which is also known as virginity test as the test violates the right of such victims to privacy, physical and mental integrity and dignity and hence, not at all permissible under the law. It is no less than adding an unforgettable insult to an unhealed injury. When a sexually active woman or a woman habituated to sexual intercourse can also be raped if the act of the accused comes within section 375 of I.P.C., this sort of test is certainly unscientific and traumatizing."

Read more
Notes

The two-finger test violates the right of sexual assault victims to privacy, physical and mental integrity, as well as dignity. The Court reiterated that it is not permissible under the law.

Read more

Patna High Court

Ajay Kumar Singh vs. Director General of Investigation, Income Tax and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Patna High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 02.12.2020
Citation - 2021 (1) BLJ 340, MANU/BH/0742/2020
Case Type - Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Search and Seizure operations with proper authorization do not violate right to privacy.

Read more

Shivani Kaushik and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Right to Information || Patna High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 18.06.2021
Citation - MANU/BH/0407/2021
Case type - Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case status - Order passed
Legal provisions - S. 4, 10, 17 and 19 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. S. 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
View Case

Important Quote

"The Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (Act No. 18 of 1969) and also the Right to Information Act, 2005, gives a right to a person in almost unequivocal terms of their access to information and therefore, the Digital Portals should be made accessible to the general public with regular and timely updates. It is needless to say that private information of deceased individuals will still be protected under the Right to Privacy read into Article 21 of the Constitution but has to be balanced with 'General public awareness' and information dissemination."" ""The information to be updated regularly on the digital portal shall be done in line with the right to privacy, recognized under the Constitution."

Read more
Notes

Information can be updated on a digital portal, but the same must be done in line with the individual's right to privacy.

Read more

Amit Raj vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Autonomy || Patna High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.06.2022
Citation - MANU/BH/0712/2022
Case type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.10(1), 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 19, 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"We are mindful that choice inheres in the right to privacy as well, for which reference to Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 is apt. A woman's choice of selecting her partner is a facet duly recognised by our Constitution".

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy encompasses the freedom to marry a person of one's choice.

Read more

Youth for Equality and Others v. State of Bihar and Others

Informational Privacy || Patna High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 04.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 1273
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"We also see from the notification issued that the Government intends to share data with the leaders of different parties of the State Assembly, the ruling party and opposition party which is also a matter of great concern. There definitely arises the larger question of right to privacy, which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held to be a facet of right to life."

Read more
Notes

The power of State authorities to collect data must be balanced with the fundamental right to privacy, which is a facet of right to life. The State cannot conduct surveys with the intent to collect and share personal information with third-parties without a fair and reasonable procedure established for the same.

Read more

Youth for Equality v. State of Bihar

Informational Privacy || Patna High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 01.08.2023
Citation - Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5542 of 2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Pat 2393
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 15, 16, 21, 162, 246, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts And Services (SC/ST, OBC) Act, 1991
View Case

Important Quote

"...there are certain aspects of personal information, which fall under the phrase 'none of your business', meaning none other can seek such an information mandatorily from the citizens; especially not the State which has the might of its authority." "We find the action of the State to be perfectly valid, initiated with due competence, with the legitimate aim of providing 'Development with Justice'; as proclaimed in the address to both Houses and the actual survey to have neither exercised nor contemplated any coercion to divulge the details and having passed the test of proportionality, thus not having violated the rights of privacy of the individual especially since it is in furtherance of a 'compelling public interest' which in effect is the 'legitimate State interest'."

Read more
Notes

Caste survey by the state government for the purpose of uplifting the marginalised, requiring disclosure of religion, caste and monthly income, is not a violation of right to privacy.

Read more

Punjab and Haryana High Court

A and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.

Autonomy, Dignity, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 20.07.2018
Citation - (2018) 191 PLR 596, MANU/PH/1052/2018
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 5 and 6 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954
View Case

Important Quote

"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"

Read more
Notes

Advance notice to parents under Special Marriage Act, 1954 is violative of right to privacy.

Read more

Sunil Kumar Gulati vs. State of Punjab

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 29.03.2022
Citation - MANU/PH/0507/2022
Case Type - Criminal Main
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 165, S. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. S. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885
View Case

Important Quote

"The Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra) held that the direction to give voice sample does not infringe Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It was held that the voice sample is only for purpose of comparison and is not a testimony. Further it was held that Right to Privacy cannot be construed as absolute."

Read more
Notes

Collecting voice samples of the accused does not violate their right to privacy.

Read more

Ravi Parkash Sharma vs. State of Punjab

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.03.2022
Citation - MANU/PH/0519/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 20, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 5 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988
View Case

Important Quote

"The infringement of the Fundamental Right to Privacy cannot be raised to create a bubble to scuttle the investigation nullifying the evidence collected by merely denying that the voice in recording is not of the petitioner and there being no comparison."

Read more
Notes

Collecting voice samples of the accused does not violate their right to privacy.

Read more

Somanjeet Singh vs. Nareshtha

Autonomy, Dignity || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 15.09.2022
Citation - Civil Revision No.3880 of 2022
Case Type - Civil Revision
Case Status - Dismissed
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is well settled that recording of the conversation by husband without wife's consent amounts of breach of her privacy. No such conversation, clandestinely recorded, can be brought on record to assert any right or to prove a fact before the Family Court."

Read more
Notes

Conversations recorded by a husband without his wife's consent would amount to breach of privacy.

Read more

Kalyani Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation

Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.06.2023
Citation - MANU/PH/0882/2023
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 154, 161, 162, 164, 170, 173, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Since, a part of data includes chats between deceased and his girlfriends apart from objectionable photographs, which could lead embarrassment to those concerned, it will be in the fitness of things that such data be either provided by imposing some strict conditions on accused or only regulated access is provided to the same to the accused. The prosecution may move an application in this regard within one week from today. Such application shall be moved after preparing a complete list of files/folders/directories found stored on storage devices. If, the accused has no objection, only a general description may be recorded as regards contents of folders. However, the description and location, complete with directory/path of data, with respect to which prosecution seeks imposing of some conditions on accused or seeks that only regulated access be provided, should be specifically mentioned."

Read more
Notes

The prosecution is legally required to provide a copy of the evidence relied upon by them to the accused. However, in instances of the electronic evidence containing sensitive personal information, the prosecution shall restrict the access of such information, or undertake any other appropriate measures to protect the right to privacy of the victim.

Read more

Kewal Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 8.06.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 593
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 15, 42 and 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the police had received the secret information that the accused were present on the bridge of water reservoir. Even, when the police party raided the place, all the accused were found present with heavy quantity of the poppy husk in pits adjoining the water course and were waiting for the vehicle to transport the contraband. Consequently, the recovery of the contraband had taken place from a "Public Place" as explained under Section 43 of the NDPS Act and the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case."

Read more
Notes

The requirements to protect the right to privacy of the accused will not be applicable to searches and seizures conducted in public places, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act.

Read more

Surjeet Khanna v. State of Haryana

Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14.07.2023
Citation - 2023/PHHC/088555, MANU/PH/1580/2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Petition dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 6, 18, 8, 21 of the Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2022
View Case

Important Quote

"The POCSO Act was enacted with the sole object of proper development of the child and to ensure that his or her right to privacy and confidentiality be protected and respected by every person by all means and through all stages of a judicial process involving the child." "The emphasis, therefore, is on the safety and security of the child and maintaining the confidentiality of his/her right to privacy. The obligation on the part of the person, so receiving such information or having knowledge of such information, is not to investigate the matter himself or herself, but the mandate of the POCSO Act, is to report the matter to the Police. Thus, to argue that the endeavour on the part of the petitioner to settle the matter at her level, would obliterate her liability under the POCSO Act, is untenable."

Read more
Notes

The Court reiterated that the POCSO Act is enacted to ensure a child's safety and security as well as their right to privacy and confidentiality through all stages of the judicial process. A person having knowledge of an offence committed against a child cannot take matters into her own hands and is required to report the matter to the police under POCSO Act.

Read more

Parveen Kumar v State of Haryana

Phone Tapping, Surveillance, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.10.2023
Citation - CRM-M No. 49513 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 20(C) and 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had tried to get call detail of the police official, who is cited as witness of recovery from the petitioner. The assumption of the petitioner is that the police official might be having his mobile phone with him at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested. If the call details regarding that mobile phone are brought on record then the fact can be proven in defence that he was not arrested with the co-accused, rather he was arrested from a different place. In the considered view of this court, just to give credence to the assumption of the petitioner this court cannot go into the roving inquiries. Otherwise also, the call detail of the police official is not relevant as such. Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore, just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner, court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones."

Read more
Notes

Call records of a police officer cannot be ordered to be preserved on the pretext of gaining evidence in favour of the accused as it would be a violation of privacy.

Read more

Parveen Kumar v State of Haryana

Phone Tapping, Surveillance, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.10.2023
Citation - CRM-M No. 49513 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 20(C) and 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) and Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner had tried to get call detail of the police official, who is cited as witness of recovery from the petitioner. The assumption of the petitioner is that the police official might be having his mobile phone with him at the relevant time when the petitioner was arrested. If the call details regarding that mobile phone are brought on record then the fact can be proven in defence that he was not arrested with the co-accused, rather he was arrested from a different place. In the considered view of this court, just to give credence to the assumption of the petitioner this court cannot go into the roving inquiries. Otherwise also, the call detail of the police official is not relevant as such. Even if the assumption of the petitioner is taken to be having some substance, then also it is not necessary that when the police had gone to arrest the petitioner at some alleged other place, then they would necessarily be having their own mobile phones with them. Therefore, just for the possibility of creating any evidence in favour of the petitioner, court cannot go to the extent of breaching the privacy of the police official qua use of their mobile phones."

Read more
Notes

Call records of a police officer cannot be ordered to be preserved on the pretext of gaining evidence in favour of the accused as it would be a violation of privacy.

Read more

IMT Industrial Association v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Dignity and Autonomy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 17.11.2023
Citation - CWP Nos. 26573, 24967, 25037, 25539, 25988 of 2021, CWP Nos. 584, 1404, 3860 and 1698 of 2022 (O&M)
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Art.14, 15, 19(1)(g),19(6) and 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 and The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020
View Case

Important Quote

"The observations made by the Constitution Bench in Navtej Singh Johar and others vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 can be referred to, wherein it dealt with the provisions of Section 377 IPC and the identity given to each and every citizen to live with dignity and right of privacy as long as they were consenting adults of the same sex. It is in such circumstances the right of LGBT individuals was upheld. It is in such circumstances, the Apex Court had opined that the miniscule minority having equal rights were being brushed under the carpet and have a right to participate as a citizen and an equal right of enjoyment of living regardless of what majority may believe and then only foundational promises of the Constitution could be fulfilled. The said principles are apparently not being kept in mind by the State while framing the current legislation which is under attack while terming the rest of the citizens of India as migrants. Reliance can thus be again placed upon the observations of then Chief Justice of India, Justice Dipak Misra that it was the responsibility of the State to curb any propensity or proclivity of popular sentiment or majoritarianism to contend that popular sentiment could not override the rights of the citizens of the country nor promote the local provincial interest which is clear from the objects and reasons of the Act. Thus, freedom given under Article 19 of the Constitution of India could not be taken away and the impugned provisions are falling foul and are liable to be declared unconstitutional as a wall could not be built around by the State and the spirit and sole of the oneness of the Constitution of India could not be curtailed by the parochial limited vision of the State. The fact that the nation would crack down under rigour if the text and spirit of the Constitution of India is not imbibed by the citizens and it has to be cultivated by the people so that they are able to protect the same and the attitude of respect and reverence has to be maintained towards their fellowmen."

Read more
Notes

The Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 was declared unconstitutional and violative of Part III of the Constitution.

Read more

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Haryana

Phone Tapping, Surveillance, Informational Privacy || Punjab and Haryana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.12.2023
Citation - CRR No.2605 of 2023 (O&M)
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec.21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Sec.65-A and 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sec.91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
View Case

Important Quote

"Preserving and requisitioning of the call details and tower location details would be necessary, otherwise the same would be lost forever. The right of accused to invoke the provisions of Section 91 Cr. P.C. for obtaining documents in support of his defence has been recognized by the Constitutional Courts. The legislative intent behind enactment of Section 91 Cr. P.C. is to ensure that no cogent material or evidence involved in the issue remains undiscovered in unearthing the true facts during investigation, enquiry, trial or other proceedings. No doubt while passing the appropriate direction for preserving and production of call details/tower location details under Section 91 Cr. P.C. would violate the right to privacy of the police officials but the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in ensuring free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. Some extent of privacy can be breached in production of the said call details, as this would facilitate the learned trial Court in discovering the truth and rendering justice, which is fair to all stake holders."

Read more
Notes

Right of the accused under Art.21 in ensuring a free and fair investigation/trial would prevail over the right to privacy of the police officials. Hence, the court allowed the accessing of such records for the purposes of defence.

Read more

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Autonomy, Dignity || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 07.03.2019
Citation - 2021 (1) RLW 262 (Raj.), MANU/RH/0098/2019
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition (SB)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 4 of the Rajasthan Conduct Rules,1971
View Case

Important Quote

"In ABC Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 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."

Read more
Notes

Right to privacy includes the right of an unmarried mother not to disclose the paternity of the child.

Read more

Pooja and Another vs. State of Rajasthan, Through the Secretary, Department of Home and Others

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.08.2022
Citation - 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 1420
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. If there is allegation of violation of law, the aggrieved person may take legal recourse and no other step can be at the whim of anyone."

Read more
Notes

The Court can direct the State to ensure the protection of privacy and liberty of married couples whose marriage hasn't been approved and recognised by their family members.

Read more

Annu Kanwar D/o Late Rajkumar Singh and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 14.10.2022
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 678/2022
Case Type - Crim. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:- "The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State's respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.""

Read more
Notes

The court relied on the Navtej Johar judgment and held that the petitioners had the autonomy to make independent choices (like marriage in this case) and that the right to privacy granted individuals the right to exercise their autonomy away from the glare of societal expectations.

Read more

Suman Kumari and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 03.02.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 206/2023
Case Type - Crim. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:- ""The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State's respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.""

Read more
Notes

The court relied on the Navtej Johar judgement and held that the petitioners had the autonomy to make independent choices (like marriage in this case) and that the right to privacy granted individuals the right to exercise their autonomy away from the glare of societal expectations.

Read more

Jyoti Chelani and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 04.02.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 227/2023
Case Type - Crim. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one's hands. In Navtej Singh Johar Vs. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1, The Supreme Court said as follows:- ""The right to privacy enables an individual to exercise his or her autonomy, away from the glare of societal expectations. The realisation of the human personality is dependent on the autonomy of an individual. In a liberal democracy, recognition of the individual as an autonomous person is an acknowledgment of the State's respect for the capacity of the individual to make independent choices. The right to privacy may be construed to signify that not only are certain acts no longer immoral, but that there also exists an affirmative moral right to do them.""

Read more
Notes

The court relied on the Navtej Johar judgement and held that the petitioners had the autonomy to make independent choices (like marriage in this case) and that the right to privacy granted individuals the right to exercise their autonomy away from the glare of societal expectations.

Read more

Chinder Pal Singh v. Chief Secretary, Govt of Rajashthan and Others

Dignity, Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 25.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 907
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The Apex Court in the case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, has considered the issue of recognition of self-perceived gender identity and had specifically held that the transgender persons are also entitled to basic human rights including right to life with human dignity and right to privacy and freedom of expression. It has been held that right of a person to self-perceived gender identity is a part of his/her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and a person cannot be discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity different from that assigned at the time of birth."

Read more
Notes

A person has a right to recognition of their self-perceived gender under Article 21.

Read more

Shashikant Joshi v. State of Rajasthan

Phone tapping || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.07.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 565/2022, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1108
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Cases disposed.
Legal Provisions - Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. Section 7, 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 201 and 120B of the IPC. Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"When the statute provides procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary infringement of the rights to privacy, it must be strictly followed. In other words, required mandates could not have been ignored or superceded by the State or its machinery leading to offend the right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. If the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in PUCL’ case (supra) which has been reinforced and approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Puttaswamy’s case (supra) as well as mandates of Acts and Rules are allowed to be flouted to affect illegal interception of messages it would lead to breeding contempt and arbitrariness."

Read more
Notes

An order for interception of call details should be compliant with the requirements of the law and follow procedural safeguards. An interception order made under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act should be in the interest of public emergency or public safety and record reasons in writing. Any arbitrary order of interception violates the right to privacy of the individual whose conversations are intercepted.

Read more

Pinki Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1056

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.06.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1334/2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Raj 1056
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"The petitioners are major and are in live-in relationship. The petitioners have approached this court for protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not approving and recognizing their relationship... Considering the constitutional right of the petitioners, let the State respondents ensure protection of the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.”

Read more
Notes

In view of the Constitutional right to privacy, life and liberty, the Court directed the State to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners in a live-in relationship, against private respondents who did not recoginse and approve of the relationship.

Read more

Rekha Devi and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.08.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1548/2023, MANU/RH/1109/2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"The law is well settled that privacy and liberty of individuals cannot be infringed by taking the law in one’s hands. If there is allegation of violation of law by the aggrieved person then legal recourse should be adopted and recourse can never be at the whim of anyone."

Read more
Notes

In view of the Constitutional right to privacy, life and liberty, the Court directed the State to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners married to each other, against the family members who did not recoginse and approve of the marriage.

Read more

Shivani Meena vs. State of Rajasthans

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 01.08.2023
Citation - S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1553/2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition disposed of
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"The petitioners are major and have entered into marriage with each other. Supporting documents of their marriage is on the record. The petitioners have approached this court for protection of their life and liberty as private respondents are not accepting and recognizing their marriage."

Read more
Notes

In view of the Constitutional right to privacy, life and liberty, the Court directed the State to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners married to each other, against the family members who did not recoginse and approve of the marriage.

Read more

Telangana High Court

Ramgopal Varma and Ors. vs. Perumalla Amrutha

Informational Privacy, Press Freedom || Telangana High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 06.11.2020
Citation - MANU/TL/0352/2020
Case Type - Civil Misc. Appeal
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 3(ii)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
View Case

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

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 by the press and media.

Read more

xxxx vs. Union of India and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Telangana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.10.2021
Citation - MANU/TL/0747/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021
View Case

Important Quote

"This Court is of the opinion that the life of the foetus or to be born child cannot be placed at higher pedestal than that of the life of the petitioner. The dignity, self-respect, healthy living (mental or physical) etc. are facets of right to life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which also include right of a woman to make a choice of pregnancy and terminate pregnancy, in case, where pregnancy is caused by rape or sexual abuse or for that matter unplanned pregnancy, subject to reasonable restrictions under law."

Read more
Notes

The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses reproductive rights, subject to reasonable restrictions under law.

Read more

Aktar Begum vs. State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government and Others

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Telangana High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 17.02.2022
Citation - MANU/TL/0238/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - S. 3 of the Telangana Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Boot-leggers, Dacoits, Drug-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders Land-grabbers, Spurious Seed Offenders, Insecticide Offenders, Fertiliser Offenders, Food Adulteration Offenders, Fake Document Offenders, Scheduled Commodities Offenders, Forest Offenders, Gaming Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Explosive Substances Offenders, Arms Offenders, Cyber Crime Offenders And White Collar Or Financial Offenders Act, 1986.
Article 20, 21, 22, 31-B, 31-C, 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"Ordinarily, no person can be arrested/detained unless crime is reported. Act 1 of 1986 makes an exception to this salutary principle. It vests extraordinary power in the Government or in its delegatee to detain a person even before a crime is committed by him. Perforce, this power of detention is not to be exercised as a matter of course. As it seeks to offend the most sacred of the rights, right to life, liberty and privacy, there are three primary requirements need to be answered by the law enforcing agency before invoking the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, 1986."

Read more
Notes

The power of preventive detention cannot be excercised as a matter of course since it violates the right to life, liberty and privacy.

Read more

Mohammed Munawar vs. The State of Telangana and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Telangana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Order Date - 04.01.2023
Citation - MANU/TL/0003/2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 323, 354, 498-A, 506, 509 of the Indian Penal Code 1860
View Case

Important Quote

"Though the Courts shall not as a matter of course direct paternity test, in the present facts, the 'wife' has filed documents to substantiate that there was a marriage and thereafter 'Son' was born. The ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are no reasons given in the order that there is a necessity to conduct DNA testing is not correct. Learned Family Court Judge has given adequate reasons and also after discussing the back ground of the cases, has ordered the petitioner herein to undergo DNA testing. Courts should be cautions that a child could be bastardized on the basis of result of DNA testing and any refusal by the husband to submit himself to medical examination, the Court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against husband and proceed with the case on the presumption that the husband is the biological father of the child. However in the present facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order."

Read more
Notes

Although courts cannot direct DNA tests to be conducted in most cases as this could infringe upon the right to privacy, such tests may be directed by courts in the absence of any other material evidence. This could include cases where DNA tests are necessary, such as establishing paternity.

Read more

Mohd. Anwaruddin Abbu v. State of Telangana

Surveillance, Search and Seizure, Right to be Forgotten || Telangana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 18.01.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine TS 150
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provision - Article 21 and 226 of the Constitution
View Case

Important Quote

"The said grounds [for the maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets] are lacking in the present case. Though in all the aforesaid cases, allegations are serious in nature, the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, continuation of the said 'rowdy sheet' by the police authorities against the petitioners ignoring the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court in the judgments cited supra cannot be sustained."

Read more
Notes

The maintenance of suspect sheets/history sheets/rowdy sheets by the police in the absence of continuance of crime from an individual is violative of that individual's right to privacy.

Read more

Venkatesh Derangula vs. Kaja Suryanarayana

Bodily Integrity || Telangana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 28.04.2023
Citation - MANU/TL/0703/2023
Case Type - Civil Revision Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 13(1), 65(B), 153, 153(3) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Article 20(3), 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"In the instant case, child is not a party to the Election O.P. Therefore, the child can not be compelled to undergo DNA profile to ascertain her parents to decide the Election O.P. The child has a right to be silent. No one can be compelled to give up the right to privacy against the will of the child. The case on hand does not fall into the exceptions carved out from the normal principle on right to privacy, more particularly, when the child is not the person elected and is a stranger to the issue of earning disqualification by an elected candidate. A wrong declaration and a resultant disqualification relates to the 4th respondent. The child is no way concerned. She is a stranger to the election dispute. Thus, she cannot be compelled to undergo medical examination against her will. Certainly subjecting the child to medical examination would offend her personal liberty, privacy and dignity of person that is bestowed on a girl child. There can be myriad reasons where the girl child would genuinely wish to keep the issue of her parenthood a secret. Moreover, she being a child, she can not give her consent for such tests and affecting her privacy, her parents can not subject her to DNA test."

Read more
Notes

DNA tests are an invasion of privacy. Hence, they must be conducted only when required, especially if they are to be conducted on children. A child cannot be compelled to undergo a DNA test, when such test is not in the interest of protecting the child's right to privacy.

Read more

V. Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana

Dignity, Autonomy || Telangana High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 06.07.2023
Citation - Writ Petition (Pil) Nos. 44 and 355 of 2018 and 74 of 2020, 2023 SCC OnLine TS 1688
Case Type - Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation)
Case Status - Cases disposed.
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 16, 19(1), 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"This legislation is violative of the human rights of the third gender community besides it is an intrusion into their private sphere as well as an assault on their dignity. It is thus offensive of both the right to privacy and the right to dignity of transgender persons. It is not only violative of Article 14 but is also clearly violative of Article 21 of the Constitutional of India. Such an enactment can no longer continue to find a place in our statute book. It is accordingly declared as unconstitutional."

Read more
Notes

The Court declared the Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1919 as unconstitutional for violation of right to privacy and dignity of trans-persons and for criminalising trans-identities. It directed the State to provide for reservations to transgender community in educational institutions and in public employment. It also directed implementation of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and of the directions of the Supreme Court in NALSA ((2014) 5 SCC 438).

Read more

Sandepu Swaroopa v. Union of India and Ors

Informational Privacy, Autonomy || Telangana High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 19.07.2023
Citation - Writ Petition No. 27398 of 2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Articles 14, 19, 21, 25 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Article 25 of the Constitution of India confers freedom of conscience on a citizen which is a fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen. It confers the right to freely profess, practice or propagate any religion, which includes in it the citizens right to say that he does not believe in any religion and he does not want to profess, practice or propagate any religion... The State cannot compel the citizen to profess or declare that he belongs to one religion or the other. If he is compelled to do so, it is nothing but infringing his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India."

Read more
Notes

An individual has a right to not specify their religion or caste in their birth certificate. The Court directed the State to provide for a column for 'no religion', 'no caste' in the application for registering birth.

Read more

Uttarakhand High Court

X vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Uttarakhand High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 31.05.2019
Citation - AIR 2019 Utr 138, MANU/UC/0448/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Disposed. SLP Pending.
Legal Provisions - Criminal Tribes' Act, 1871.
S. 376, 377 and 385 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Important Quote

"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."

Read more
Notes

Right to gender identity is a part of right to privacy.

Read more

X vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors.

Bodily Integrity, Dignity || Uttarakhand High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.02.2022
Citation - MANU/UC/0036/2022
Case Status - Disposed
Case Type - Writ Petition
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950.
S.3 of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
S.6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
View Case

Important Quote

"There is a right to termination pregnancy on ground of rape. A rape victim has a right to make a choice to carry. She has also right not to carry pregnancy subject to the conditions as enumerated under the provisions of the Act. Right to life means something more than survival or animal existence. It would include the right to live with human dignity. The father of the minor petitioner has expressed that the petitioner is not in a position to continue the pregnancy and if the petitioner is not permitted to terminate her pregnancy, there is possible grave injury to her physical and mental health."

Read more
Notes

The right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to make reproductive choices. Grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman should be taken into consideration while deciding on the petitions for termination of pregnancy.

Read more

Meghalaya High Court

Registrar General, High Court of Meghalaya vs. State of Meghalaya

Bodily Integrity || Meghalaya High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 23.06.2021
Citation - MANU/MG/0061/2021
Case type - Public Interest Litigation
Case status - Listed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case

Important Quote

"Article 21 encompasses within its fold, right to health, as a fundamental right. By that same analogy, right to health care, which includes vaccination, is a fundamental right. However, vaccination by force or being made mandatory by adopting coercive methods, vitiates the very fundamental purpose of the welfare attached to it." "Question also arises whether fundamental right can be forcefully imposed even if the beneficiary is not inclined to its exercise, because, if the latter is undertaken, then there is a risk of running into infringing on the fundamental right to privacy and exercise of personal liberty. " "[R]ight to and the welfare policy for vaccination can never affect a major fundamental right; i.e., right to life, personal liberty and livelihood, especially when there exists no reasonable nexus between vaccination and prohibition of continuance of occupation and/or profession."

Read more
Notes

Mandating vaccination violates a persons right to bodily autonomy.

Read more

Eric Ranee & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Anr

Informational Privacy || Meghalaya High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 06.10.2023
Citation - Crl. Petn. No. 79 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Petition dismissed
Legal Provisions - Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
View Case

Important Quote

"The proposition of law laid down in the aforementioned judgment makes it amply clear that Section 23 of the POCSO Act prohibits disclosure of identity of a child in any manner. The intention of the legislature is that the identity of a child should not be disclosed directly or indirectly and the privacy and the reputation of the child should not be harmed. Any particular which may lead to the identification of a child cannot be disclosed in the media. Any person committing breach of the said requirement of law shall be prosecuted in terms of Section 23(4) of the said Act."

Read more
Notes

Section 23 of the POCSO Act applies not only to publishers and owners of media outlets but also to reporters or contributors of news.

Read more

Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)

Tarunjit Tejpal vs. State of Goa

Informational Privacy || Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 24.11.2021
Citation - MANU/MH/3984/2021
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 327(2) of CrPC, 1973. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"There is no embargo or restriction on the applicant to argue his case freely nor his right to argue his case can be curtailed. In proceedings such as these i.e. rape cases in general, it is expected that all parties conduct themselves with dignity, sobriety and some sensitivity that is required, particularly, whilst reading evidence pertaining to intimate details. This, we think is not too much to expect from the Advocates appearing for the respective parties. Maintaining decorum in the courtroom is not merely a superficial means of protecting the image of lawyers and judges - but it is absolutely essential to the administration of justice."

Read more
Notes

Rejecting in-camera proceedings by the court would not violate the right to privacy and dignity of the applicant. Also, such rejection would not violate the right to defend oneself freely.

Read more

C. Radhakrishnan vs Public Information Officer and Ors

Right to Know and Access Information || Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 08.09.2021
Citation - MANU/MH/4067/2021
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provisions - S. 8 (1) (j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
View Case

Important Quote

"Insofar as R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal (supra) is concerned, it is an admitted position that the said judgment was rendered before the aforesaid Act was enacted. A perusal of the same shows that when a question arises regarding information pertaining to public officials, the right to privacy may not be available where the information sought pertains to the acts and conduct of the public officials relevant to discharge of official duties." "There cannot be any doubt about the fact that invasion of privacy has to be construed in the facts of each case and, in any case, when it is found that divulging of such information can be said to in larger public interest, the exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the said Act, would not be available.""

Read more
Notes

Disclosure of personal information pertaining to public officials may not tantamount to invasion of privacy if made in the interest of the public and relates to discharge of official duties.

Read more

Gujarat High Court

Jinnat Fatma Vajirbhai Ami vs. Nishat Alimadbhai Polra

Autonomy || Gujarat High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision date- 20.12.2022
Citation- (2022)1CCC1
Case Type- First Appeal with Civil Application (For Stay)
Case Status- Disposed
Legal Provisions- S. 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984. S. 282 of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
View Case

Important Quote

"A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be enforced except by way of attachment of the property of the other party or compensation and mense profits. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant-wife has a property of her own which could be attached. The object behind Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (3) CPC is that no person can force a female or his wife to cohabit and establish conjugal rights. If the wife refuse to cohabit, in such case, she cannot be forced by a decree in a suit to establish conjugal rights."

Read more
Notes

A woman cannot be forced to cohabit against her will through a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

Read more

Thakor Devrajbhai Ramanbhai vs. State of Gujarat

Autonomy, Dignity || Gujarat High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1096/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 19(2), 21, 42 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"We would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibhai Chandaragi B. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 360, where it considered the right to marry person of one's choice an integral part of Article 21. It is construed as an autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage is integral to the dignity of the individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine Judges Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual."

Read more
Notes

The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to the dignity of the individual.

Read more

ABC (Victim) vs. State of Gujarat

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy || Gujarat High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed herein above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the petitioner - victim."
View Case

Important Quote

"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed herein above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the petitioner - victim."

Read more
Notes

While considering cases of termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, their right to privacy and the best interest principle should be factored in.

Read more

Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs. State of Gujarat

Autonomy, Dignity || Gujarat High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.04.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1330/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 42 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 141, 143, 503, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 144, 151 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"In Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. this Court noticed that the society was emerging through a crucial transformational period. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith held to be integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine-Judge Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual."

Read more
Notes

The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to marry a person of one's choice. The consent of the individuals entering into wedlock must be given primacy over the consent of the community or family.

Read more

Anjaliben Senjibhai Thakor vs. State of Gujarat

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity || Gujarat High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.04.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1015/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S.3 of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971. S.114, 363, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 4, 6, 8 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
View Case

Important Quote

"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the victim."

Read more
Notes

While considering cases of termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, their right to privacy and the best interest principle should be factored in.

Read more

Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan vs. State of Gujarat

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Gujarat High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.12.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/3325/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 53, 53-A, 173(8), 293 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 20, 20(3), 21, 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"[The] Supreme Court has expressly said that fundamental right to privacy must give way to compelling public interest. By directing accused to give his sample of voice for the purpose of comparison with the material collected and sent to the FSL during the course of investigation to FSL would be for the purpose of comparison and by that, it cannot be said that accused is compelled to become witness against himself as provided under sub Article (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution. So long as drawing of a voice sample from the accused does not invade his body as a whole by any outer force that it cannot be said that any of the fundamental right of the accused is infringed."

Read more
Notes

When there is a compelling public interest, collecting voice samples of accused persons does not violate their right to privacy.

Read more

Gujarat University vs. M Sridhar Acharyulu and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Gujarat High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 31.03.2023
Citation - MANU/GJ/0210/2023
Case Type - Spl. Civil Application
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Rule 4A of the Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961; S. 74, 76, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S. 33 (B) of the Representation Of The People Act, 1951; S. 2(f), 3, 6(1), 8(1), 8(e), 8(j), 11, 11(1), 11(2) of the Right To Information Act, 2005; Article 19(1), 75, 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"In light of the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court holds that the educational documents including degrees fall within ambit of personal information of a citizen, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the said information is held by the Universities and Boards in fiduciary capacity on behalf of their students which is again exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. That being so, the first contention of Shri Kavina that once a student passes examination and qualifies to secure a degree then such degree cannot be treated as private or third party information and the said degree certificate has to be considered as public document generated by a public authority stands rejected."

Read more
Notes

Educational documents, including degree certificates, are classified as personal information even if they are issued or generated by a public authority. Hence, such documents are not subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.

Read more

Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench)

Vinod Sharma vs. Shanti Devi and Ors.

Autonomy || Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 21.02.2022
Case Citation - MANU/RH/0354/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 5, S. 23 of the Maintenance And Welfare Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act, 2007
View Case

Important Quote

"It is pertinent that the duty prescribed under sub-rule (2) is only to ensure that life and property of the senior citizens are protected. The same cannot be stretched to such an extent that it translates into a power to scoop out the children who have been living in shared accommodation out of natural bonding which at some point of time existed. Rule 20, if read in its entirety with its innate intention, gives a clear indication that being a piece of welfare legislation, it adjures the administration (District Magistrate) to avert threat of life and property of the senior citizens, should any such eventuality arise."

Read more
Notes

As per the Rajasthan Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2010, it shall be the duty of the District Magistrate to ensure that life and property of senior citizens of the district are protected and they are able to live with security and dignity. However, the duty of the Magistrate is not to the extent of ordering eviction of the children of elderly parents from their homes, even if it is with the view of providing security to the parents.

Read more

Deepak Soni vs. Anamika

Bodily integrity || Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.05.2023
Citation - MANU/RH/0763/2023
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal Provision - S. 112, 114 Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"This Court also finds that the DNA Test is invading upon the rights of a child, which may range from affecting his property rights, right to lead a dignified life, right to privacy and right to have the confidence and happiness of being showered with love and affection by both parents. This case has to be seen through the prism of the child and not through the prism of the cantankerously fighting parents. This Court is of the firm opinion that the child cannot be used as a pawn in a divorce litigation, where either of the parents want to get rid of the spouse, while sacrificing the crucial rights of the child to a dignified parenthood, which shall not only cause an unfathomable misery upon the rights of the child, but also create a permanent dent in his existence/Psyche"

Read more
Notes

A parent cannot compel their child to undergo a DNA test, when the parent's sole intention is to use the results of the test to seek divorce on the grounds of adultery. DNA tests infringe upon the right to privacy of individuals, and children cannot be compelled to undergo such tests if it is not in their best interests.

Read more

Vandana Kanwar and others vs. State Of Rajasthan and others

Dignity || Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.08.2023
Citation - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6847/2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

"Apparently, there was no error in the assessment of the petitioners by the respondents, but this Court is unable to come over the shock, it got on seeing the parameters laid down by the respondents for ascertaining physical standards of women candidates. This Court cannot, but refrain from observing that the respondents’ act of setting up chest measurement to be a criterion, particularly for female candidates, is absolutely arbitrary, rather outrageous to say the least. It is a clear dent on a lady’s dignity and right of privacy guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India."

Read more
Notes

The minimum chest size requirement for recruitment of women into the Forest Guard is a violation of right to privacy, dignity and bodily autonomy of a woman.

Read more

X vs. Y

Dignity || Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 26.05.2023
Citation - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1015/2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition dismissed
Legal Provisions - Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case

Important Quote

This Court further observes that for protecting the best interest of the child, the DNA Paternity test cannot be allowed in a routine manner, and that the same can only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, and as per the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (supra)... This Court also finds that the DNA Test is invading upon the rights of a child, which may range from affecting his property rights, right to lead a dignified life, right to privacy and right to have the confidence and happiness of being showered with love and affection by both parents.

Read more
Notes

A DNA Paternity Test of the Child is an invasion of several of the right of child, including, property rights, right to lead a dignified life, right to privacy. The Court reiterated the earlier Supreme Court in Aparna Ajinkya ruling that a DNA Paternity Test can be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, keeping in mind the best interest of the child.

Read more

XX v. YY

Dignity and Informational Privacy || Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 13.12.2023
Citation - S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9681/2023
Case Type - Single Bench Civil Writ Petition Case Status - Petition disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec.25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
View Case

Important Quote

"Before parting, I may hasten to address certain privacy concerns arising out in the matters of this kind. The Registry of this Court as well as the Family Courts in the State of Rajasthan need to be cautious in future to ensure that they must respect the privacy of the parties in matrimonial disputes by ensuring that their identities are not disclosed and names of the parties are shown as XX vs YY or otherwise, the same are masked. The Registry is directed to issue an appropriate circular to the Family Courts to strictly carry out compliance thereof."

Read more
Notes

The Court issued directions to the registry to mask names of parties involved in matrimonial disputes.

Read more

Tripura High Court

Mrigankar Sekhar Dey vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy || Tripura High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 16.03.2022
Citation - MANU/TR/0156/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil) (PIL)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 11 of the Right To Information Act, 2005. S. 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
View Case

Important Quote

"Where a statute confers a right; which in the instant case is the right of a third party to refuse furnishing of private or confidential information, same cannot be wiped out in a manner except as set out in that statute. In order to outweigh the privacy/confidentiality of a third party; presumptions and baseless allegations alone are not sufficient, and the seeker of information must set out compelling grounds and circumstances rooted in facts to warrant infringement of privacy/confidentiality. Provisions of RTI cannot be read down to make privacy of individuals amenable to fishing inquiry and a fine balance is required to be maintained between public-interest and privacy/confidentiality of private party."

Read more
Notes

The Central/State Public Information Officer cannot disclose information considered confidential by a third party without their consent.

Read more

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)

Jafar Khan Ibrahim Khan and Ors. vs. Khurshidbi Ibrahim Khan and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.02.2023
Citation - MANU/MH/0662/2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The Hon'ble Apex Court is very clear about DNA test that merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person. It is also observed by the Apex Court in above said judgment, placing the reliance on judgment passed by co-ordinate bench in civil matter. Such direction would violate the privacy right of the persons subjected to such tests. It is also observed by this court [...] that the DNA test could have only been ordered if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the relationship between the parties."

Read more
Notes

The court re-affirmed the standards established in earlier Supreme Court and High Court judgements that a DNA test can be ordered by a court only if there is no other evidence on record which can sufficiently establish a relationship between individuals.

Read more

Manipur High Court

Maisnam Korouhanba Luwang v. State of Manipur

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Manipur High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.06.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Mani 175
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 173, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 17, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (prevention) Act, 1967; Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"This Court is conscious of the fact that the offences under UA(P) Act are serious one relating to the security of the nation and FIR cannot be quashed on mere technicalities without going to the complete merit of the case. [...] This direction is issued keeping in mind the settled principles of law of maintaining the intricate balance between the fundamental right to live with dignity of a citizen vis-à-vis the affairs of security of the State. It may be pertinent to observe here that Court ought not to pass any sort of order which may restrict the power of police in maintaining the law and order of the State, except for protecting the basic right of a citizen."

Read more
Notes

Particularly in cases involving national security, the right to privacy of the individual must be balanced with the powers of police to maintain law and order. Since the instant case involved charges filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the court did not quash the FIR, but instead directed the relevant authorities to complete the investigation and submit the report within six months.

Read more

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench)

Vijendra Singh Sikarwar Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors

Surveillance, Search and Seizure and Data Protection || Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench)

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 21.09.2023
Citation - MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 24900 of 2023
Case Type - Miscallaneous Criminal Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed and Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 61 to 69, 258, 309, 311 and 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
View Case

Important Quote

"Every police station, specially Investigating Officers must create a “WhatsApp” Group of every crime number unfolding heinous offences consisting of Investigating Officer, Complainant/Informant, Court Munshi, concerned Court Clerk, Prosecution Officer at the initial stage. This can be the First Phase of membership of said WhatsApp Group which would be in respect of the crime number under which heinous offence is under investigation. Therefore, that crime number would be the name of the WhatsApp Group. Court Munshi or Investigating Officer as the case may be can act as Admn. (Administrator) of the said WhatsApp Group. This group would be created only for the purpose of the service of summons, any other information related to that particular case and to protect the complainant and witnesses from the wrath of mischievous accused persons. Information sent over the said group and privacy of the data would be maintained by all the members of the group."

Read more
Notes

Creation of WhatsApp groups by Police Stations may be undertaken to keep track of offenders may be created, by taking due consideration of the privacy of the members added to such groups.

Read more
×

Methodology

The Privacy High Court Tracker has been developed using judgements pulled from the Manupatra case law database. Through its search function, CCG identified cases that relied upon the Puttaswamy judgment and were pertaining to the right to privacy, and filtered them by each of the 25 High Courts in India. These were then further examined to identify those cases whose decisions concerned a core aspect of privacy. CCG identified the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure. Cases where only incidental or passing observations or references were made to Puttaswamy and the right to privacy were not included in the tracker. The selected cases were then compiled into the database per High Court, with several details highlighted for ease of reference. These details consist of case name, decision date, case citation and number, case status, legal provisions involved, and bench strength. The tracker also includes select quotes concerning the right to privacy from each case, to assist users to more easily and quickly grasp the crux of the case. 

For ease of access to the text of the judgments, each case on our tracker is linked to the Indian Kanoon version of the judgment (wherever available) or an alternative open-access version of the judgment text.

We welcome your feedback. In addition, you may write to us at - ccg@nludelhi.ac.in with the details of any privacy case we may not have included from any High Court in India.