-

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 June 2022 (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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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
×

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.