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 March 2024 (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 methodologySurveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreDignity || Andhra Pradesh High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThe right to privacy should be considered a necessary factor while designing housing policies to ensure the sanctity of marital life.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 09.10.2022
Citation - MANU/AP/1519/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provision - S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908
"The legal validity of Chapter-37 of the said A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders, on the basis of which the said rowdy-sheets/suspect-sheets/history- sheets are being opened, has been questioned and challenged before this Court in W.P. No. 3568 of 2022 and batch. This court, by its common order, dated 15.07.2022, passed in the above batch of writ petitions, after considering the law on the issue elaborately with reference to the earlier judgments rendered by the Apex Court and, more particularly, with reference to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India , held that Chapter-37 of the A.P. Police Manual or A.P. Police Standing Orders on the basis of which the rowdy-sheets/ suspect-sheets/ history-sheets are being opened and surveillance is being kept on the individuals on the basis of the said rowdy-sheets/suspect sheets/history-sheets, as void."
Read moreThe maintenance of rowdy sheets, suspect sheets and history sheets by the police should be in conformity with the right to privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court
2 Judge
Order Date - 12.09.2022
Citation - I.A. NO. 1 OF 2002 in WRIT APPEAL NO. 674 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - S. 21, S.9 of A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859. Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case
"It is no doubt true that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy's [cited 1st supra], held that right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. But, learned Government Pleader for Home, mainly submits that the issue in K.S. Puttaswamy's [cited 1st supra], was totally different. It was a case where an individual was asked to furnish details for the purpose of issuing Aadhar Cards, and under those circumstances, the Court dealt with right of privacy. According to him, the case on hand relates to suspects/accused against whom rowdy sheets are opened for regulating the crime. This argument of learned Government Pleader, in our view, cannot be brushed aside at this stage and the same requires adjudication at length. Therefore, merely because a rowdy sheet is opened against an individual, prima facie, can it be said that it invades his privacy thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India? Having regard to the prima facie findings, arrived at by us, in the preceding paragraphs, the Order of the learned Single Judge in declaring the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual/A.P. Police Standing Orders to the extent of opening/continuation of rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets and the surveillance of an individual [in terms of Chapter 37 of the above said Standing Orders] as void, is hereby suspended. However, the rowdy sheets/history sheets/suspect sheets, which are closed pursuant to the Orders of the learned Single Judge, shall not be reopened until further orders."
Read moreThe maintenance of history sheets/rowdy sheets by the police does not violate the right to privacy of individuals and can be used to surveil suspicious persons. The court suspended a previous order of a single judge bench that directed the closure of history sheets/rowdy sheets on the basis of privacy concerns.
Read moreBodily Integrity || Andhra Pradesh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 22.11.2022
Citation - MANU/AP/2300/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Case (Maintenance under S. 125 of CrPC
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provision - S. 391, 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case
"Since the petitioner has denied his relationship with the respondents, the only alternative available to them is to prove the said relationship is through scientific examination as held in Kadhavarapu Prashu Ram v. Shaik Janibhee and others. Thus, in order to arrive at justice decision and to safeguard the interest of the 2nd respondent and to protect him from adverse consequences, there is eminent need to refer the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to scientific examination. It is also pertinent here to note that the petitioner in his cross examination expressed no objection for subjecting himself to the DNA test..."
Read moreDNA test ordered by the court to determine paternity of a child does not violate the right to privacy of the parties.
Read morePhone Tapping, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Andhra Pradesh High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 20.07.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine AP 1834
Case Type - Writ Appeal
Case Status - Writ Appeal dismissed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Sec.72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951.
View Case
"Since the provisions of the enactment and the Rules enable the authorities to look into the privacy of the citizens in deviation/relaxation to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, strict and scrupulous adherence to the provisions of law and Rules is mandatory and any deviation to the said Rules would, undoubtedly, render the action unsustainable. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of interception passed by the Central Government, having regard to the reasons recorded supra, cannot sustain in the eye of law. In fact, the learned single Judge, by assigning cogent and convincing reasons, allowed the writ petition."
Read moreThe Court reiterated that the reasons for passing an interception order must be recorded in writing. It is a mandatory requirement which requires strict compliance.
Read moreMethodology
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.
