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 methodologyBodily Integrity || Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
1 Judge
Decision Date - 22.02.2023
Citation - MANU/MH/0662/2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Allowed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"The Hon'ble Apex Court is very clear about DNA test that merely because something is permissible under the law cannot be directed as a matter of course to be performed particularly when a direction to that effect would be invasive to the physical autonomy of a person. It is also observed by the Apex Court in above said judgment, placing the reliance on judgment passed by co-ordinate bench in civil matter. Such direction would violate the privacy right of the persons subjected to such tests. It is also observed by this court [...] that the DNA test could have only been ordered if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the relationship between the parties."
Read moreThe court re-affirmed the standards established in earlier Supreme Court and High Court judgements that a DNA test can be ordered by a court only if there is no other evidence on record which can sufficiently establish a relationship between individuals.
Read moreRight to Know and Access Information, Informational Privacy || Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench)
3 Judge
Decision Date - 01.03.2024
Citation - 2024:BHC-NAG:2528-DB
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Section 2(h) and 8(1)(f) Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.
View Case
"It further goes on to hold that neither the right to information, which has been codified, nor the right to privacy, which is yet to be so done, but which has been recognised by the Courts, are absolute rights, but can be regulated, restricted and curtailed in the larger public interest and even the public authority is not legally obliged to give or provide information even if it is held under its control, if that information falls under clause (j) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act... It has therefore been held that if the information which has been sought for, relates to the personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, even if he has got that information, is not bound to furnish the same to an applicant, unless he is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing."
Read moreThe Court held that if the information sought about a public trust is personal in nature, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies is not bound to furnish the same to an applicant unless larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.
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.
