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 2023 (CCG will continue to update the tracker periodically). Only final judgements are included in the tracker, and not interim orders of the High Courts.
Show methodologyBodily Integrity, Dignity || Calcutta High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreInvasive recovery of narcotics/contraband from the body of accused amounting to breach of right to privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Data Protection || Calcutta High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreThe right to privacy includes protection of personal information like financial statements/accounts.
Read moreRight to Know and Access Information || Calcutta High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreDisclosure of information under the control of public offices, if done in public interest, promotes transparency and accountability in a democracy.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Calcutta High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 29.09.2022
Citation - MANU/WB/1442/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S. 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005
View Case
"The significance of section 8(1)(j) which upholds the right to privacy and ultimately the reputation and dignity of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution goes against the tide of a free flow of information and remains steadfast in holding on to the private space of an individual. The significance of this provision must not be forgotten or diluted under any circumstances (Ref. Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law; (2016) 7 SCC 221). 29. In view of the above discussion WPA 18543 of 2022 is allowed and disposed of by directing the Police Authorities to immediately withdraw the entire series of photographs and WhatsApp messages between the deceased Rashika Jain and Abhishek Padia and treat the same as private information which falls within the clamp of section 8(1)(j) of The Right to Information Act. The authorities are to ensure that the WhatsApp messages and the photographs are not disclosed to any person or authority by way of an application under the Right to Information Act or otherwise."
Read morePrivate communication between two individuals over WhatsApp is exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Section 8(1)(j).
Read moreDignity, Autonomy || Calcutta High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 22.09.2022
Citation - C.R.R 2039 of 2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.125 of the Criminal Procedure Code
View Case
"Keeping in mind the issue of burden of proof, it would be safe to conclude that in a case, like, the present one, the Court's decision should be rendered only after balancing the interests of the parties, i.e, the quest for truth, and the social and cultural implications involved therein. The possibility of stigmatizing a person as a bastard, the ignominy that attaches to an adult who, in the mature years of his life is shown to be not the biological son of his parents, may not only be a heavy cross to bear but would also intrude upon his right of privacy. No person can be compelled to provide a sample for DNA."
Read moreOne may face heavy consequences in light of the social and cultural implications from a DNA test that could deny parentage rights. Therefore, compelling a person to provide a sample for DNA test can be an intrusion upon their right to privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Calcutta High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 15.09.2022
Citation - WPA 20837 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of The Constitution of India
View Case
"It cannot be denied that in the cases relating to sexual offences, the disclosure of the identity of the victim lady during the course of the trial may cause further victimization to her. There also may be other facts and circumstances, which may justify non-disclosure of the identity of a litigant to maintain his privacy. In the present case, the principal grievance of the petitioner relates to her resignation from the relevant post. It is a service matter. In my view no justification has been shown by the petitioner to proceed with this writ petition without disclosing her name."
Read moreNon-disclosure of identity of the victim in a litigation is a valid request, for example a litigation related to sexual misconduct. However, disclosure of identity of the parties in a litigation cannot be excused for service matter cases.
Read 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.
