The CCG Privacy High Court Tracker is a resource consisting of decisions on the constitutional right to privacy passed by all High Courts in India. The Privacy High Court Tracker captures cases post the pronouncement of the Justice (Retd.) K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (Puttaswamy) judgment. In Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the existence of the right to privacy in India’s Constitution as a fundamental right.
The Privacy High Court Tracker is a tool to enable lawyers, judges, policymakers, legislators, civil society organisations, academic and policy researchers and other relevant stakeholders, to engage with, understand and analyse the evolving privacy law and jurisprudence across India. The cases deal with the following aspects of privacy (1) autonomy, (2) bodily integrity, (3) data protection, (4) dignity, (5) informational privacy, (6) phone tapping, (7) press freedom, (8) right to know and access information, and (9) surveillance, search and seizure.
The tracker currently only consists of cases reported on Manupatra, and those reported upto 15 December 2023 (CCG will continue to update the tracker periodically). Only final judgements are included in the tracker, and not interim orders of the High Courts.
Show methodologyBodily Integrity, Dignity || Chattisgarh High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreThe right to privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity includes women's right to make reproductive choices.
Read moreBodily Integrity || Chattisgarh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 27.07.2022
Citation - MANU/CG/0687/2022
Case Type - Civil Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
View Case
"In our view, when there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently needed. DNA test in a matter relating to paternity of a child should not be directed by the court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever such a request is made. The court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under section 112 of the Evidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of 'eminent need' whether it is not possible for the court to reach the truth without use of such test."
Read moreThe Court must balance the interests of both parties, the petitioner and the child, and consider the test of ‘eminent need’ before ordering for a DNA test to determine the paternity of a child.
Read moreIndividual Privacy || Chattisgarh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 10.10.2022
Citation - WPCR No. 797 of 2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 226 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"The word "sensitive" apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy, regard being had to the nature of the FIR."
Read moreWhen considering the sensitivity of cases, privacy of individuals must be taken into account, in addition to other factors.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Dignity || Chattisgarh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 04.08.2023
Citation - CRMP No. 1970 of 2022, 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 2970
Case Type - Criminal Miscallaneous Petitions
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 354(A)(i) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 9(f), 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, Sec. 91 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
View Case
"... the privacy of the victim may be breached but if the production of the said call details can assist the Court in discovering truth and rendering justice in the matter then the Court has to adopt the due process... the object of Section 91 of Cr.P.C. is to ensure the discovery of truth, rendering of justice and prevent failure of justice. In the present case the petitioner failed to establish that how he is going to be prejudiced if the chats/messages are not supplied to him."
Read moreThe Court held that in cases where information sought under Section 91 of CrPC by the accused can lead to breach of privacy of the victim, the courts must follow due process and afford the victim a chance of being heard before deciding to grant the application.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Dignity || Chattisgarh High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 17.08.2023
Citation - Cr.A.Nos.1266/2019 & 1400/2019
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Appeal Rejected
Legal Provisions - Sec. 376-D of the Indian Penal Code, Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sec. 3(11) of CrPC.
View Case
"Bearing in mind, the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) and Inayath Ali (supra), it is quite vivid that the baby child of the victim is neither a party in the instant criminal appeals nor his (baby child) status /paternity is required to be examined in these criminal appeals filed by the two appellants herein, as such, ascertaining the paternity of the victim’s child is not at all required to be determined in these criminal appeals filed by the appellants and directing for DNA test of the baby child of the victim would violate the privacy right of the infant, which is a constitutionally protected right as declared by their Lordhsips of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra)."
Read moreDNA test to determine the paternity of a child cannot be ordered as a matter of course. In case of a sexual offence, the accused cannot ask for DNA test of the infant born to the victim, as the paternity of the infant was not relevant to the case of sexual assault.
Read moreAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Chattisgarh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 19.06.2023
Citation - WPC No. 2665 of 2023
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 376, 450 & 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
View Case
"It is by now a well settled principle that compelling a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy would violate her fundamental rights. The same has been the recent trend of many High Courts. The right to reproductive autonomy and privacy are considered fundamental rights in India which are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In the recent past, the Indian courts have recognized women to have the right to make decisions about their own bodies including the choice to terminate unwanted pregnancy."
Read moreA medical termination of pregnancy cannot be denied on the grounds that a criminal proceeding is pending on the basis of complaint of sexual assault filed by the petitioner.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Phone Tapping || Chattisgarh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 05.10.2023
Citation - CMRP No. 2112 of 2022
Case Type - Criminal Miscallaneous Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 125 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case
"Now coming to the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid discussed judgments, it appears that the respondent has recorded the conversation of the petitioner without her knowledge behind her back which amounts to violation of her right to privacy and also the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Right of Privacy is an essential component of right to life envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Family Court has committed an error of law in allowing the application under Section 311 of the CrPC along with the certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act."
Read moreThe Court held that recording a telephonic conversation without the permission and knowledge of a person constitutes as a violation of right to privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Chattisgarh High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 09.10.2023
Citation - WP(C) No. 1560 of 2012
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Writ Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
View Case
"74. Confidentiality in case of personal information and its co-relation with the right to privacy and disclosure of the same on the anvil of the public interest test has been discussed above. We now proceed to look at confidentiality of information concerning the government and information relating to its inner-workings and the difference in approach in applying the public interest test in disclosing such information, as opposed to the approach adopted for other confidential/personal information. The reason for such jurisprudential distinction with regard to government information is best expressed in Attorney General (UK) v. Heinemann Publishers Pty Ltd., (1987) 10 NSWLR 86 wherein the High Court of Australia had observed: “[…] the relationship between the modern State and its citizens is so different in kind from that which exists between private citizens that rules worked out to govern contractual, property, commercial and private confidences are not fully applicable where the plaintiff is a government or one of its agencies. Private citizens are entitled to protect or further own interests… [whereas] governments act, or at all events are constitutionally required to act, in the public interest. Information is held, received and imparted by governments, their departments and agencies to further the public interest. Public and not private interest, therefore, must be the criterion by which equity determines whether it will protect information which a government or governmental body claims is confidential.”""
Read moreDisclosure of information of a third party which does not fall within the meaning of 'public activity' would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of an individual under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Read 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.
