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 methodologyDignity || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreProtection against an attack on right of life, liberty, privacy and dignity can be sought against non-State actors.
Read moreAutonomy, Dignity || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreThis case discusses the consequence of admission to mental health institution on life, liberty, privacy, freedom and dignity.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
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
"Once something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist."
Read moreOnce something becomes a matter of 'public record', the right of privacy ceases to exist.
Read moreDignity, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
""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 moreThe 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 moreInformational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThe right to privacy cannot be claimed over information already available in the public domain.
Read moreDignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThe judgment discusses the contours of the right to privacy against defamatory online posts.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Data Protection || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThe 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 moreSearch and Seizure, Surveillance, Phone Tapping || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThis judgment examines the admissibility of evidence collected in breach of privacy.
Read moreDignity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreRight to publicity or celebrity rights rests with that specific individual, and such rights cannot be enforced posthumously.
Read moreDignity, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThe action of taking a person's photographs and posting them to another website without their consent is violative of a persons privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Phone Tapping || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreThe 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 moreBodily Integrity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreA 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 moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreWhen there is a compelling public interest, collecting voice samples of accused persons does not violate their right to privacy.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Dignity || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreThe 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 moreDignity || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreCompelling 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 moreBodily Integrity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 19.07.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2894/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. S. 376 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC). S.3, 3(2) of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971
View Case
"Undisputedly, the petitioner is a victim of rape. She is stated to be about 13 to 17 years old. The assault on her person and the defilement of her body would have undoubtedly left scars which would take years to heal. Her misery and suffering would stand compounded even more if she were forced to bear the mantle of motherhood at such a tender age. The Court shudders to even imagine the state of despondency that would descend over her life. The mental and physical trauma that she would have to undergo if she were forced to carry the foetus and take on the onerous duties of motherhood is unimaginable. This Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner was forced to go through with the pregnancy despite the same having been caused on account of the incident of sexual assault, it would permanently scar her psyche and cause grave and irreparable injury to her mental health. The Court cannot visualize a more egregious invasion of her right to life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution."
Read moreA minor rape survivor can be allowed to terminate a pregnancy at 28 weeks to uphold her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Read morePress Freedom, Dignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 29.07.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/2679/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 19(1), 19(2), 21 Constitution Of India, 1950. S.13, 14, 37, 37(2), 37(3), 39, 52, 52(1), 499, 500 of the Copyright Act, 1957. S. 2(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000
View Case
"As observed by the Supreme Court in Subramanium Swamy (supra) reputation is an integral part of the dignity of an individual and if reputation is damaged, society as well as the individual would be the loser. The old Bonnard Principle which set the high thresh-hold for grant of injunction restraining publications on the ground of defamation and harm to the reputation, has been watered-down by the courts, as noticed above. The right to free speech is an important right, but reputation is an equally important right. The courts, over a period of time, have pronounced that reputation is an internal and central facet of right to life, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, a balance would have to be struck between the two rights, one under Article 19(1)(a) and the other under Article 21 of the Constitution."
Read moreThe freedom to express an opinion or to comment on content on social media or the TV through satire is a facet of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression insofar as it does not violate the right to privacy or reputation of an individual.
Read moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 05.08.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/2825/2022
Case Type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - S.160, 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Article 142, 20(3) of the Constitution Of India, 1950
View Case
"A Full Bench of the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra) has re- affirmed that a judicial order compelling a person to give a sample of his voice did not violate his Fundamental Right to Privacy, including under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It also held that a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the powers to order a person to give a sample of his voice for the purposes of investigation of a crime, and ordered the vesting of such a power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India."
Read moreA judicial order compelling individuals to provide a voice sample does not violate their right to privacy. Collecting voice samples for the purpose of investigation would be valid even if it is collected after the charge sheet has been filed.
Read moreData Protection, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 25.08.2022
Citation- MANU/DE/3093/2022
Case Type - Latter Patent Appeal and Civil Misc. Appeal
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. Information Technology (reasonable Security Practices And Procedures And Sensitive Personal Data Or Information) Rules, 2011 - Rule 5(7). S. 3, 4, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 28, 53, 57, 62 of the Competition Act, 2002
View Case
"The 2021 Policy, however, places its users in a “take-it-or-leave-it” situation, virtually forcing its users into agreement by providing a mirage of choice, and then sharing their sensitive data with Facebook Companies envisaged in the policy."
Read moreWhatsApp's privacy policy, which allows it to share user information with Facebook could invoke violation of privacy rights since it leaves users in a 'take it or leave it' situation forcing them into an agreement without any voluntary or specific user consent.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 30. 08. 2022
Citation- MANU/DE/3170/2022
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Disposed
Legal provisions - Section 72 A, 79, 81 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. S. 62, 63, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957
View Case
"As per the above extract from K.S. Puttaswamy (supra) it is clear that the Supreme Court recognises that if there is a law in existence to justify the disclosure of information and there is a need for the disclosure considering the nature of encroachment of the right then privacy cannot be a ground to justify non-disclosure, so long as the same is not disproportionate. In India, the Copyright Act is clearly a law, which requires “infringing copies” to be taken into custody. The Copyright Act recognizes the right of the copyright owner to claim damages and rendition of accounts in respect of such infringement. Secondly, whenever the data is sought for a legitimate purpose, and for curbing the violation of law, including infringement of copyright, the same would be in accordance with the legal position recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra)."
Read moreThe right to privacy cannot be used as a ground to justify the non-disclosure of user data in a copyright infringement case.
Read moreDignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 14. 10. 2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4011/2022
Case Type - Civil (Ad-interim injunction)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with S. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908
View Case
"The Right of Privacy which is agitated by the plaintiffs is that of the two daughters who have admittedly died in the attack. As already discussed above, Right to Privacy is essentially is a right in personam and is not inheritable by the mothers/legal heirs of the deceased persons. In the present case, the mother's right to privacy is in no way getting impinged by the movie which is sought to be screened by the defendants. Neither is the privacy of the mother's/plaintiff's in any way being compromised nor is there any affront to their dignity and privacy, merely because their two daughters happened to be the victims of the terror attack. The plaintiffs may have been successful if their personal right to privacy was in any way being infringed by the making of this movie but unfortunately, no such circumstance has been pleaded by the plaintiffs. The 'right to be left alone', undoubtedly, is an aspect of Right to Privacy, but it can also operate within its limits and in the given circumstances, it cannot be termed as a right to be left alone especially when the two plaintiffs get barely any mention in the entire movie."
Read moreLegal heirs cannot bring about claims for the right to privacy on behalf of someone else because the right to privacy is a right in personam and is not inheritable.
Read moreDignity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 28. 09. 2022
Citation -
Case Type - Writ Petition (Crl.)
Case Status - Dismissed
Legal provisions - Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
View Case
"Measures taken by CCIs cannot be limited to surveillance by way of CCTVs and security guards, especially in view of how children are also entitled to their right to privacy and confidentiality."
Read moreChild Care Institutions have to ensure that the right to privacy and confidentiality of children would not be violated while taking safety and protection measures. Judgement lays down the guidelines for Child Care Institutions in view of the aforementioned concerns.
Read moreDignity, Autonomy || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 19. 09. 2022
Citation- MANU/DEOR/144034/2022
Case Type - First Appeal Order
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"There is furthermore no gainsaying, the legal situation that obtains, pursuant to the decision in K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), ""that privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity. At a normative level, privacy subserves those internal values upon which the guarantees of life, liberty and freedom are founded. At a descriptive level, privacy postulates a bundle of entitlement and interest which lie at the foundation of order and liberty"". In view of the foregoing, we are also prima facie of the view that, the Author further owes a duty of care to Ms. Gurjit Kaur, who was in his charge as an International Hockey Player at all relevant times."
Read moreThe court issued an order to protect the petitioner's right to privacy by preventing the disclosure of confidential medical information about them in a book.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 25.11.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4758/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition allowed
Legal provision - S. 13(1), 13(i) of the Commissions For Protection Of Child Rights Act, 2005. S.31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 58, 59 of the Juvenile Justice (care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015.
View Case
"The adoption agency shall in the meanwhile stand restrained from granting third parties unauthorized access to the child which may tend to compromise the identity and the privacy rights of Child "S". The aforesaid restraint, however, shall not be construed as depriving Child "S" the facility to participate in group activities which may be organized or held within the precincts of the adoption agency and are duly supervised by the caregivers of the agency."
Read moreThis writ petition was regarding, inter alia, the medical treatment of a child in an adoption agency, and the validity of withdrawal of adoption petition of the child. The court noted that various documents filed by the parties in the petition may lead to breach of identity of a child and even invasion of privacy rights of the child. All parties and their counsels were required to mask and redact the documents.
Read morePhone tapping || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 08.12.2022
Citation - MANU/DE/4984/2022
Case Type - Criminal Bail Application
Case Status - Bail granted
Legal provision - Article 21 of the Constitution of India. S. 24, 25, 120-A, 120-B, 403, 405, 409, 415, 420, 461, 464, 465 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. S. 3(1), 3(1AA), 4, 5, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 25(b), 26 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. R. 2(tt), 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. S. 3, 6 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933. S. 69B, 69B(2), 72, 72-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. S. 13, 13(1), 13(2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988. S. 2(u), 3, 4, 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
View Case
"I am prima facie of the view that tapping phone lines or recording calls without consent is a breach of privacy. The right to privacy enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution demands that phone calls not be recorded. Only with consent of the individuals concerned, can such activity be carried out otherwise it will amount to breach of the fundamental right to privacy. In the present case, recording or tapping of phone lines by ISEC was not an action of the State. The facets of privacy include right of non-interference with the individual body, protection of personal information and autonomy over personal choices. Consent is essential when it comes to recording phone lines which aspect was disregarded by both NSE and ISEC."
Read morePhone tapping by a private entity at the employer's behest in the execution of a contractual obligation is a violation of the right to privacy of the employees, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Order Date - 23.01.2023
Citation - (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 476, 2023/DHC/000564
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Ongoing
Legal Provisions - S. 3, 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
View Case
"Accordingly, in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court extracted above and in order to avoid risks to pregnant minor girls, the [Government of NCT, Delhi] is directed to issue a circular to the effect that in case of any minor's guardian or family approaching any RMP for termination of pregnancy, the identity of the minor, guardian or the family, shall not be disclosed in the RMP's report to the police, if a request to that effect is made by the guardian or the family to the RMP. Moreover, the police shall also ensure that in such cases, the report, which is registered, does not publicly disclose the identity of the minor and her guardian or the family."
Read moreThe court issued an order directing the appropriate authority to issue a circular for RMPs and police officers to not disclose the names and details of minors and family members of minors intending to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Dignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 25.01.2023
Citation - (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 198
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 3, 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971; Article 21, 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case
"This Court takes note of the fact that Article 21 of the Constitution of India dealing with right to life invariably includes a life lived with dignity. The child herein is a victim of rape. Termination of pregnancy in cases, like present one, cannot be reduced merely to be defined as right of a woman sexually assaulted, but also to be recognised as a human right, as it affects dignified existence of a victim if the same is not permitted. It is not the privacy of the rape victim which is invaded by sexual assault, but her body is wounded and her soul is scared. It would not be appropriate to expect the minor victim who is a rape victim to take the burden of giving birth and raising a child, especially in a situation where she herself is passing through the age of adolescent. Doing so, will amount to asking a child to give birth and raise another child. Given the social, financial, and other factors that are immediately associated with the pregnancy, an unwanted pregnancy would surely have an impact on victim's mental health."
Read moreConstitutional Courts can exercise their powers to permit medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, to protect the rights to dignity and bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. The court also laid down guidelines to be implemented by investigating officers in cases of sexual assault where pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.
Read moreDignity, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 07.02.2023
Citation - (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 646
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"It will be essential to note that even as an accused, the fundamental rights available to an accused/prisoner/detainee are not suspended so far as the question of their privacy and dignity is concerned. A consideration of the aforesaid precedents, undoubtedly, point out that the “right to dignity” of a person as available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not suspended even when the person is accused of committing an offence or is arrested. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 can be suspended only as per procedure established by law, and such procedure must be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive. Right to personal liberty of an accused gets suspended the moment one is arrested as the same might be necessary for the State security. However, the right to dignity is not suspended or waived even of an accused, undertrial or a convict."
Read moreAn accused person's fundamental right to privacy and dignity are not suspended upon their arrest. Hence, it is unconstitutional to subject them to a 'virginity test' during a criminal investigation.
Read moreDignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 06.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1955, MANU/DE/2282/2023
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 374(2), 354C, 354D, 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
View Case
"The concept of ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy plays central role to adjudicate a case under Section 354C of IPC. The word ‘reasonable expectation’ has not been defined; however, it will have to be assessed in the facts and circumstances of each case depending on the place and manner in which the offence was committed. It cannot be denied that a woman taking bath inside a closed bathroom will reasonably expect that her privacy was not invaded and she was not being seen or watched by anyone as she is behind closed walls behind a curtain. The act of a perpetrator peeping inside the said bathroom will certainly be regarded as invasion of her privacy."
Read moreThe 'reasonable expectation' of privacy includes the expectation of privacy in both publicly accessible places (such as public bathrooms) and public places (such as ritual bathing in the Ganga). Provisions of the IPC such as Section 354C (voyeurism) shall be applicable to any invasion of privacy in such places as well.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Right to be Forgotten, Dignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 26.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2361
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 66E Information Technology Act, 2000; Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"Not only does uploading of NCII lead to a clear violation of the provisions of the IT Act and IT Rules, it is also a violation of the right to privacy which is a sacrosanct aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by a 9-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. [...] An individual's right to exercise control over their personal data has also been recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra). It was observed therein that while it is not an absolute right, this right to exercise control over personal data would also encompass an individual's right to control their existence on the internet. [...] As noted in Section 66E of the IT Act as well, individuals have a reasonable expectation to privacy which is not lost within the confines of a domestic relationship, or even if any intimate image is shared with another person with the understanding and the expectation that the same will not be shared with third persons."
Read moreThe court laid down directions and recommendations for MEITY, Delhi Police and search engines to follow in cases concerning the publication of non-consensual intimate images ('NCII') on the internet. Per the court's directions, search engines will be required to de-list and take down all NCII content reported to them. This protects the right to privacy and the right to live a life with dignity of the victims.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Right to be Forgotten, Dignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 26.04.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2361
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provision - S. 66E Information Technology Act, 2000; Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"Not only does uploading of NCII lead to a clear violation of the provisions of the IT Act and IT Rules, it is also a violation of the right to privacy which is a sacrosanct aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by a 9-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. [...] An individual's right to exercise control over their personal data has also been recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (supra). It was observed therein that while it is not an absolute right, this right to exercise control over personal data would also encompass an individual's right to control their existence on the internet. [...] As noted in Section 66E of the IT Act as well, individuals have a reasonable expectation to privacy which is not lost within the confines of a domestic relationship, or even if any intimate image is shared with another person with the understanding and the expectation that the same will not be shared with third persons."
Read moreThe court laid down directions and recommendations for MEITY, Delhi Police and search engines to follow in cases concerning the publication of non-consensual intimate images ('NCII') on the internet. Per the court's directions, search engines will be required to de-list and take down all NCII content reported to them. This protects the right to privacy and the right to live a life with dignity of the victims.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 10.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2692
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Consitution of India, 1950; S. 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
View Case
"As held by the Constitution Bench in K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 the right to privacy, though a constitutionally protected right, is not an absolute right. This right of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has to be necessarily subject to reasonable restrictions especially when the restrictions are in public interest. The Hindu Marriage Act specifically recognises adultery as a ground for divorce and therefore, it would not at all be in public interest that the Court should on the ground of right to privacy, come to the aid of a married man who, during the subsistence of his marriage, is alleged to have indulged in sexual relationships outside his marriage"
Read moreRight to privacy is not an absolute right. A Husband suspected of adultery cannot claim right to privacy as a defence against producing evidence in accordance with the specific provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Courts Act.
Read moreAutonomy, Dignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 23.05.2023
Citation - 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3210
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. , has held that reproductive choices are inherent to a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity which in turn are encompassed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution envisaged an egalitarian society where citizens could exercise their rights, and the society as well as the State would allow the manifestation of their rights. A compromise was then not sought in the Constitutional scheme. The citizens could not be forced to choose between their right to education and their right to exercise reproductive autonomy"
Read moreIn the absence of specific provisions for granting maternity leave for students pursuing higher education, the court can direct the educational institution to grant the same. The duration of the maternity leave would be determined based on the nature and duration of the course/program.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 16.08.2023
Citation - 2023-DHC-5769
Case Type - Criminal Miscallaneous Case
Case Status - Applications Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 397, 401 and 482 of Cr.P.C., Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
View Case
"In this Court’s opinion, procuring call detail records of the mobile phones of police officials including their tower-wise location can prejudice both their safety and privacy. The concerned police officers may be involved in dealing with cases of different nature, including sensitive or heinous cases or cases of national security, and orders, such as those impugned before this Court, can directly encroach upon the privacy of the police officials. Further, the impugned orders also have the capacity to put at risk and expose the identities of the ‘secret informers’ and risk their safety and security... Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there is no requirement to procure call detail records of investigating officers, members of raiding team/other concerned police officials, etc., as directed in the impugned orders."
Read moreThe Court overturned a Sessions Court order which had directed the accused to be given the tower-wise location data of police officers involved in a raid. The accused had sought this information in order to challenge the veracity of the claims made by the prosecution regarding the raid. The Court held that procuring call record details of police officials, including their tower-wise location can prejudice their safety and privacy.
Read moreAutonomy, Dignity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 11.07.2023
Citation - 2023-DHC-4631
Case Type - Civil Suit (Commercial)
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case
"Thus, the decision of the High Court of Madras in Deepa Jayakumar confirms, firstly, that the reputation of a person, as well as personality rights, as well as the right to privacy which emerge as its sequelae, are not heritable, and stand extinguished with the extinguishing of the person concerned; secondly, that the remedy with the plaintiff aggrieved by any publication of the life story of another person was only to claim damages; thirdly, when the movie, or the web series, already stood released and had been viewed by thousands of persons, injunction against further telecast could not be granted and, fourthly, that the maker of such movie or web series was not required to take prior consent from the person on the basis of whose life and events the movie or web series was being made."
Read moreRight to privacy and personality rights are not heritable, and will extinguish with the person. Furthermore, right to privacy cannot be claimed by one person on behalf of another.
Read moreData Protection || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 07.08.2023
Citation: DHC-2023- 5820-DB
Case Type - Writ Petition, Civil
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 4, 7 and 27 of Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, Sec. 29, 38(g) and 38(i) of the Aadhar Act, 2016.
View Case
"The UPI Guidelines, 2019 also make it exceedingly clear that data may be stored under two types, namely, 'customer data' and 'customer payments sensitive data'. While the former may be stored with the app provider in an encrypted format, the latter can only be stored with the payment services providers bank systems, and not with the third party app under the multi model API approach that Google Pay has opted for. We therefore do not find any merit in the Petitioner's contention Google Pay is actively accessing and collecting sensitive and private user data."
Read moreThe Court accepted the RBI's contention that Google Pay is not operating a payments system in India, which would require compliance under various laws such as the Aadhaar Act. Instead, Google Pay is merely a user interface application that facilitates users to make payments through the UPI system.
Read moreDignity, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 09.08.2023
Citation - Bail Application 2128/2023,
MANU/DE/5129/2023
Case Type - Bail Application
Case Status - Petition disposed
Legal Provisions - Sec. 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1970
View Case
"When a minor seeks a medical termination of pregnancy, doctors must ensure that the process is conducted in compliance with the prevailing laws and regulations, with utmost sensitivity to the minor's age and maturity level. Such cases must be approached with empathy, ensuring that the minor feels safe and supported throughout the process. Additionally, doctors must maintain confidentiality and privacy to protect the patient's dignity and safeguard them from potential harm or coercion. Doctors also have a duty to communicate effectively with such minor patients, explaining the medical procedures, potential risks, and available alternatives."
Read moreEven though this was an ordinary bail application in a case of sexual offence, the Court, upon finding negligence of the doctors in following established procedures for medical termination of pregnancy and preparation of Medico Legal Certificate, issued directions to ensure future compliance with said procedures.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Delhi High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 13.09.2023
Citation - LPA 631/2023 & CM APPLs. 47206-07/2023
Case Type - Letter Patent Appeal.
Case Status - Petition dismissed
Legal Provisions - Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case
"The Court has considered the afore-noted contentions. In the opinion of the Court, the view taken by learned Single Judge is completely in consonance with the judgment of Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy (Supra), relevant portions whereof has been extracted in the impugned order. The issue of obtaining sensitive personal details of a child, as observed in K.S. Puttaswamy case, would have the potential of infringing their right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It would thus suffice to state that the impugned Circulars are prima facie in conflict with the constitutional provisions, effect whereof has rightly been stayed by learned Single Judge."
Read moreMandating that a child's sensitive personal data is required for the purposes of admission by submitting Aadhar Number or Aadhar card is a contravention of right to privacy.
Read moreAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 16.10.2023
Citation - W.P.(C) 13371/2023
Case Type - Writ Petition (Civil)
Case Status - Writ Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Section 3(2)(b)(i), Section 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Rule 3B(C) of the MTP Rules, 2003
View Case
"In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another (supra) wherein it has held that that it is the prerogative of each women to evaluate her life and arrive at the best course of action in view of the change in material circumstance which may result when a woman separates from her partner and she may no longer have the financial resources to raise the child and also in view of the fact that the right to reproductive choice also includes the right not to procreate, this Court is of the opinion that, at this juncture, the Petitioner should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy on the ground that the Petitioner does not want to live with her husband any longer."
Read moreWhere there is a change in material circumstance of a woman such as separation from partner, lack of financial resources, and in light of the fact that she also has a right not to procreate, the woman may be permitted to termite her pregnancy beyond the prescribed period under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Read morePress Freedom || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 22.11.2023
Citation - CS(OS) 749/2023
Case Type - Civil Suit, Original Side
Case Status - Interim Directions issued.
Legal Provisions - Art.21 of the Constitution of India,1950
View Case
"29. Considering all the above aspects, there is merit in the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that a grave and irreparable damage will be caused to the plaintiff if ad-interim injunctive orders are not passed. As stated by the Supreme Court in L.K. Ratna (supra), “not all the King's horses and all the King's men” would be able to remedy the prejudice and harm to the plaintiff's reputation, if the impugned article and the offending social media posts, are allowed to be propagated/circulated during the pendency of this application, and while the defendants exercise their right to file a reply to the instant application."
Read moreThe court directed to take down the libellous publication about the private life of an individual, recognising the same to be an invasion of right to privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 13.10.2023
Citation - CRL.REV.P. 472/2019
Case Type - Criminal Revision Petition
Case Status - Petition Dismissed
Legal Provisions - Sections 91, 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sections 498A, 304B, 306 of the IPC
View Case
"In the present case, as pointed out hereinbefore, the voice sample was sought not from accused during the course of investigation, but from the witnesses, who during the course of examination, had denied their voices. As duly noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha (supra), the power of the Magistrate to direct recording of voice samples has been conferred by the process of judicial interpretation based on the principles of ejusdem generis and also on the principle that the fundamental right to privacy must bow down to compelling public interest."
Read moreMagistrate can direct recording of voice samples if there is compelling public interest, to which the fundamental right to privacy must bow down, and for protection of the right to fair trial of the accused.
Read moreInformational Privacy and Phone Tapping || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 18.09.2023
Citation - C.M. (M) 1508/2023 and C.M. Appl. 47984/2023, 2023/DHC/6854
Case Type - Civil Miscallenous Appeal
Case Status - Petition dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec.30 of the Civil Procedure Code.
View Case
"This Court is unable to accept that under Section 30 of CPC, the Civil Court must embark upon an enquiry of summoning the mobile locations records of the parties in a routine manner as sought by the Petitioner herein and that to at the stage of final hearing. The summoning of Call Detail Records ('CDR') of a person is governed by prescribed procedures governing protection of privacy of party and the same cannot be summoned in a routine or casual manner as is sought to be done by the Petitioner in these proceedings. In a civil trial, the Court does not gather evidence on behalf of the parties and it is for the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective pleas. The Petitioner herein has had sufficient opportunity since 04.09.2018 to 05.07.2022 to lead evidence on the alleged collusion between the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The present application filed at the stage of final arguments is not maintainable and is without any merit."
Read moreSec.30 of the Civil Procedure Code does not permit the summoning of Call Detail Records of an individual since they are governed by prescribed procedures protecting the privacy of the individuals.
Read moreAutonomy, Data Protection || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 20.09.2023
Citation - CS(COMM) 652/2023 and I.A. 18237/2023-18243/2023
Case Type - Commercial Civil Suit
Case Status - Injunction granted.
Legal Provisions - Art. 19(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
View Case
"The technological tools that are now freely available make it possible for any illegal and unauthorised user to use, produce or imitate any celebrity's persona, by using any tools including Artificial Intelligence. The celebrity enjoys the right of privacy, and does not wish that his or her image, voice, likeness is portrayed in a dark or grim manner, as portrayed on the porn websites. Moreover, the Plaintiff's image is being morphed along with other actresses in videos and images generated in a manner, which are not merely offensive or derogatory to the Plaintiff, but also to such other third-party celebrities and actresses."
Read moreThe Petitioner, a celebrity, was granted an ex-parte injunction to protect their personality rights.
Read morePhone Tapping and Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 07.12.2023
Citation - CRL.M.C. 1534/2018
Case Type - Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal
Case Status - Petition Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Sec. 173(6) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 120B of the Penal Code, 1860, Sections 25,54 and 59 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sec. 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1895.
View Case
"As noted above, the exact issue before the Supreme Court in Ritesh Sinha was whether a Court can authorize the investigating agency to record the voice samples of a person accused of an offence. The Supreme Court took note of the Explanation to Section 53 of the CrPC as amended with effect from 23rd June, 2006 and Section 53A and Section 311A of the CrPC brought into effect from the same date, which permit the examination of the persons arrested in certain cases/circumstances. The Supreme Court also observed that the fundamental right to privacy is subject to public interest, and therefore, not absolute. Accordingly, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that till exclusive provisions are made in the CrPC by the Parliament, the Magistrate would have the power to order a person to give his voice samples for the purposes of investigation of a crime."
Read moreSharing of interception authorisation communication was not permitted since the same contained the telephone numbers of other persons whose privacy would be violated.
Read moreAutonomy, Informational Privacy || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 20.12.2023
Citation - 2023 - DHC: 9184
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Art.226 of the Indian Constitution, 1950.
View Case
"It is crucial to emphasize that employees cannot reasonably object to a system implemented for the enhancement of hospital administration. The decision to introduce such systems is rooted in the broader public interest and the improvement of overall healthcare services to the citizens of the country. Therefore, employees are expected to align with these measures, recognizing the inherent linkage between compliance and the smooth functioning of essential public services. Another aspect raised in the said case was similar to one raised in the present petition, i.e. infringement of the Right to Privacy. While answering the said contention, the Court held that even though the Right to Privacy is to be protected, the said Right is subject to the performance of duties by a public servant."
Read moreThe introduction of the MCD SMART App to mark attendance was accepted, since the app was developed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, with sufficient security audits by CERT-IN Agencies, thus indicating no apparent risk to the privacy of the employees.
Read moreRight to know and access information || Delhi High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 18.12.2023
Citation - 2023:DHC:9127
Case Type - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Section 26(1), 57, 18, 41 & 36 Competition Act and Regulation 35 of General Regulation, 2009.
View Case
"An impleadment of a party even at subsequent stages, therefore, is not a conclusive effective determination of any rights and obligations of parties involved, but is merely an action effectuating the enablement of the CCI to reach an informed conclusion on the question of violations under the competition law framework in the country. This is more so relevant in the present scheme of the Competition Act, 2002, under which proceedings are in the nature of rights in rem, as seen above, thereby making the nature of the impleadment not for the benefit of the party being impleaded but rather for the benefit of the CCI to conclusively reach an appropriate decision on the matter before it. This can be clearly seen from the language of Regulation 25 which places the complete onus of satisfaction on CCI as to the twin-test of substantial interest in the proceedings outcome and the necessity in public interest. It is therefore noted that the nature of the proceedings before CCI being that of ‘in rem’ and not ‘in personam’ does not bear a bar on the impleadment of BAI and the provisions of the General Regulations 2009 being Regulation 25 which grants the power to CCI to allow persons or enterprises to take part in the proceedings as done in the present case with Suo Moto Case No. 2 of 2019."
Read moreThe CCI can allow a third party or enterprises to take part in a proceeding given that they have a substantial interest attached to the outcome of the proceeding and the disclosure of non-confidential information to such person or enterprises will not violate the right to privacy.
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.
