-

Privacy High Court Tracker

Open Spreadsheet

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 2022 (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 methodology

Gujarat High Court

Jinnat Fatma Vajirbhai Ami vs. Nishat Alimadbhai Polra

Autonomy

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision date- 20.12.2022
Citation- (2022)1CCC1
Case Type- First Appeal with Civil Application (For Stay)
Case Status- Disposed
Legal Provisions- S. 19 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984. S. 282 of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
View Case

Important Quote

"A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be enforced except by way of attachment of the property of the other party or compensation and mense profits. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant-wife has a property of her own which could be attached. The object behind Order XXI Rule 32(1) and (3) CPC is that no person can force a female or his wife to cohabit and establish conjugal rights. If the wife refuse to cohabit, in such case, she cannot be forced by a decree in a suit to establish conjugal rights."

Read more
Notes

A woman cannot be forced to cohabit against her will through a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.

Read more

Thakor Devrajbhai Ramanbhai vs. State of Gujarat

Autonomy, Dignity

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1096/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 19(2), 21, 42 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"We would like to quote the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmibhai Chandaragi B. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (2021) 3 SCC 360, where it considered the right to marry person of one's choice an integral part of Article 21. It is construed as an autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage is integral to the dignity of the individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith would have the least effect on them. The right to marry a person of choice was held to be integral Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine Judges Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual."

Read more
Notes

The right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to the dignity of the individual.

Read more

ABC (Victim) vs. State of Gujarat

Bodily Integrity, Autonomy

1 Judge

Case Details

"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed herein above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the petitioner - victim."
View Case

Important Quote

"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed herein above, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the petitioner - victim."

Read more
Notes

While considering cases of termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, their right to privacy and the best interest principle should be factored in.

Read more

Sultana Jahangirbhai Mirza vs. State of Gujarat

Autonomy, Dignity

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 04.04.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1330/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 21, 42 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 141, 143, 503, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 144, 151 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"In Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. this Court noticed that the society was emerging through a crucial transformational period. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable and even matters of faith held to be integral to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the judgment of the nine-Judge Bench in K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9 J.) v. Union of India may also be referred to where the autonomy of an individual inter alia in relation to family and marriage were held to be integral to the dignity of the individual."

Read more
Notes

The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the right to marry a person of one's choice. The consent of the individuals entering into wedlock must be given primacy over the consent of the community or family.

Read more

Anjaliben Senjibhai Thakor vs. State of Gujarat

Autonomy, Bodily Integrity

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 05.04.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/1015/2022
Case Type - R/Special Criminal Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S.3 of the Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971. S.114, 363, 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 4, 6, 8 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012
View Case

Important Quote

"Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed hereinabove, I am of the view that the present petition deserves to be allowed, as prayed for only with a view to save and protect the life of the victim."

Read more
Notes

While considering cases of termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, their right to privacy and the best interest principle should be factored in.

Read more
×

Methodology

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.