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 methodologyAutonomy || Gujarat High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreA woman cannot be forced to cohabit against her will through a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
Read moreAutonomy, Dignity || Gujarat High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreThe right to marry a person of one's choice is integral to the dignity of the individual.
Read moreBodily Integrity, Autonomy || Gujarat High Court
1 Judge
"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
"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 moreWhile 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 moreAutonomy, Dignity || Gujarat High Court
2 Judge
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
"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 moreThe 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 moreAutonomy, Bodily Integrity || Gujarat High Court
1 Judge
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
"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 moreWhile 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 moreSurveillance, Search and Seizure || Gujarat High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 23.12.2022
Citation - MANU/GJ/3325/2022
Case Type - Criminal Revision Application
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 53, 53-A, 173(8), 293 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Article 20, 20(3), 21, 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"[The] Supreme Court has expressly said that fundamental right to privacy must give way to compelling public interest. By directing accused to give his sample of voice for the purpose of comparison with the material collected and sent to the FSL during the course of investigation to FSL would be for the purpose of comparison and by that, it cannot be said that accused is compelled to become witness against himself as provided under sub Article (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution. So long as drawing of a voice sample from the accused does not invade his body as a whole by any outer force that it cannot be said that any of the fundamental right of the accused is infringed."
Read moreWhen there is a compelling public interest, collecting voice samples of accused persons does not violate their right to privacy.
Read moreInformational Privacy, Right to Know and Access Information || Gujarat High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 31.03.2023
Citation - MANU/GJ/0210/2023
Case Type - Spl. Civil Application
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal Provisions - Rule 4A of the Conduct Of Elections Rules, 1961; S. 74, 76, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; S. 33 (B) of the Representation Of The People Act, 1951; S. 2(f), 3, 6(1), 8(1), 8(e), 8(j), 11, 11(1), 11(2) of the Right To Information Act, 2005; Article 19(1), 75, 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case
"In light of the aforesaid legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this court holds that the educational documents including degrees fall within ambit of personal information of a citizen, disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, the said information is held by the Universities and Boards in fiduciary capacity on behalf of their students which is again exempted under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. That being so, the first contention of Shri Kavina that once a student passes examination and qualifies to secure a degree then such degree cannot be treated as private or third party information and the said degree certificate has to be considered as public document generated by a public authority stands rejected."
Read moreEducational documents, including degree certificates, are classified as personal information even if they are issued or generated by a public authority. Hence, such documents are not subject to the provisions of the RTI Act.
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.
