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 || Jharkhand High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 03.05.2019
Citation - 2019 (2) J.L.J.R. 650, MANU/JH/0571/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition (S)
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 324 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
S. 28-A of Representation of People Act, 1951
View Case
"The petitioner contended that ... the order directing him to report at New Delhi is in violation of his fundamental rights and right to privacy, as he has a right to move freely within the territory of India. ... The petitioner has got no right to remain posted at a particular place nor does he have the right over his present assignment. Leave also cannot be sought by way of right. Thus, no right of the petitioner has been infringed by the impugned order, far less a fundamental right."
Read moreCurtailment of right of movement pending inquiry by Election Commission is not violative of right to privacy.
Read moreDignity, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Jharkhand High Court
1 Judge
Decision Date - 21.08.2023
Citation - WP (Cr). No. 54 of 2009, MANU/JH/1087/2023.
Case Type - Writ Criminal Petition.
Case Status - Petition Dismissed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.
View Case
"Search, taking of notes or extracts or seizure of the said documents would amount to a breach of confidentiality and be violative of privacy rights of a person if there is no cogent reason expressed or provided in the affidavit and if it has been done, Articles 19(1)(a) and (d) and 21 comes into play and that was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad."
Read moreThe State cannot have unrestricted access to seize or inspect a person without any reliable information prior to such inspection. Such an exercise would be construed as violative of a person's privacy rights.
Read moreSurveillance, Autonomy || Jharkhand High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 08.09.2023
Citation - W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 542 of 2023
Case Type - Writ Criminal Petition.
Case Status - Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Section 3 of Jharkhand Crimes Control Act, 2002. Article 21 of the Constitution of India
View Case
"Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under clause (b) (i)&(ii) of sub-section (1) to section 3 of the Crimes Control Act, a condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of Patratu PS at 10:00 AM is arbitrary and illegal. Every executive decision even where it is made in the exercise of statutory power must be in consonance with the Constitutional guarantee. The direction under the order dated 21st July 2023 is definitely impinging upon the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the order dated 21st July 2023 cannot be countenance in law and is, accordingly, quashed."
Read moreA condition requiring an individual identified as a 'habitual offender' or an 'anti-social element' under a statute, to report to the police station and mark their attendance every day before the officer-in-charge, violates the rights of the petitioner, including the right to privacy under Article 21. Even if such an order is made in pursuance of a statutory power, it must be in consonance with the Constitution.
Read moreAutonomy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Jharkhand High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 08.09.2023
Citation - W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 542 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Petition, Division Bench.
Case Status - Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Sec. 3 of the Jharkhand Crimes Control Act, 2002.
View Case
“... Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. 1962 SCC OnLine SC 10 did not approve visiting of the police in the night at the house of the “history sheeter” but 6-Judges Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to privacy is not a facet of the Constitutional Rights. This judgment in “Kharak Singh” was not approved by a 9-Judges Bench in “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India” (2017) 10 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to privacy is implicit in the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the grounds on which the order dated 21st July 2023 has been passed, we are of the opinion that the impugned order does not satisfy the requirements in law. A power under clause (b) to sub-section (1) of section 3 which provides that the Deputy Commissioner may make an order against an “anti-social” element cannot be stretched to absurdity. Notwithstanding the powers conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under clause (b) (i)&(ii) of sub-section (1) to section 3 of the Crimes Control Act, a condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of Patratu PS at 10 : 00 AM is arbitrary and illegal. Every executive decision even where it is made in the exercise of statutory power must be in consonance with the Constitutional guarantee. The direction under the order dated 21st July 2023 is definitely impinging upon the rights of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the order dated 21st July 2023 cannot be countenance in law and is, accordingly, quashed."
Read moreA condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark her attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of the Police Station at 10 AM was held to be arbitrary and illegal.
Read moreAutonomy, Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Jharkhand High Court
2 Judge
Decision Date - 08.11.2023
Citation - W.P. (Cr.) (D.B.) No. 551 of 2023
Case Type - Criminal Writ Appeal, Division Bench
Case Status - Writ Petition Allowed.
Legal Provisions - Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Sec. 3 of the Jharkhand Crimes Control Act, 2002.
View Case
"Taking into notice the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the very foundational facts for initiation of proceeding under Section 3 are lacking in this case; Notwithstanding that, the impugned order has been passed directing the petitioner to mark his attendance before the officer-in-charge of Patratu Police Station at 10 A.M. daily, does not satisfy the requirements of law and violative of right of the petitioner as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Here, it is also pointed out that an "alternate remedy" by itself does not divest the High Court of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case, though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law."
Read moreA condition requiring the petitioner to report to the police station and mark their attendance every day before the officer-in-charge of the Police Station at 10 AM was held to be in violation of Art.21 of the Indian Constitution.
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.
