-

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 September 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

Karnataka High Court

Bushra Abdul Aleem and Ors. vs. Government of Karnataka, Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.

Autonomy || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 30.08.2019
Citation - ILR 2020 KARNATAKA 963, MANU/KA/6862/2019
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 2(g), 3 and 6 of the the Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates Completed Medical Courses Act, 2012 as amended by the Karnataka Act No. 35 of 2017. The Karnataka Compulsory Service Training by Candidates completed Medical Course Rules 2015
View Case

Important Quote

"Although, an exhaustive enumeration or catalogue of entitlements or interests comprised in right to privacy is left undetermined; Privacy includes at its core, the preservation of personal intimacies, sanctity of family life, marriage, procreation, home and sexual orientation. "Privacy also connotes right to be left alone"; Privacy safeguards individual autonomy and recognizes ability of individual to control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing way of life are intrinsic to privacy." "The Apex Court in the second K.S. Puttaswamy (Adhaar) Vs. UOI, has held that the Right to Privacy can be abridged by a just, fair & reasonable law as any other Fundamental Rights can be; such abridgment has to fulfill the test of proportionality i.e., it should be proportionate to the need for such interference; in addition to this, the law in question must also provide procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference; abridgment has to be co-terminus with true requirement; going by this standard, it is difficult to countenance petitioners' argument that the impugned Act is constitutionally invalid, especially when State's power to compel citizens to render public service is sanctioned under Article 23(1) of the Constitution."

Read more
Notes

Compulsory medical service is not violative of the right to privacy.

Read more

Sudarshan vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 11.08.2020
Citation - 2020 (6) KarLJ 495, MANU/KA/2725/2020
Case Type - Criminal Petition
Case Status - Disposed.
Legal Provisions - S. 482 of CrPC, 1973.
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"There is no merit in the contention that collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with voice in phone conversation records amounts to self incrimination and violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution."

Read more
Notes

Collection of voice samples for the purpose of comparing that with the voice in phone conversation records does not amount to self incrimination or breach of privacy.

Read more

M.K. Pushpitha vs. State of Karnataka and Ors

Surveillance, Search and Seizure || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision date - 04.08.2021
Citation - MANU/KA/3480/2021
Case type - Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Case status - Writ petition allowed
Legal provisions - S. 380, 403, 409, and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 53 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
View Case

Important Quote

"On the other hand, the act of the Police arresting the petitioner, seizing the articles prior to registering of the FIR is illegal and search and seizure in non-cognizable offences amounts to violation of right of privacy and the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, registering the FIR after conducting the investigation is bad in law in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari stated supra. Therefore, the Police shall not be allowed to conduct investigation, which amounts to abuse of process of law. Hence, the FIR registered against the petitioner requires to be quashed."

Read more
Notes

Registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence.

Read more

Venkateshappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.

Bodily Integrity || Karnataka High Court

2 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 03.09.2021
Citation - MANU/KA/3879/2021
Case Type - Criminal Appeal
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 45 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. S. 293 and 311 of CrPC, 1973
View Case

Important Quote

"That apart, we also find that there has been a serious infraction of right to privacy of accused in the matter of prosecution having ventured to draw blood for the purpose of conducting DNA test. It is also settled law that no DNA analysis of any person can be conducted by the State without obtaining the consent of the party concerned. The Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law in this regard in the case of Smt. Selvi and Others vs. State of Karnataka."

Read more
Notes

The right to privacy of an individual is violated if the State orders for a DNA test without the individual's consent.

Read more

Resham and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors

Autonomy || Karnataka High Court

3 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 15.03.2022
Citation - AIR 2022 Kant 81,
MANU/KA/1012/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 39(f), 44(2), 51 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. S. 133, 133(2), 142, 143, 33, 34, 35, 7(1), 7(2) of the Karnataka Education Act, 1983
View Case

Important Quote

"Autonomy and privacy rights have also blossomed vide K.S Puttaswamy, supra. We have no quarrel with the petitioners' essential proposition that what one desires to wear is a facet of one's autonomy and that one's attire is one's expression. But all that is subject to reasonable regulation."

Read more
Notes

The ban on wearing hijab in schools and colleges is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.

Read more

Hrishikesh Sahoo vs. State of Karnataka

Bodily Integrity || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 23.03.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/1175/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - S. 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Article 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 39 of the Constitution of India, 1950
View Case

Important Quote

"The Constitution does not in any sense depict the woman to be subordinate to a man. The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 which are right to live with dignity, personal liberty, bodily integrity, sexual autonomy, right to reproductive choices, right to privacy, right to freedom of speech and expression. Under the Constitution, the rights are equal; protection is also equal."

Read more
Notes

The exception of marital rape under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code is not absolute and the husband cannot be exempted of the allegation of rape.

Read more

B S Prakash vs. The State of Karnataka And Ors

Informational Privacy, Autonomy || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 22.04.2022
Citation - MANU/KA/1912/2022
Case Type - Writ Petition
Case Status - Disposed
Legal Provisions - Article 13(2), 14, 19, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950. S. 21, 23 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963

Important Quote

"The existing provisions of the Manual as interpreted by the Courts hitherto supposedly prove inadequate in the light of Puttaswamy jurisprudence which has expanded the content & contours of privacy and autonomy of individuals."

Read more
Notes

The police should follow guidelines issued by the High Court that are in conformity with the right to privacy before entering the name of an individual in the Register of Rowdies (a list of habitual offenders maintained by police stations).

Read more

National Investigation Agency, Hyderabad vs. Union of India and Ors.

Informational Privacy, Dignity || Karnataka High Court

1 Judge

Case Details

Decision Date - 10.08.2022
Citation- MANU/KA/3782/2022
Case Type - Civil Misc. Writ Petition
Case Status - Petition Allowed
Legal provisions - S. 2, 28, 29. 33 of the Aadhaar (targeted Delivery Of Financial And Other Subsidies, Benefits And Services) Act, 2016. S.4 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. S. 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Immoral Traffic (prevention) Act, 1956. S. 6, 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

Important Quote

"The protection of privacy rights & information lying in the domain of 2nd Respondent – UIDAI is confined to the cases of ‘residents’ as defined u/s 2(v) wherein genuine data is stored & authentic documents like Aadhar Cards, are generated. This becomes clear from the provisions of Chapter VI 2016 Act which deal with security & confidentiality of information and restriction on sharing such information. The provisions of Sec.33 have been structured as an exception inter alia to the provisions of Sections 28 & 29 inasmuch as they authorize sharing of information & documents on ‘an order of a Court not inferior to that of a Judge of a High Court’."

Read more
Notes

The confidentiality provision under the Aadhaar Act is not absolute and the UIDAI can be asked to furnish Aadhaar card details of individuals through a court order to implement anti-trafficking measures.

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.